Re: Setting the number for \mark \default

[Johan Vromans]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:57:08 +0100
Mojca Miklavec  wrote:

> I would find it useful if the following example:
> 
> \relative c'' {
>   c1 \mark \default
>   c1 \mark \default
>   c1 \mark #8
>   c1 \mark \default
>   c1 \mark \default
> }
> 
> was extended to also include something like
>\set Score.rehearsalMark = #20
> followed by another mark or two.

At least I would be surprised by the result...

-- Johan

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: programming error: no solution found for Bezier intersection

[Federico Bruni]

Hi Andrew

Thanks, I'm Cc-ing the list

Il giorno mar 15 nov 2016 alle 1:43, Andrew Bernard 
 ha scritto:

Have run your files. Again, under 2.19.50 on Linux Mint (derived from
Ubuntu) the program does not crash.

Since the slur is what is calling the Bezier curve routines, have you 
tried

simply removing the slur, or putting it up instead of down?

Another possibility to try is using a phrasing slur instead - they 
look the
same. So use \( ... \) instead of ( ... ). But I know that is omitted 
from

the tab, I think. So not really an answer.

So there must be a defect on your particular environment. I have not 
tried
with 2.19.46. May be worth upgrading to 2.19.50 - I have found no 
issues

with that.


I currently have 2.19.48 and 2.19.49 on my system and 2.19.49 compiles 
the file with no error message.
I hadn't thought that it may have been a temporary problem in a dev 
version.




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Curious thing about ties

[Robert Schmaus]

Good morning everyone,

> On 15 Nov 2016, at 02:30, Andrew Bernard  wrote:

> I know lilypond strives to do as much good layout as it can without requiring 
> tweaks, but this seems a step too far.

I can fully agree with the first part of your statement - for my needs, LP has 
always been perfect! As I said - the tie-issue had seemed noteworthy but not 
necessarily wrong (or ugly) to me ...

> I would say it is undesirable, and a defect. Others may differ.

I think we should make those irrational meters and broken tuplets our top 
priority. 

Seriously, I know it's easily fixable by using tie directions. (I've never 
gotten deep enough into tweaking to use anything like penalties...) But if you 
(Andrew) think the bug squad should be involved, I trust you on this and 
forward this thread to them.

Best,
Robert


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Curious thing about ties

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Robert,

If you play with all the tie details settings, the only one that makes a
difference is this:

\override Tie.details.horizontal-distance-penalty-factor = 0 (from
default 10)

So there must be some subtle horizontal spacing issue at work that seems
wrong to me.


Andrew
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Curious thing about ties

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Robert,

I for one don't think lilypond should be making decisions for you about tie
direction based on an idea of sequenced phrases. I know lilypond strives to
do as much good layout as it can without requiring tweaks, but this seems a
step too far. There is nothing mentioned about this in the NR as far as I
know. I would say it is undesirable, and a defect. Others may differ. I
would go so far as to attempt to raise this as a bug on the bug list for
further evaluation.

To work around this, bug or not, you can just control the tie direction,
for example:

\override Tie.direction = #UP

In most of my scores I am resigned to having to specify direction for each
and every tie with ^ and _ to precisely express what my composer colleague
writes, so I tend not to notice the behaviour you have spotted.

Andrew

On 15 November 2016 at 07:09, Robert Schmaus  wrote:

> Dear Ponderers,
>
> something I just came across while pondering away: in the following
> snippet, there are two ties across barlines.
>
> %
>
> \version "2.19.35"
>
> \score {
>\relative c'' {
>
>  | a2 r8 a8 ( a ) b ~
>  | b2 r8 b8 ( a ) b ~
>  | b2 r2
>}
> }
>
> %
>
> I've wondered why in the first instance, the tie is a down-tie, while in
> the second it's an up-tie (see attached screenshot). Is there a reason
> for this? Something like visual balance?
>
> I'm running Lilypond on a Mac. And I should add, that I'm really just
> curious, I don't have a problem with this behaviour.
> I'm guessing that this can only occur with notes inhabiting the middle
> staff line, right?
>
> Anyway, take care,
> Robert
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: alternative notehead style breaks cross-staff stem

