Re: Microtonal Helmholtz-Ellis notation in Lilypond: fine-tuning
On 27 Sep 2009, at 05:36, Graham Breed wrote: Thanks for the explanation. I recall that: LilyPond has more than one glyph-finding model. That was a problem with the key signatures, I think, which could not use those from external fonts. Lilypond has one glyph-finding model for accidentals, and the hooks to allow us to override it. All kinds of things are cumbersome or don't work when we do so. Grace notes are another one I noticed. Ornaments like trills and turns are entered on the markup level, which is cumbersome if there are a lot of chromatic alterations. And they can't be output to MIDI - I think someone started to work on this. But at least it's now fairly straightforward to get accidentals from arbitrary fonts -- with alternative tunings -- where it was basically impossible before the pitch model was changed. I wasn't aware of that the pitch model has changed. Is there a description available somewhere? I am thinking a bit on how to typeset the order of accidentals of different type; inputs welcome. An example illustrating the general problem: Suppose one has the Persian koron p = -3 and sori = +2 syntonic commas in Pythagorean tuning, and another accidental + which raises 2.5 commas. Then it is natural to write p+, from larger to smaller alteration. But should one keep the Persian sori first and write +, or would one prefer the larger to smaller order + of these accidentals? Hans ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Microtonal Helmholtz-Ellis notation in Lilypond: fine-tuning
Dear Community,
I have now defined a table for mictotones (I use the division of 12 of the
whole tone, which is not 100 percent just intonation).
The spacing, I guess, is ok, I only get problems, sometimes, at the
beginning of a measure.
I've defined for that the variable machplatz (makespace, if you
translate into english).
There are tow more things I would like to know:
1. The new accidentals are also played via midi, which is great. But not,
when different accidentals are in a chord. Is there a possibilitie to change
this?
2. How can I define the accidental-style neo-modern for the whole score?
Here now the file:
\version 2.12.0
% Define tunings:
\paper{
#(define fonts (make-pango-font-tree Century Schoolbook L
HE
Bitstream Vera Sans Mono
1))
}
#(define-public SHARPSYMBOL 1/2)
#(define-public SHARPSYMBOL -1/2)
#(define-public Vierteltonkreuz 1/4)
#(define-public VierteltonBSYMBOL -1/4)
#(define-public SyntohochAufloesungszeichen 1/12)
#(define-public ZweiSyntohochAufloesungszeichen 1/6)
#(define-public ZweiSyntotiefKreuz 1/3)
#(define-public SyntotiefKreuz 5/12)
#(define-public SyntohochKreuz 7/12)
#(define-public ZweiSyntohochKreuz 2/3)
#(define-public SyntotiefAufloesungszeichen -1/12)
#(define-public ZweiSyntotiefAufloesungszeichen -1/6)
#(define-public ZweiSyntohochBe -1/3)
#(define-public SyntohochBe -5/12)
#(define-public SyntotiefBe -7/12)
#(define-public ZweiSyntotiefBe -2/3)
StefansPitchnames = #`(
(ceses . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(ces . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 FLAT))
(c . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 NATURAL))
(cis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 SHARP))
(cisis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(deses . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(des . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 FLAT))
(d . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 NATURAL))
(dis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 SHARP))
(disis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(eeses . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(ees . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 FLAT))
(es . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 FLAT))
(e . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 NATURAL))
(eis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 SHARP))
(eisis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(feses . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(fes . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 FLAT))
(f . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 NATURAL))
(fis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 SHARP))
(fisis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(geses . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(ges . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 FLAT))
(g . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 NATURAL))
(gis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 SHARP))
(gisis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(aeses . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(aes . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 FLAT))
(as . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 FLAT))
(a . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 NATURAL))
(ais . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 SHARP))
(aisis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(beses . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(bes . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 FLAT))
(b . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 NATURAL))
(bis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 SHARP))
(bisis . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(ceh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 VierteltonBSYMBOL))
