Re: Transpose Command

[Hans Aberg]

On 6 Jul 2009, at 23:15, ArnoWaschk wrote:

> > Let me try:
> >
> > The part is written A and should be transposed to be in Bb. So the
> > normal thing would be
> >   \transpose bes a {
> >     % part in A.
> >   }
> >
> > To get a 12-equal enharmonic equivalent transposition, one these
> > should be replaced with the enharmonic equivalent, for example A#
> > instead of Bb. So
> >   \transpose ais a {
> >     % part in A
> >   }

> ... which solves the B major part, but transposes f major to Fb  
> major, which
> is even more horrible to read than a# major...
>
> but while we are at it:
> why don't \transpose and \relative cooperate the "normal" way an  
> innocent
> musician might expect?

The problem is that somewhere in the second half of the 20th century  
people start to believe that the 12 equal temperament is the basis of  
Western music :-), whereas the notation system is designed before  
that, to work with any diatonic tuning system (i.e., built up by minor  
and major seconds). In an extended meantone or Pythagorean tuning, for  
example F# and Gb are not the same notes.

LilyPond does the correct thing, and adheres to the conventions of the  
notation system. It means that 12-ET enharmonic equivalences must be  
applied explicitly. The notation system is not designed for 12-equal  
temperament.

The normal way to write music for instruments that are not fixed pitch  
tuned to 12-ET is to apply enharmonic equivalence as a notational  
simplification. Strictly speaking, this implies a small slip in pitch,  
but human performers will adapt to smooth it out. However, if these  
pitches are played exactly, they can be heard, and may produce strong  
unwanted beats.

  Hans