Re: Anomalous, or Non-standard, Clefs(a "cloud"!)

[David Kastrup]

Alan McConnell <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 05:35:42PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> >    Yes!  Many thanks!  I can see that I'm going to have to get
>> >    familiar with the "snippets" file.  I've ignored it up to
>> >    now, since I'm working with v 2.14.2.  But the code you've
>> >    suggested works with 2.14.2.
>       <sigh>  There's a problem.  I use 
>                         ((0 . 6) . ,FLAT)
>                         ((1 . 3) . ,SHARP)
>                         ((0 . 5) . ,FLAT)
>       for my placement of the accidentals.  Using the standard
>       violin clef, the above settings places the Bb in its
>       accustomed position, the F# and Ab ditto.  The order is
>       right . . . so far so good.
>
> But when I put in a C major scale, starting from middle C, the
> F(actuall 'fes' in the .ly file) is notated with a sharp!  That's
> because the sharp in the key signature is an octave higher, as I
> discovered from experiment.  The A(aes in .ly) and B(bes in .ly)
> are notated OK, since they are taken care of by the flats in
> the key signature.

Well, _my_ documentation says:

   To create non-standard key signatures, set this property directly.
The format of this command is a list:

   `\set Staff.keySignature = #`(((octave . step) . alter) ((octave .
step) . alter) ...)' where, for each element in the list, `octave'
specifies the octave (0 being the octave from middle C to the B above),
`step' specifies the note within the octave (0 means C and 6 means B),
and `alter' is `,SHARP ,FLAT ,DOUBLE-SHARP' etc.  (Note the leading
comma.)

   Alternatively, for each item in the list, using the more concise
format `(step . alter)' specifies that the same alteration should hold
in all octaves.


Now you complain that the same alteration does not hold in all octaves:

> Bottom line:  the accidentals in a non-traditional key signature
> have still got to cover all the octaves!  Otherwise great
> confusion ensues.
>
> Maybe this problem is repaired in 2.15?

I think the documentation has been around for several years now.

> Thanks to Mr Kastrup for his tips on Scheme/guile.  I'll read what he
> has pointed at with care and, hopefully, understanding<g>.

Well, looks like I should point more carefully...

-- 
David Kastrup