(c . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 NATURAL))
(cih . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 Vierteltonkreuz))
(deh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 VierteltonBSYMBOL))
(d . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 NATURAL))
(dih . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 Vierteltonkreuz))
(eeh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 VierteltonBSYMBOL))
(e . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 NATURAL))
(eih . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 Vierteltonkreuz))
(feh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 VierteltonBSYMBOL))
(f . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 NATURAL))
(fih . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 Vierteltonkreuz))
(geh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 VierteltonBSYMBOL))
(g . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 NATURAL))
(gih . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 Vierteltonkreuz))
(aeh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 VierteltonBSYMBOL))
(a . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 NATURAL))
(aih . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 Vierteltonkreuz))
(beh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 VierteltonBSYMBOL))
(b . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 NATURAL))
(bih . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 Vierteltonkreuz))
(ch . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 SyntohochAufloesungszeichen))
(chh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 ZweiSyntohochAufloesungszeichen))
(cistt . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 ZweiSyntotiefKreuz))
(cist . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 SyntotiefKreuz))
(cish . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 SyntohochKreuz))
(cishh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 ZweiSyntohochKreuz))
(dh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 SyntohochAufloesungszeichen))
(dhh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 ZweiSyntohochAufloesungszeichen))
(distt . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 ZweiSyntotiefKreuz))
(dist . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 SyntotiefKreuz))
(dish . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 SyntohochKreuz))
(dishh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 ZweiSyntohochKreuz))
(eh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 SyntohochAufloesungszeichen))
(ehh . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2
Re: Microtonal Helmholtz-Ellis notation in Lilypond: fine-tuning
Stefan Thomas wrote: 1. The new accidentals are also played via midi, which is great. But not, when different accidentals are in a chord. Is there a possibilitie to change this? Yeah, you have to split it into separate contrapuntal lines. I've used a contraption of include files so that I can run Lilypond differently to get MIDI and score output. For MIDI you need each line on a different channel (it's in the documentation, a snippet I think). For the score you need to bring the different lines into the same voice so that chords look like chords. I don't remember the details, but it's all in my Tripod code. It would be nice to use MIDI Tuning Standard messages instead of pitch bends. Maybe I could sort that out with a post processor but I haven't because I'm lazy. 2. How can I define the accidental-style neo-modern for the whole score? Dunno about that. Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
finale-lilypond?
Hi, A friend of mine is used to Finale. I try to convert him to lilypond. What is the best way to convert a score from Finale to Lilypond? Regards, Frédéric ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: BeatLength and BeatGrouping
Nick Payne wrote: I'm looking at the 2.13.3 documentation on this in the NR (starts on p.47 of the PDF manual), and the comments against the the second example don't seem to match the output. The comment says No auto-beaming is defined for 12/16, yet the output has the 16th notes beamed in four groups of three. Nick Sorry, that's in the snippets PDF manual, not the NR. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Again: Questions about Stem #'length
Despite of the answers that were given
(and which normally are sufficient enough for a workaround):
can someone explain to me why lilypond still (at least sometimes)
displays stems when I
\override Stem #'length = #0?
Thanks in advance
Marc
\version 2.13.4
test = \relative c' {
c4 d e f
g a b c
\stemUp
c, d e f
g a b c
\stemDown
c, d e f
g a b c
}
\score {
\new Voice {
\test
\break
\override Voice.Stem #'length = #0
\test
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: finale-lilypond?
2009/9/27 Frédéric Bron frederic.b...@m4x.org Hi, A friend of mine is used to Finale. I try to convert him to lilypond. What is the best way to convert a score from Finale to Lilypond? Regards, Export the Finale score to musicXML, then run musicxml2ly on it. This script is included with the Lilypond distribution. Jon -- Jonathan Kulp http://www.jonathankulp.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Again: Questions about Stem #'length
Marc Hohl asked: why lilypond still (at least sometimes) displays stems You probably haven't enabled no-stem-extend Cheers, Robin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: finale-lilypond?