[Urs Liska]

Am 14.11.2016 um 14:43 schrieb Urs Liska:
>
> Am 13.11.2016 um 21:44 schrieb Thomas Morley:
>> 2016-11-13 15:45 GMT+01:00 Urs Liska :
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to build something like similar to an automated harmonic
>>> display on two staves, and it seems that alternative note head styles
>>> break the cross staff stems:
>>>
>>> ...
>> Hi Urs,
>>
>> cross-staff Stems are only printed if certain conditions are fullfilled.
>> One of them is the Stem's left edge are within a range 0.001
>> -> `close-enough?' in music-functions.scm
>>
>> In a recent thread I developed `pushNC' to force the Stems doing so.
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00230.html
>>
>> Works here as well:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> HTH,
>>   Harm
> Thank you, this indeed works well for my purpose, I'll soon share the
> results.
>
> The next step would be to have two notes connect their stems when *not*
> in different staves, e.g.
>
> \new Staff {
>   <<
> {
>   \voiceOne
>   g''4 -\harmonic
> }
> \new Voice {
>   \voiceOne
>   c'4
> }
>   >>
> }
>
> It seem crossStaff doesn't support this. But OTOH it may be simple to
> calculate the lower stem's length in this case (as opposed to real cross
> staff where you don't know the staff distance).
>
> Urs

For reference and for the curious the current state of the result can be
seen here:
https://github.com/openlilylib/ji/blob/ee00de2701a5921d63237b5b40702247c7dc5183/display.ily
The package this is in is not actually usable yet as it's still a
construction site. But there will be proper example files available and
the paper for which I'm actually doing this right now.

As a first impression the attached output is generated from the
following input (using the package) (note that the constant change of
display options is not what one would do in real-world scores but
intends to show how the output con easily be configured and reconfigured):

\score {
  <<
\new PianoStaff <<
  \new Staff = "one" {
s1*2
  }

  \new Staff = "two"  {
\clef bass
\setOption ji.show.notehead-style #'harmonic
\setOption ji.show.ratio ##t
\setOption ji.show.cent ##t
   
\jiNote c, 2 7/1
   
\setOption ji.show.ratio ##f
\jiNote 4 6/1
   
\setOption ji.show.ratio ##t
\setOption ji.show.cent ##f
\setOption ji.conf.use-cross-staff ##f
\jiNote 5/1
   
\change Staff = "one"
   
\jiNote c' 2 7/4
   
\setOption ji.show.cent ##t
\setOption ji.show.ratio ##f
\jiNote d' 3/2
  }
>>
  >>
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: best practices with tempo markings

[tisimst]

Tobian

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Tobin Chodos [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n196622...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> This one really is basic, but: a \tempo command in a large score will
> automatically register on each part, right?  that is, if I insert the
> marking to change tempo in the flute part in bar 2, it will appear on every
> other part...so where is it advisable to put it?
>

It will and it won't. By default, it is collected by the Score context, so
it will only appear above the top-most Staff unless you give a particular
staff permission to print it as well via a \with { \consists
"Metronome_mark_engraver" }. If you put the \tempo command in-line with the
part's music and reuse the same variable in the full score and part score,
then it will show up in both.

