Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Friday 28 August 2009, David Rogers wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:58, Kieren
> MacMillan<address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hi David (et al),
> >
> > Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in 
the
> > following statement:
> >
> >> It's necessary to consider the sound of the music,
> >> *and not the conventional rules of printed scores*
> >> when doing Lilypond pitch input.
> >
> >
> > Quite the contrary, the "conventional rules of printed scores" DO 
consider
> > (incorporate) "the sound of the music" — that's why the Western 
notation
> > system works as well as it does (despite some flaws/shortcomings, 
and
> > countless attempts to replace it with a "superior" alternative).
> >
> > Let's start by considering the CRoPS with respect to a simple 
notation
> > example. If the key signature is D major (i.e., two sharps), and the 
pitch
> > class [!!] being displayed is the top line of the treble clef (i.e., 
F),
> > then the CRoPS tells us that the actual pitch that should be 
performed is an
> > F-sharp (i.e., fis'').
> >
> > Now, let's "do Lilypond pitch input" for this same example. You want
> > Lilypond to output an F-sharp at the top of the treble clef, and 
display the
> > result "in D major" (i.e., with a D major key signature).
> >
> > Step 1 is to define/list the pitch(es) you want engraved:
> >   theMusic = { fis'' }
> >
> > Step 2 is to build the score, with clef and key signature:
> >    \score { \new Staff << \key d \major \clef treble \theMusic >> }
> >
> > Doing the same thing *without* the pitch alteration (sharp) in 
theMusic
> > definition exposes the fundamental problem with 
a "follow-the-key-signature"
> > approach.
> 
> 
> I know that. I think Lilypond is operating correctly here, that this
> part of the code should be kept as is with nothing added, and that
> those users who wish it operated differently are making a mistake, for
> exactly the reasons you've just pointed out.
> 
> HOWEVER, I think it's necessary to explain this issue *in their terms*
> in the documentation, so that they can stop being confused by a
> perfectly good (but logically backwards *to them*) implementation,
> letting them get on with their work.

Thank you for trying to be more evenhanded.

How is insisting on one mode of pitch entry any different from
insisting on every note having its duration number?  Or insisting on 
specifying an octave with each note, ruling out relative pitch?  How is 
\followKeySignature any different in philosophy or specificity or 
la-la-la from \relative pitch?  The difference is that 
\followKeySignature would *seem* to be more difficult to implement, 
when, provided that the key signature to be followed is specified 
independently, it would be very simple.  The initial impulse for the 
negative attitude, which has prevented any thought of how the thing 
could and should be done, is simple laziness.

I have an editing tool that works, and I can continue to use it and
make it available to any who are interested.  I just get tired
of reading the nonsense and insults whenever anyone questions this 
irrational decision not to make following the key signature an option 
in lilypond.  The decision does the coders no credit.  Regards, daveA

-- 
For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists.
http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and
better chord and arpeggio exercises.  http://www.openguitar.com