Re: Relative mode

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Friday 24 October 2003 03:11 am, Rune Zedeler wrote:
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > The proposed new relative mode has more typing than the present
> > relative mode, yet it is no more readable, so it seems to me to
> > have the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither.
>
> If you are referring to my proposal then it is not true for intervals
> less than an octave.
> What I mean is: As long as your piece have no jumps greater than an
> octave then the new relative-mode is completely
> down-wards-compatible: Anything written in the old mode would mean
> exactly the same thing in the new mode - and hence you wouldn't have
> to add extra key strokes.

I guess I didn't understand your proposal then, or you changed it and I 
missed it.  Sorry.  I'm happy to withdraw my characterization of it 
having the disadvantages of both, etc..  To quote:

"So »c d e d c« and »c d' e' d, c,« would mean the same thing."

But that doesn't matter.  A \relativetwo statement or something could 
select it and it could still be entered with the colon, because anchor 
notes would make \relativetwo more usable as well.  As things are, I 
find relative mode unusable.  Anchor notes might change that for some 
scores.

An editing tool to transform relative(s) to absolute would be a good 
thing, IMHO.  I wouldn't know how to write one.  That is the only way 
to truly have *all* of the advantages of both relatives and absolute 
and the disadvantages of none.  daveA

-- 
D. Raleigh Arnold dra@ http://www.openguitar.com address@hidden