However, I find it prudent to put any Score-level items that generally
don't change from part to part (e.g., \tempo, \time, \key, \bar, etc.) in a
global variable that basically defines the structure and where each of
those items appears. For example:

struct = {
  \tempo 4=120
  \time 3/4
  \key a \minor
  s2.*7
  \bar "||"
  \tempo 4=80
  \time 4/4
  s1*10
  \bar "|."
}


This I then place in a simultaneous construct with each part within the
\score blocks. Thus, I can manage the overall structure in ONE place, but
apply it everywhere, both the full-score and individual parts. For example:

% full score
\score {
  <<
\new Staff << \struct \violinNotes >>
\new Staff << \struct \violaNotes >>
\new Staff << \struct \celloNotes >>
\new Staff << \struct \bassNotes >>
  >>
}

% violin part
\score {
  \new Staff << \struct \violinNotes >>
}

% viola part
\score {
  \new Staff << \struct \violaNotes >>
}

% cello part
\score {
  \new Staff << \struct \celloNotes >>
}

% bass part
\score {
  \new Staff << \struct \bassNotes >>
}


There are a variety of ways to customize this to your tastes and uses, but
this has been very reliable for me.

Hope that helps,
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/best-practices-with-tempo-markings-tp196622p196625.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Ties break the ability to add lyrics

[David Wright]

On Mon 14 Nov 2016 at 14:30:44 (+0100), Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On 14 November 2016 at 13:31, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While trying to add slightly more complex fingerings (button label +
> > finger number) on top of some scores, I'm facing a problem with ties
> > on the following structure:
> >
> >   << {f'2~} {s8 d'4.~} {s4 b4~} {s4. g8} >>
> >   4. 8 |
> 
> I just realized that I could probably use the technique mentioned in
> 
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/techniques-specific-to-lyrics
> Polyphony with shared lyrics
> like
> \new NullVoice = "aligner" \aligner
> but that will add yet another layer of complexity (or let's better
> call it "yet another repetition of the same thing and yet another
> option where things could go wrong") to the already annoyingly
> error-prone way of entering button names.
> 
> (It would be really awesome if I could enter button names and finger
> numbers right next to the music itself.)

I too dislike the fact that NullVoice gives you another Voice to
maintain in sync with the voices it is (logically) associated with.

Wouldn't it be great if there were an "AutoVoice" which, given a list
of voices, would produce a NullVoice thingy to which one could set
lyrics, where the AutoVoice would contain a "lyric attachment moment"
at every moment in the collected voices.

In addition, the default lyric alignment would be set to CENTER unless
the next moment was slurred/tied in any voice to the present moment,
which would make it LEFT instead.

Apologies for the terminology which is likely incorrect.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

best practices with tempo markings

[Tobin Chodos]

Hi all,

This one really is basic, but: a \tempo command in a large score will
automatically register on each part, right?  that is, if I insert the
marking to change tempo in the flute part in bar 2, it will appear on every
other part...so where is it advisable to put it?

Thanks.

Tobin
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Curious thing about ties

[Hans Åberg]

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 22:34, Robert Schmaus  wrote:
> 
>> On 14 Nov 2016, at 21:22, Hans Åberg  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14 Nov 2016, at 21:09, Robert Schmaus  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I've wondered why in the first instance, the tie is a down-tie, while in 
>>> the second it's an up-tie (see attached screenshot). Is there a reason for 
>>> this? Something like visual balance?
>> 
>> It is different in the first bar, it seems.
> 
> No, i don't think that's it - I came across that in the middle of some score 
> I was working on. Unless you mean "first bar of a line" ... that I haven't 
> checked. 

I get different variations, depending on how I repeat the pattern. In LilyPond 
2.19.45: 

% Down up down up:
\score {
  \relative c'' {
| a2 r8 a8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r8 b8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r8 b8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r8 b8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r2
  }
}

% Down up up up
\score {
  \relative c'' {
| a2 r8 a8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r8 b8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r2
| b2 r8 b8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r8 b8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r2
  }
}

% Up up down up
\score {
  \relative c'' {
| b2 r2
| a2 r8 a8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r8 b8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r2
| b2 r8 b8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r8 b8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r2
  }
}



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Curious thing about ties

[Robert Schmaus]

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 22:27, Brian Barker  wrote:
> 
> At 21:09 14/11/2016 +0100, Robert Schmaus wrote:
>> something I just came across while pondering away: in the following snippet, 
>> there are two ties across barlines.
>> [...]
>> I've wondered why in the first instance, the tie is a down-tie, while in the 
>> second it's an up-tie (see attached screenshot).
> 
> (Your snippet doesn't match your output, in fact.)