Frédéric == Frédéric Bron frederic.b...@m4x.org writes: Frédéric A friend of mine is used to Finale. I try to convert him Frédéric to lilypond. What is the best way to convert a score Frédéric from Finale to Lilypond? Regards, What *ought* to be the best way is to have Finale save the file as a MusicXML file, and then use musicxml2ly to convert it. I don't have any experience with doing this -- the Finale users I know refuse to find options in the Finale menus. If you want to try it out, there do seem to be some MusicXML files on the Werner Icking Archive that probably come from Finale. http://www.google.com/search?btnG=Google+Searchbrut_query=musicxmlq=musicxml+site%3Aicking-music-archive.org+-filetype%3Apdf+-Events-revisions.php+-Events-revisions.html+-Events-revisions_src.html+-Events.php+-Events.html+-Events_src.html+-Events-all.html+-Events-all_src.html+-Statements.html+-include_all.log My experience of reporting bugs in MusicXML is that they do get addressed. There is a program called etf2ly, which converts the Finale etf file to a lilypond file. It isn't completely useless. I have vague memories that it leaves a lot of work for the user in the case of music I've used it for. For instance, it might extract lyrics, but not associate them with the correct line of music, or maybe only extract one set of lyrics even for a polyphonic piece with different lyrics for each voice. In any case, it's no longer being maintained, and I think I saw a proposal to remove it from the lilypond distribution. I'm not sure whether current versions of Finale export ETF. There certainly are old versions of Finale which export ETF and not MusicXML. There have been other threads about the problems with using midi2ly as an exchange format for music notation. I don't recommend it if you can use an input format (such as MusicXML) that actually has the information lilypond wants. There are still people with some interest in fixing midi2ly, but there are also some bugs that have been there a long time. I spent a good bit of yesterday trying all the routes I could find for getting from MIDI to lilypond for the MIDI file http://icking-music-archive.org/scores/holborne/pavanes1599/01_bona_speranza.mid, and found the Rosegarden converter was the best at not spelling the notes wrong. It was a piece in G minor (actually written as G dorian), so you would expect most of the accidentals to be Bb's, Eb's, and F#'s. midi2ly insisted on spelling them ais, dis, and fis, in spite of my telling it the key signature I wanted. Rosegarden got them right. I hope this helps. I also hope someone else knows more than I do and enlightens both of us, particularly about actually using musicxml2ly for this purpose. -- Laura (mailto:lcon...@laymusic.org) (617) 661-8097 233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139 http://www.laymusic.org/ http://www.serpentpublications.org There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary. Brendan Behan (1923 - 1964) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: finale-lilypond?
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Laura Conrad lcon...@laymusic.org wrote: Frédéric == Frédéric Bron frederic.b...@m4x.org writes: Frédéric A friend of mine is used to Finale. I try to convert him Frédéric to lilypond. What is the best way to convert a score Frédéric from Finale to Lilypond? Regards, What *ought* to be the best way is to have Finale save the file as a MusicXML file, and then use musicxml2ly to convert it. I don't have any experience with doing this -- the Finale users I know refuse to find options in the Finale menus. If you want to try it out, there do seem to be some MusicXML files on the Werner Icking I've done this probably a dozen times (exporting from Finale and converting to .ly) and it works pretty well. There are some things to clean up (duplicated dynamic markings, for example) but overall it works a lot better than one might expect. Jon -- Jonathan Kulp http://www.jonathankulp.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Again: Questions about Stem #'length
Robin Bannister schrieb: Marc Hohl asked: why lilypond still (at least sometimes) displays stems You probably haven't enabled no-stem-extend Cheers, Robin Ah, yes - thanks for the hint; I did't know that there is such a property. Now it works like a charm. Marc ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: BeatLength and BeatGrouping
On 9/26/09 10:59 PM, Nick Payne njpa...@internode.on.net wrote: I'm looking at the 2.13.3 documentation on this in the NR (starts on p.47 of the PDF manual), and the comments against the the second example don't seem to match the output. The comment says No auto-beaming is defined for 12/16, yet the output has the 16th notes beamed in four groups of three. Thanks for the comment, Nick. The autobeaming behavior (and the documentation) have been fixed in 2.13.4. Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Changing the distance between a slur and a note head
Hello, is there a way to lower the distance between the point where a slur starts (or ends, respectively) and the corresponding (tab) note head *without* manipulating every slur's control-points? Thanks in advance Marc ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: dynamic marks vertical alignment
Hi Luis,
You might try taking a look at a solution from Mats here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-02/msg00395.html
HTH,
Trevor.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:18 PM, luis jure l...@internet.com.uy wrote:
hello list, apologies in advance if this is silly or obvious, but i've
been away from lilypond for some time.
