Re: Something wrong with transposing instruments?

[Gilles]

Hello.

On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 10:00:46 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi Gilles,
>
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Another thing: For me, also the implementation of transposing
> > > instruments is less than ideal (I prefer to write the pitches in
> > > concert pitch and have them transposed for the parts, rather than 
> > > the
> > > other way around, as it is implemented at the moment).
> > > [...]
> >
> > Can you give an example?  To my knowledge, both ways of encoding are
> > equally simple in LilyPond. [But I perhaps I misunderstood what you
> > mean.]
>
> This wasn’t from me…

I know; I hadn't seen that yours was the recipient's address.  And I
just hit "Reply all" which usually does the right thing for a ML.
[I don't see the purpose of CC'ing someone who is on the list...]

> but I wholeheartedly agree: Lily’s
> default/built-in implementation of transposing instruments is rather
> incomplete/poor (see, for example,
>
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-01/msg00201.html>
> and
>
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2014-05/msg00067.html>
> for an idea of the problems and workarounds).
>
> I believe there has been some recent improvement via openlilylib, but
> I haven’t had time to investigate
> In any case, the main distro should have much better tools to handle
> transposing instruments more deftly.

I didn't have all the info; from the statement above it looked like the
"problem" was for encoding a part of a transposing instrument whereas
the links you provided point to difficulties for switching instrument
within a \score.


Sorry for the noise,
Gilles