Subject: Re: Is there a short way of forcing a particular
> I haven't noticed any effect with polyphony: the octavation of the
> next note in the source is always determined by the previous one.
Cut and paste one section and move it later — it has a better than 50/50 chance
of being wrong.
Change the order of voices — it has a better than 50/50 chance of being wrong.
> Chords are different but simple: when you get to the > at the end of a
> chord, the next note in the source is related to the first note of that
> chord; ie in a sequence of chords, their first notes form the
> \relative sequence. What gets in the way of what?
The order of the notes in the chord is thus forced/constrained by \relative
mode (i.e., changing them might change octavation), and hence tweaks might have
to be moved around. (To be fair, this limitation has been relieved almost
entirely by \single and the ability to \tweak inside a chord, but still…)
Look: I’m glad you like \relative mode. But after a decade of using \relative
(and running into many frustrations) followed by nearly a decade of using
\absolute (with no such frustrations), you’ve got a serious uphill battle
convincing me that \relative is superior. =)
Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
lilypond-user mailing list