i realized that by default lilypond puts dynamic marks aligned at the
top, resulting in poor alignment of pianos and fortes. for example, this
code:
\relative c'{ d'2\fp d2\sfp d2\f d\pp d\f d\p d\mf d\mp }
produce the attached image (tested with both 2.12.2 and 2.13.3).
is there a rationale for this, or is it a bug? i think dynamic marks
should be aligned at the baseline, like all text. (by the way, compound
marks using both f and p, like fp and sfp, are correctly aligned, as
you can see in the attached example).
best,
lj
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
Trevor Bača
trevorb...@gmail.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: BeatLength and BeatGrouping
On 9/27/09 6:08 AM, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote: Nick Payne wrote: I'm looking at the 2.13.3 documentation on this in the NR (starts on p.47 of the PDF manual), and the comments against the the second example don't seem to match the output. The comment says No auto-beaming is defined for 12/16, yet the output has the 16th notes beamed in four groups of three. Nick Sorry, that's in the snippets PDF manual, not the NR. Thanks for the catch. I've now deprecated that snippet for the future. Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
sib2ly, not available?
Dear community, I wanted to install sib2ly, but I couldn't download at http://drupal.mjs-svc.com/sib2ly. Is it available somewhere else? I found another plugin at http://www.scramblelovers.com/lilypond/ but it isn't recognized by Sibelius. Maybee it works only for a special version? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
regression? [was Re: BeatLength and BeatGrouping]
on 2009-09-27 at 08:02 Carl Sorensen wrote:
The autobeaming behavior (and the documentation) have been fixed in
2.13.4.
i find a regression in 2.13.4 with respect to 2.13.3.
i recently updated to 2.13.3 and i was very happy to see that the
automatic placing of beams had improved greatly compared to previous
versions. but in 2.13.4 some things seem to have regressed.
see for example the output of this code in both versions:
\relative c'' {
d16 d8. d8 d d16 d8. d8 d |
r16 d8. d8 d r16 d8. d8 d |
r16 d8.~ d8 d r16 d8.~ d8 d | }
in 2.13.4 the dotted eights are beamed with the following eights if (and
only if) preceded by a rest. this doesn't look well to me, specially
when the notes are tied.
in 2.13.3 this was correctly sorted out. or i should say, the way _i_
think it should be sorted out... :-) any other opinions?
best,
ljattachment: beams_2.13.3.pngattachment: beams_2.13.4.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Problem spacing arpeggio
In the attached example, in the first bar I can increase the spacing
between the first chord and the the arpeggio on the second chord by
overriding Staff.Arpeggio #'X-extent, but in the second bar, using the
same override does nothing to increase the spacing between the arpeggio
and the preceding note. What means can I use to increase the spacing there?
