On 3/17/2006, "D. Michael 'Silvan' McIntyre"
> On Friday 17 March 2006 9:20 am, Jaakko H Kyro wrote:
> > So, the least that I would need is inserting a suitable \transpose comman=
> > to the lilypond output. So far I've been doing it by hand but as the numb=
> > of instruments increases it gets really tedious. I have browsed the sourc=
> > a little and I jus may have some kind of a hunch about how to deal with t=
> > stuff.
> Before we try to solve this with a big hammer instead of a little one, what=
> currently impossible when dealing with transposing instruments?
Nothing's impossible. Just IMHO hard and error-prone, that's
essentially what I'd like to improve.
> There are many ways we could make it *easier* to cope with this, but what
> we've got currently seems satifactory to me. I'm looking at a little piece=
> arranged for two trumpets. It's written in D, sounds in C (because both
> segments have a transpose of -2 in the Segment Parameters box), and the
> Lilypond exported in D major.
Well, in our band we have:
- trumpet, euphonium and tuba written in B flat
- clarinet written in A
- alto sax in E flat
- French horn in F.
> Is this method unsatisfactory for some reason? Did you by chance not reali=
> that you could do this?
What I want is just to enter the music in C using a keyboard and have it
come out in whatever transposition the instrument in question wants to
have it. Not to mention a scenario where I want to duplicate a line on
another instrument and have it automatically transposed.
> Now having pointed this out, I think having to keep up with the transpose f=
> each segment basically sucks, and I want to see something better. We have
> about three different ideas floating around. I just brought this up in the
> last week and laid out two of the ideas which are most attractive to me. S=
> far there has been no response from Chris on any of this, and I myself am
> undecided as to the best course, and do not want to move on any of them
> without a concensus.
> Here are some links to assorted feature requests where proposals have been
> made, but never properly discussed:
> Let's talk about those, and then move from there to some concensus on just =
> to make all of this more friendly.
Yeah, those proposals seem relevant to the issue. I need to study the
sources yet more and mull things over a bit. My original purpose was
basically to bring the subject up and indicate that I'm willing to
help. I'm open to suggestions, but if there are none, I will just pick
an approach and try to make something out of it.