Re: Solfeggio

[Nicolas Sceaux]

> dax2 wrote:

>> I don't know how many problem other writers encount with "\relative c'"
>> but I am interested to hear. I have completely abandoned it in favour
>> of true pitch. 

I use absolute octaves and (make my editor) enter all durations. This
makes copy-and-paste more reliable.

Bernard Hurley <address@hidden> writes:

> I can see that a solfeggio notation might be useful. as for you remarks
> on relative pitch information. Some people may find it easier to enter
> the pitches in this way but it makes the score almost impossible to edit
> afterwards. NoteEdit exports lilypond scores in this format and the
> first thing I do with them is run them through a perl script that
> "de-relativises" them.

We could use the LilyPond compiler to read a (part of a) file, make
some transformation (relative->absolute, transposition) and then
output the result. That would require to define functions that can
print music expressions. For most common tasks, only notes/skips/rests
would be changed, so other pieces of text would be left as is (we have
access for each music expression to start/end locations, and to the
input text). So we would need to write 1) functions that format
notes/rests/skips and 2) the logic of the wanted transformations. 
LilyPond gives the parsing for free. Then, this could be used in
editors, with the benefit of being editor-independant.

nicolas