Nick
\version 2.13.3
#(ly:set-option 'delete-intermediate-files #t)
\pointAndClickOn
arpspace = \once \override Staff.Arpeggio #'X-extent = #'(-2 . 1)
ignct = \once \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t
treble = \relative c' {
a4 \arpspace cis\arpeggio
f,32 d a'' d,, f d a'' d,, \arpspace f\arpeggio d a'' d,, f d a'' d,,
}
bass = \relative c {
e a,4 a e a,\arpeggio
s \ignct d,,\arpeggio
}
middle = \relative c {
s2
f8 f \ignct f f
}
\score {
\context Staff = guitar {
\set Staff.connectArpeggios = ##t
\clef treble_8
\key d \minor
\time 2/4
\context Voice = 1 { \voiceOne \treble }
\context Voice = 4 { \voiceFour \bass }
\context Voice = 2 { \voiceTwo \middle }
}
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\consists Span_arpeggio_engraver
}
}
}
inline: test4.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
No fiddling claim
Hello, Not too long ago, I gave my opinion that No fiddling should be changed to less fiddling for the new website. After trying to do a quick exercise with a Schumann score, which I posted here concerning a slur tweak after a line break, I don't think the less fiddling claim is valid, either. I've only used Finale before, so I'll compare to that, assuming the knowledge one would have after reading the relevant tutorials and manuals for both pieces of software: * slur tweak after line break: finale: find the smart shape tool, click the slur button, click the line-broken slur, and adjust as needed OR press escape to get the global select tool, double click the slur, and adjust. Time: about 5-10 seconds. lilypond: see the section on difficult tweaks in the NR, copy and paste the scheme code, spend anywhere from 1 minute to 1 hour realizing that that this scheme code isn't giving the desired output, write to the mailing list, get an excellent response that has the correct scheme code for changing the slur, then spend about 1 minute setting control-points. (OR spend a few days/weeks/months learning scheme.) Time: however long it takes to get expert support, or to learn scheme-- both take longer than 10 seconds. * move grace-notes slightly to the left to improve spacing: finale: select special tools, click the handle for each grace-note (or select them all at once) and move to the left. Time: 20 seconds (possibly a minute or two if one doesn't right away where to find the special tools menu. lilypond: I believe there's a warning about not being able to decrease spacing in the NR 4.5.1, but I tried nonetheless and after about 10 minutes figured out that \once \override NoteColumn #'X-offset got the job done (although it only had an effect with values smaller than -1 for the grace-note a in m. 6). Time: I suppose if I had a better handle on the spacing objects in Lilypond, I could *write* the overrides in about 20 seconds, but then I have to take at least another 6 seconds to get visual feedback on the values I've used, and if they're not quite right, I have to type new values and compile the score again. * adjust thickness of piano braces: finale: I'd never done this before, and after looking in the wrong place I saw an entry under document options for Piano Braces and Brackets which has a stretchable graphic brace with handles to change the size, thickness, and curve of the brace. Time: about 30 seconds total. lilypond: I spent about an hour going through every possible property for SystemStartBrace, and it was only after getting a response from the mailinglist that I learned this cannot be adjusted in Lilypond. Time: a few hours, plus no suitable overrides. * minor vertical spacing tweak between systems: finale: choose page layout, drag system with mouse. Time: about 4 seconds. lilypond: add some object to the relevant staff, use a Y-offset, Y-extent, or staff-padding property to nudge this away from the other system. OR change the 'Y-extent on an existing object (like a pedal mark) to get the extra space. Time: took me about 5 minutes. * slur tweaks finale: press escape, double click the slur, drag handles and go to town. Slurs are connected to horizontal note positions, so when the spacing changes, so do the length of slurs. lilypond: use the alist properties, 'positions, or 'control-points. 'positions are problematic because you're never guaranteed to get the positions that you specify (as far as I can tell), and control-points destroy the connection between the slur and the horizontal note positions. Actually for long slurs, I haven't found a solution that a) makes a beautiful slur and b) is flexible enough so that if I add a break or put another measure in that system, the slur still looks good. If there are faster ways of tweaking for the examples above, I'd love to hear them. And of course there are many things Lilypond does better than Finale (independent time signatures, for one), but I only mention the above tweaks because I think they're examples of common, reasonable tweaks to make in a piece of music, and they certainly take longer in Lilypond than at least one other piece of music software. Even if there are less overall tweaks in Lilypond (which I think is questionable), those tweaks take a substantial amount of time to get right. So I'm curious: what do the experienced users think about what I've said here? If there's anyone out there who has used other notational software and thinks the less fiddling claim is true? -Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: No fiddling claim
