Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals

[Christ van Willegen]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, David Raleigh Arnold<address@hidden> wrote:
> It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing
> music for decades for it to make no sense.  Why?  Because it
> makes no sense, and never did.
>
> Why not a \followKeySignature command?
>
> It would require an "n" in addition to the other four chromatic
> sign designations, and that's it.  It would save typing, and
> it would make the notes blocks easier to read, for /musicians/
> that is.

I do have to disagree here...

First of all, let me tell you that I am terrible at reading sheet
music (I do know how to read notes, but just barely, and am unable to
play a tune on the piano in any acceptable speed). When I see a black
dot in the middle of a staaf, and it's a G cleff, I tend to play a 'b'
note, even if the music is in F (and consequenly has one flat). If I
were to read a note block 'by eye', and would see a key signature in F
(major), and see a 'b' note, that's what I would play on the piano,
and never a b-flat.

I think that Lilypond's method of inputting the notes that _are to be
played on the instrument_ (disregarding transposed instruments for
now...) is the way to go. It's confused me at first, but if ou
would'nt do that, it would be almost impossible to transpose a melody
to another key and/or instrument. It would also royally screw things
up if you'd first type the notes and later add another key signature.
If you do that _now_, the music becomes unreadable because of the
extra flats, naturals and sharps. In _your_ case, the music would come
out sounding differently if you change the key signature. Not a good
plan...

Christ van Willegen
-- 
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0