Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
On Nov 15, 2020, at 10:01, Joram Noeck wrote: > > 1. putting the bar number over the measure it belongs just makes sense > (-> Gould) . . . > 3. In particular at the start of a line, the number is moved up by every > treble clef, i.e. we have an exception by collision avoidance in the > most common case. (-> current or MR) Clarification: (3) may be a disadvantage of the example that has been labeled "Gould," but I don't believe that we have found a start-of-line example in Behind Bars. I think we could address both (1) and (3) by leaving start-of-line numbers as they are and shifting mid-line numbers into their measure. Also, let me add, 6. Resourceful people have provided some good examples in https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/447 (-> ?) At least one of those examples also shows an alternative solution to (3): align bar numbers to the right of clefs and key signatures (as LilyPond currently does for rehearsal marks). I'm not advocating it, just mentioning it. — Dan
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
On 15/11/20 15:14, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > As Jonas said, this is a completely different issue, but yes, I think > there implementing bar-centered bar numbers would need a completely > different implementation. IF this is seriously considered, can I throw in my thing often encountered in band parts - numbered percent bars? Sounds like the code might have a lot in common. I'll often have things like \repeat \percent 16 (or even \repeat \unfold), and from about the fourth bar it starts printing the bar count above the bar. Cheers, Wol
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
On 15/11/20 14:53, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >> I appreciate that you have given a nuanced response. Practically >> speaking, the vast majority of scores only have bar numbers at the >> beginning of a line, so I will simplistically categorise your response >> as in favour of keeping LilyPond's current behaviour. > > I would very much like that LilyPond has the ability of automatically > adjusting the horizontal position of some grobs, in particular dynamic > signs, bar numbers, and rehearsal marks. The idea is that a large > delta from the optimum vertical position would make LilyPond retry to > horizontally position the grob within some delta (say, ±2 notehead > widths) from the 'correct' position. If the grob can then be moved > (much) nearer to the standard vertical position, LilyPond should use > this adjusted horizontal position. > Plus 100 !!! You know I moan about that regularly - page real estate is very valuable to me and pushing grobs vertically wastes so much ... I was told, unfortunately, that that will actually be very difficult to implement :-( Cheers, Wol
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
On 15/11/20 13:37, Graham King wrote: > I think Gould's positioning looks _slightly_ better, except at > line-beginnings where I definitely prefer lilypond's. Moreover, the position > immediately after a bar line is heavily-contested real-estate, as your > examples make clear. Therefore it would be good to retain the option to > preserve the status quo, especially where convert-ly might otherwise cause > skyline changes to existing scores. Plus one for this. Although I'm quite happy with this MR centre-justifying over the barline. Before the bar line definitely feels wrong - I was taught to count rests by counting the bar number on the last beat: 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 etc, so yes the bar number would appear to apply to the wrong bar ... Bear in mind we put rehearsal marks (including bar number marks) centre-justified by default, so why not bar numbers. And again, having options makes things better - don't forget not everybody plays orchestral music, there's a LOT of music people might want to copy that pre-dates Gould (is ANY post-Gould music out of copyright?), and different traditions do things in different ways (much of the stuff I like playing is pre-Gould). Cheers, Wol
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
At 15:45 on 15 Nov 2020, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2020, 15:13 + schrieb Mark Knoop: >> At 15:08 on 15 Nov 2020, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: >>> Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2020, 10:04 -0500 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi all, This discussion/development/enhancement — which is happening just after a thread on the FB group about centred measure numbers — has made me wonder if it’s possible to roll measure-centred measure numbers into the actual BarNumber code [instead of forcing people to (ab)use MeasureCounter]… Is there any technical reason the main BarNumber code can’t be improved to allow users to have bar numbers centred within the measure? >>> >>> I think that's a totally different topic and not actually related to >>> positioning the usual bar numbers that are above the bar line in all >>> scores that I ever played from. > > Looks like my recollection was wrong here: In most *classical* scores. > The medleys of film music that I played in (hobby) orchestras mostly > use rehearsal marks and / or bar numbers *below* bar lines. > >> Measure-centred bar numbers are fairly standard in film scores. > > Do you mean the conductor's score? Or maybe the full soundtrack scores > for professionals follow a different style than what I described above? Yes, in scores (and often also in parts) for film score sessions. The idea being it's ridiculously fast to find any given starting point. -- Mark Knoop
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