HI Jonathan, what do the experienced users think about what I've said here? If there's anyone out there who has used other notational software and thinks the less fiddling claim is true? I used Finale from 1991-2003, eventually becoming *quite* proficient. Then I switched to Lilypond (around v1.8), and now consider myself at least as proficient [relatively speaking] as I was with Finale. [I used Igor Engraver (v1.5) for a year or so in the interim, but that product died, which is why I ended up looking elsewhere and finding Lilypond...] I definitely feel the less fiddling claim is true... for me, for the type of music I engrave, and for the particular quality of output I desire/demand. That being said, if you don't particularly care about Finale's *horrible* [default] note-spacing, lyric placement, etc., then there would almost certainly be less fiddling time required with Finale — I just find that with Lilypond, I do almost no note or lyric adjustment, measure width/spacing adjustment, and so on, which are the activities that took up the bulk of my tweaking time with Finale. [Disclaimer, the last version I used was 2003, so things might be much better now.] Right now, I estimate the following for my engraving work using Lilypond: 1. Basic note entry (including *all* items, e.g., slurs, articulations, fingering, etc.) requires 20%-50% as long as I used to spend with Finale. 2. Spacing tweaks (notes, lyrics, vertical spacing, etc.) requires less than 5% of the time I used to spend with Finale. 3. Specific tweaks (like the ones you mention) take 2-5 times [!!] as long as I used to spend with Finale. I roughly estimate that #1 represents 50% of my total engraving time, #2 is about 40%, and #3 is the final 10%. So taking the *worst case* scenario [for Lilypond], a hypothetical piece that would take 100 min to engrave in Finale means: (50 min @ 50% time) + (40 min @ 5% time) + (10 min at 500% time) = 25 min + 2 min + 50 min = 77 min = 77% of the time I used to spend doing the same work in Finale. This is obviously non-scientific and anecdotal to the extreme... but the final result (i.e., that I *never* spend more than about 3/4 of the time I used to working in Finale) seems about right. I tend to feel like I currently get things done in 1/2 the time, on average. Of course, YMMV — in particular, if the spacing atrocities in Finale aren't where you spend your time, you will not see nearly as much benefit from using Lilypond, and in fact it may overall require more time. Hope this helps! Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Changing the distance between a slur and a note head
Hi Marc, is there a way to lower the distance between the point where a slur starts (or ends, respectively) and the corresponding (tab) note head *without* manipulating every slur's control-points? Can you increase the Y-offset? Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Problem spacing arpeggio
Hi Nick,
in the second bar, using the same override does nothing to
increase the spacing between the arpeggio and the preceding note.
Hmmm... that's probably because of the multiple-voices... but seems
like maybe a bug?
What means can I use to increase the spacing there?
Well, it's kind of hacky, but...
\version 2.13.3
#(ly:set-option 'delete-intermediate-files #t)
\pointAndClickOn
arpspace = {
\once \override Staff.Arpeggio #'X-extent = #'(-2 . 1)
}
stemPad = {
\once \override Staff.Stem #'X-extent = #'(0 . 2)
}
ignct = \once \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t
treble = \relative c' {
a4 cis\arpeggio
f,32 d a'' d,, f d a'' \stemPad d,, \arpspace f\arpeggio d a'' d,, f
d a'' d,,
}
bass = \relative c {
e a,4 a e a,\arpeggio
s \ignct d,,\arpeggio
}
middle = \relative c {
s2
f8 f \ignct f f
}
\score {
\context Staff = guitar {
\set Staff.connectArpeggios = ##t
\clef treble_8
\key d \minor
\time 2/4
\context Voice = 1 { \voiceOne \treble }
\context Voice = 4 { \voiceFour \bass }
\context Voice = 2 { \voiceTwo \middle }
}
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\consists Span_arpeggio_engraver
}
}
}
Hope this helps!
