Re: What is the problem with "\relative"? (Was: Do we really offer the future?)

[Shane Brandes]

That is indeed a clever way of manipulating the absolute mode good for
some things, but not terribly handy once you get into active keyboard
music as you would end up thinking like a drifting organ tuner.

Shane

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Keith OHara <address@hidden> wrote:
> Federico Bruni <fedelogy <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2015-04-23 9:21 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen <m.tarenskeen <at> zonnet.nl>:
>>
>> I often use LilyPond to quickly enter a very simple tune or small
> pianosheet needing just a simple texteditor (Vim). I use \relative all the
> time. c g c e g is soo much faster and easier than c''' g'' c''' e''' g'''
> g'''.
>> And personally I find lilypond code in \relative mode easier to read.
>> I agree that for complex scores with much music in variables \relative mode
> can have annoying side-effects.
>>
>> I agree: relative mode is much easier to enter.
>
> What if we compare relative mode to absolute mode with repeated 's removed?
>
> Is
>   \relative c''' { c g c e g }
> easier than
>   \transpose c c''' { c g, c e g}
> ?
>
> I find it easier to remember that a note is below the middle octave in
> the range of an instrument, than to remember whether the previous note was
> more than three scale-steps away.
>
> We can easily define a shorter way to express the transposition by octaves
>   \absolute c''' { c g, c e g }
> and it is not too hard to change the 460 examples in the manual that have
> an implicit \relative c' {} or relative c'' {} to copy/paste-able music.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user