Hi all, > Looks like my recollection was wrong here: In most *classical* scores. > The medleys of film music that I played in (hobby) orchestras mostly > use rehearsal marks and / or bar numbers *below* bar lines. Yes. >> Measure-centred bar numbers are fairly standard in film scores. > > Do you mean the conductor's score? Or maybe the full soundtrack scores > for professionals follow a different style than what I described above? The conductor’s score for a film score basically always has measure-centred bar numbers. The parts tend to follow the “classical” style (bar-line-attached), but that convention is changing. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his) ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2020, 15:13 + schrieb Mark Knoop: > At 15:08 on 15 Nov 2020, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > > Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2020, 10:04 -0500 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > This discussion/development/enhancement — which is happening just > > > after a thread on the FB group about centred measure numbers — has > > > made me wonder if it’s possible to roll measure-centred measure > > > numbers into the actual BarNumber code [instead of forcing people to > > > (ab)use MeasureCounter]… > > > > > > Is there any technical reason the main BarNumber code can’t be > > > improved to allow users to have bar numbers centred within the > > > measure? > > > > I think that's a totally different topic and not actually related to > > positioning the usual bar numbers that are above the bar line in all > > scores that I ever played from. Looks like my recollection was wrong here: In most *classical* scores. The medleys of film music that I played in (hobby) orchestras mostly use rehearsal marks and / or bar numbers *below* bar lines. > Measure-centred bar numbers are fairly standard in film scores. Do you mean the conductor's score? Or maybe the full soundtrack scores for professionals follow a different style than what I described above? Jonas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2020, 10:14 -0500 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: > Hi Jonas, > > > I think that's a totally different topic and not actually related to > > positioning the usual bar numbers that are above the bar line in all > > scores that I ever played from. > > Why? We’re talking about selecting the position of usual bar numbers, > right? I think the user should be able to say “position the [usual] > bar numbers in the centre of each measure” without having to jump > through a bunch of hoops. It might look related from an engraving point of view, but to me it seems like bar numbers are at present logically attached to a bar line. To position them in the centre of each measure, you would need the whole measure as context. I'm totally with you and Werner that this is technically possible, but much more complex - you probably need to switch between measures and bar lines as alignment points in order to retain the possibility to achieve the current layout. Jonas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
At 15:01 on 15 Nov 2020, Joram Noeck wrote: > Hi, > > I like the change in the bar number alignment. I have some comments to > your proposal. (The current solution has similar issues, so most of > these are not speaking against proposed changes.) > > The -> denotes the solution for which that is an argument. > > 1. putting the bar number over the measure it belongs just makes sense > (-> Gould) > > 2. The end of a measure is typically less crowded so middle-of-line bar > numbers need less vertical shifts for collision avoidance which looks > better. The new implementation looks irregular and jumpy (-> current) > > 3. In particular at the start of a line, the number is moved up by every > treble clef, i.e. we have an exception by collision avoidance in the > most common case. (-> current or MR) > > 4. Shifting it further right than left aligned is too much and breaks > the visual connection between bar line and bar number (-> not further) > > 5. Bar numbers on the right margin look odd. They should definitely be > right aligned in that position (if the user turns them on at all) > > > Therefore, I would center-align it like your MR does for begin-of-line > and middle-of-line positions, but not at the end of a line. > > Cheers, > Joram This is a great evaluation. There are advantages and disadvantages to each alignment choice. Regardless of what ends up as the default, it seems clear that there is a good use case for different alignment at start, middle and end-of-line. Might it be possible that this can be set somewhat like: \override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #(1 0 -1) where the list applies different values to each position? A call such as: \override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #1 would be equivalent to \override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #(1 1 1) -- Mark Knoop
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
> Those are included in the examples purely for the sake of completeness. > Gould has nothing to say about such bar numbers and I would surprised if > any scores included them. But is it possible that they have a different alignment with the current code? In case a user turns them on, they would look really strange in there position on the margin. Joram
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
Hi Jonas, > I think that's a totally different topic and not actually related to > positioning the usual bar numbers that are above the bar line in all > scores that I ever played from. Why? We’re talking about selecting the position of usual bar numbers, right? I think the user should be able to say “position the [usual] bar numbers in the centre of each measure” without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his) ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
> This discussion/development/enhancement — which is happening just > after a thread on the FB group about centred measure numbers — has > made me wonder if it’s possible to roll measure-centred measure > numbers into the actual BarNumber code [instead of forcing people to > (ab)use MeasureCounter]… > > Is there any technical reason the main BarNumber code can’t be > improved to allow users to have bar numbers centred within the > measure? As Jonas said, this is a completely different issue, but yes, I think there implementing bar-centered bar numbers would need a completely different implementation. Werner