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: No fiddling claim
--- On Mon, 9/28/09, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: From: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca Subject: Re: No fiddling claim To: Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Date: Monday, September 28, 2009, 12:20 AM HI Jonathan, what do the experienced users think about what I've said here? If there's anyone out there who has used other notational software and thinks the less fiddling claim is true? I used Finale from 1991-2003, eventually becoming *quite* proficient. Then I switched to Lilypond (around v1.8), and now consider myself at least as proficient [relatively speaking] as I was with Finale. [I used Igor Engraver (v1.5) for a year or so in the interim, but that product died, which is why I ended up looking elsewhere and finding Lilypond...] I definitely feel the less fiddling claim is true... for me, for the type of music I engrave, and for the particular quality of output I desire/demand. That being said, if you don't particularly care about Finale's *horrible* [default] note-spacing, lyric placement, etc., then there would almost certainly be less fiddling time required with Finale — I just find that with Lilypond, I do almost no note or lyric adjustment, measure width/spacing adjustment, and so on, which are the activities that took up the bulk of my tweaking time with Finale. [Disclaimer, the last version I used was 2003, so things might be much better now.] Hmm., I don't have much experience with lyric placement (I only have one piece I've written with text), but yes, the note-spacing tweaks for an entire piece can take a lot of time, depending on the complexity of the rhythms. Right now, I estimate the following for my engraving work using Lilypond: 1. Basic note entry (including *all* items, e.g., slurs, articulations, fingering, etc.) requires 20%-50% as long as I used to spend with Finale. 2. Spacing tweaks (notes, lyrics, vertical spacing, etc.) requires less than 5% of the time I used to spend with Finale. 3. Specific tweaks (like the ones you mention) take 2-5 times [!!] as long as I used to spend with Finale. I roughly estimate that #1 represents 50% of my total engraving time, #2 is about 40%, and #3 is the final 10%. So taking the *worst case* scenario [for Lilypond], a hypothetical piece that would take 100 min to engrave in Finale means: (50 min @ 50% time) + (40 min @ 5% time) + (10 min at 500% time) = 25 min + 2 min + 50 min = 77 min = 77% of the time I used to spend doing the same work in Finale. This is obviously non-scientific and anecdotal to the extreme... but the final result (i.e., that I *never* spend more than about 3/4 of the time I used to working in Finale) seems about right. I tend to feel like I currently get things done in 1/2 the time, on average. Of course, YMMV — in particular, if the spacing atrocities in Finale aren't where you spend your time, you will not see nearly as much benefit from using Lilypond, and in fact it may overall require more time. It sounds like your experience is indeed different than what mine has been so far. I would be really interested to see one of the Lilypond gurus go up against a Finale guru to notate a piece of music from the canon, and keep track of the total amount of time like you've done above. I know a finale guru who might be interested in this. For me, it would be really helpful to see the code on the Lilypond side. Hope this helps! Definitely. Good to know that there's the possibility of working faster as I learn the ins and outs. Thanks for your detailed response to my question. -Jonathan Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: regression? [was Re: BeatLength and BeatGrouping]
On 9/27/09 10:23 AM, luis jure l...@internet.com.uy wrote:
on 2009-09-27 at 08:02 Carl Sorensen wrote:
The autobeaming behavior (and the documentation) have been fixed in
2.13.4.
i find a regression in 2.13.4 with respect to 2.13.3.
i recently updated to 2.13.3 and i was very happy to see that the
automatic placing of beams had improved greatly compared to previous
versions. but in 2.13.4 some things seem to have regressed.
see for example the output of this code in both versions:
\relative c'' {
d16 d8. d8 d d16 d8. d8 d |
r16 d8. d8 d r16 d8. d8 d |
r16 d8.~ d8 d r16 d8.~ d8 d | }
in 2.13.4 the dotted eights are beamed with the following eights if (and
only if) preceded by a rest. this doesn't look well to me, specially
when the notes are tied.
in 2.13.3 this was correctly sorted out. or i should say, the way _i_
think it should be sorted out... :-) any other opinions?
We've had a serious discussion about whether eighth note beams should end on
every beat or only on beats 2 and 4.
We came down on the side of ending eighth note beams on 2 and 4, because it
seemed to fit Stone's rules.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/23515
You can return to the 2.13.3 behavior by adding this line to your file:
\overrideBeamSettings #'Score #'(4 . 4) #'end #'((* . (1 1 1 1))
(32 . (4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4)))
This will cause all beams to break at the beat, except 32 beams will break
at 1/8 notes.
HTH,
Carl
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