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
At 15:08 on 15 Nov 2020, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2020, 10:04 -0500 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: >> Hi all, >> >> This discussion/development/enhancement — which is happening just >> after a thread on the FB group about centred measure numbers — has >> made me wonder if it’s possible to roll measure-centred measure >> numbers into the actual BarNumber code [instead of forcing people to >> (ab)use MeasureCounter]… >> >> Is there any technical reason the main BarNumber code can’t be >> improved to allow users to have bar numbers centred within the >> measure? > > I think that's a totally different topic and not actually related to > positioning the usual bar numbers that are above the bar line in all > scores that I ever played from. Measure-centred bar numbers are fairly standard in film scores. -- Mark Knoop
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2020, 10:04 -0500 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: > Hi all, > > This discussion/development/enhancement — which is happening just > after a thread on the FB group about centred measure numbers — has > made me wonder if it’s possible to roll measure-centred measure > numbers into the actual BarNumber code [instead of forcing people to > (ab)use MeasureCounter]… > > Is there any technical reason the main BarNumber code can’t be > improved to allow users to have bar numbers centred within the > measure? I think that's a totally different topic and not actually related to positioning the usual bar numbers that are above the bar line in all scores that I ever played from. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
Hi all, This discussion/development/enhancement — which is happening just after a thread on the FB group about centred measure numbers — has made me wonder if it’s possible to roll measure-centred measure numbers into the actual BarNumber code [instead of forcing people to (ab)use MeasureCounter]… Is there any technical reason the main BarNumber code can’t be improved to allow users to have bar numbers centred within the measure? Thanks, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his) ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
> I would very much like that LilyPond has the ability of automatically > adjusting the horizontal position of some grobs, in particular dynamic > signs, bar numbers, and rehearsal marks. The idea is that a large > delta from the optimum vertical position would make LilyPond retry to > horizontally position the grob within some delta (say, ±2 notehead > widths) from the 'correct' position. If the grob can then be moved > (much) nearer to the standard vertical position, LilyPond should use > this adjusted horizontal position. That woud be great!
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
Hi, I like the change in the bar number alignment. I have some comments to your proposal. (The current solution has similar issues, so most of these are not speaking against proposed changes.) The -> denotes the solution for which that is an argument. 1. putting the bar number over the measure it belongs just makes sense (-> Gould) 2. The end of a measure is typically less crowded so middle-of-line bar numbers need less vertical shifts for collision avoidance which looks better. The new implementation looks irregular and jumpy (-> current) 3. In particular at the start of a line, the number is moved up by every treble clef, i.e. we have an exception by collision avoidance in the most common case. (-> current or MR) 4. Shifting it further right than left aligned is too much and breaks the visual connection between bar line and bar number (-> not further) 5. Bar numbers on the right margin look odd. They should definitely be right aligned in that position (if the user turns them on at all) Therefore, I would center-align it like your MR does for begin-of-line and middle-of-line positions, but not at the end of a line. Cheers, Joram
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2020, 14:27 + schrieb Kevin Barry: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 01:37:34PM +, Graham King wrote: > > I think Gould's positioning looks _slightly_ better, except at > > line-beginnings where I definitely prefer lilypond's. Moreover, the > > position immediately after a bar line is heavily-contested > > real-estate, as your examples make clear. Therefore it would be good > > to retain the option to preserve the status quo, especially where > > convert-ly might otherwise cause skyline changes to existing scores. > Thank you for your input! > > Jean's code makes it possible to restore LilyPond's current behaviour > with a single override: > \override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #1 > The examples in the pdf differ only in that value: > - LilyPond: 1 > - This MR: 0 > - Gould: 1 > - Even farther to the right: 1.55 (I'm not sure how Jean Abou chose that > value) > So, at the very least, the added code will make it easier for users to > choose their preferred alignment. If it turns out that most people > prefer to keep LilyPond's current behaviour I will still submit a merge > request for Jean Abou's alignment code, just with a default value that > preserves current behaviour. Without chiming in on the topic itself, I'd like to disagree with the above statement or at least clarify it: Overriding self-alignment-X works with today's releases of LilyPond and probably did for years. There's no added code that makes this work. The aim of the merge request is to change the alignment of mid-staff bar numbers. They are not shown by default and in a different message you wrote: > Those are included in the examples purely for the sake of completeness. > Gould has nothing to say about such bar numbers and I would surprised if > any scores included them. So could you please clarify what you are aiming to change going forward: The alignment of all bar numbers, only those mid-staff or something else? Note that for the first, the relevant change would be in scm/define-grobs.scm and there would be no need at all for the callback infrastructure added in the merge request. Jonas > I appreciate that you have given a nuanced response. Practically > speaking, the vast majority of scores only have bar numbers at the > beginning of a line, so I will simplistically categorise your response > as in favour of keeping LilyPond's current behaviour. > > Kevin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
> I appreciate that you have given a nuanced response. Practically > speaking, the vast majority of scores only have bar numbers at the > beginning of a line, so I will simplistically categorise your response > as in favour of keeping LilyPond's current behaviour. I would very much like that LilyPond has the ability of automatically adjusting the horizontal position of some grobs, in particular dynamic signs, bar numbers, and rehearsal marks. The idea is that a large delta from the optimum vertical position would make LilyPond retry to horizontally position the grob within some delta (say, ±2 notehead widths) from the 'correct' position. If the grob can then be moved (much) nearer to the standard vertical position, LilyPond should use this adjusted horizontal position. Werner
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 01:37:34PM +, Graham King wrote: > I think Gould's positioning looks _slightly_ better, except at > line-beginnings where I definitely prefer lilypond's. Moreover, the > position immediately after a bar line is heavily-contested > real-estate, as your examples make clear. Therefore it would be good > to retain the option to preserve the status quo, especially where > convert-ly might otherwise cause skyline changes to existing scores. Thank you for your input! Jean's code makes it possible to restore LilyPond's current behaviour with a single override: \override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #1 The examples in the pdf differ only in that value: - LilyPond: 1 - This MR: 0 - Gould: 1 - Even farther to the right: 1.55 (I'm not sure how Jean Abou chose that value) So, at the very least, the added code will make it easier for users to choose their preferred alignment. If it turns out that most people prefer to keep LilyPond's current behaviour I will still submit a merge request for Jean Abou's alignment code, just with a default value that preserves current behaviour. I appreciate that you have given a nuanced response. Practically speaking, the vast majority of scores only have bar numbers at the beginning of a line, so I will simplistically categorise your response as in favour of keeping LilyPond's current behaviour. Kevin
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 07:07:03AM -0600, David Nalesnik wrote: > Another vote for Gould. (Though does she have anything to say about > the normally unshown measure numbers which are stranded beyond the > line here?) Those are included in the examples purely for the sake of completeness. Gould has nothing to say about such bar numbers and I would surprised if any scores included them. Kevin
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
I think Gould's positioning looks _slightly_ better, except at line-beginnings where I definitely prefer lilypond's. Moreover, the position immediately after a bar line is heavily-contested real-estate, as your examples make clear. Therefore it would be good to retain the option to preserve the status quo, especially where convert-ly might otherwise cause skyline changes to existing scores. > On 15 Nov 2020, at 11:02, Kevin Barry wrote: > > Dear Developers, > > I am continuing Jean Abou Samra's work on bar number alignment > (https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/447) and would > like to request your comments on the proposed change. There doesn't > seem to be an established standard for aligning bar numbers (see the > various examples posted at the merge request link for some of the > different ways publishers do them), but there did seem to be some > consensus that LilyPond places bar numbers too far to the left. > > Attached is a pdf that shows four different options: how LilyPond does > things currently, Jean's proposal, Elaine Gould's recommendation (from > the book Behind Bars), and an extra option showing things even further > to the right. I would like to hear people's comments: > - if you have a preference for one of the four, please indicate which > - if you prefer something else, please describe it > - please feel free to introduce evidence in the form of hand-engraved > scores or recommendations by authors (e.g. Ted Ross, whose book I > don't have a copy of to consult) > > NB: I am deliberately not addressing the subject of whether or not bar > numbers should be italicised; I intend to request the list's opinions on > that after this merge request is dealt with. > > Thanks all (especially Jean Abou, who did the hard work) > > Kevin >
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 6:11 AM Michael Käppler wrote: > > Am 15.11.2020 um 12:36 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: > >> I will be the first responder and say that, of the options in the > >> pdf, I think Gould is the most appropriate. > > Yep. > +1 > > > > > > Werner > > > > Another vote for Gould. (Though does she have anything to say about the normally unshown measure numbers which are stranded beyond the line here?) David
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
Am 15.11.2020 um 12:36 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: I will be the first responder and say that, of the options in the pdf, I think Gould is the most appropriate. Yep. +1 Werner
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
> I will be the first responder and say that, of the options in the > pdf, I think Gould is the most appropriate. Yep. Werner
Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 11:02:52AM +, Kevin Barry wrote: > - if you have a preference for one of the four, please indicate which I will be the first responder and say that, of the options in the pdf, I think Gould is the most appropriate. Kevin