Right ... as I was typing the mail, I thought I'd try if this also appears with 
different notes and started to change the snippet in the mail before I 
realised, that I should probably do that in frescobaldi. Forgot to restore the 
snippet ... I'm not multi-threaded I guess. 

> If you repeat the motif, the ties appear to alternate down, up, down, up ...
> 
> Brian Barker 

Interesting - so, if it alternates, maybe it *does* have to do with visual 
balance after all ..

Robert

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Curious thing about ties

[Robert Schmaus]

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 21:22, Hans Åberg  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 14 Nov 2016, at 21:09, Robert Schmaus  wrote:
>> 
>> I've wondered why in the first instance, the tie is a down-tie, while in the 
>> second it's an up-tie (see attached screenshot). Is there a reason for this? 
>> Something like visual balance?
> 
> It is different in the first bar, it seems.

No, i don't think that's it - I came across that in the middle of some score I 
was working on. Unless you mean "first bar of a line" ... that I haven't 
checked. 

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Curious thing about ties

[Brian Barker]

At 21:09 14/11/2016 +0100, Robert Schmaus wrote:
something I just came across while pondering away: in the following 
snippet, there are two ties across barlines.

[...]
I've wondered why in the first instance, the tie is a down-tie, 
while in the second it's an up-tie (see attached screenshot).


(Your snippet doesn't match your output, in fact.)

If you repeat the motif, the ties appear to alternate down, up, down, up ...

Brian Barker 



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Curious thing about ties

[Hans Åberg]

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 21:09, Robert Schmaus  wrote:
> 
> I've wondered why in the first instance, the tie is a down-tie, while in the 
> second it's an up-tie (see attached screenshot). Is there a reason for this? 
> Something like visual balance?

It is different in the first bar, it seems.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Curious thing about ties

[Robert Schmaus]

Dear Ponderers,

something I just came across while pondering away: in the following 
snippet, there are two ties across barlines.


%

\version "2.19.35"

\score {
  \relative c'' {

| a2 r8 a8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r8 b8 ( a ) b ~
| b2 r2
  }
}

%

I've wondered why in the first instance, the tie is a down-tie, while in 
the second it's an up-tie (see attached screenshot). Is there a reason 
for this? Something like visual balance?


I'm running Lilypond on a Mac. And I should add, that I'm really just 
curious, I don't have a problem with this behaviour.
I'm guessing that this can only occur with notes inhabiting the middle 
staff line, right?


Anyway, take care,
Robert

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Setting the number for \mark \default

[Malte Meyn]

Am 14.11.2016 um 09:52 schrieb Mojca Miklavec:

I'm using \markDefault from the following code for marking parts of music:

stdMarkFormat = {
  \set Score.markFormatter = #format-mark-box-letters
}
markDefault = {
  \stdMarkFormat
  \mark \default
}


Why do you use these functions? A \set is effective until the end of the 
score unless it is preceded by \once.


So you don’t have to set the markFormatter every time you use \mark #8 
or \mark \default and there is no need for extra functions like 
\markDefault:


\relative {
  \set Score.markFormatter = #format-mark-box-letters
  c'4 d e f \mark \default
  g a b c \mark #8
  b a g f \mark \default
  e d c2
}

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slur not accepting \shape corrections

[Simon Albrecht]

On 14.11.2016 01:01, Dominic wrote:

The \shape command, if I remember correctly, functions like a "\once
\override", so it needs to immediately precede the note to which the slur is
attached, thus:

/\stemUp r8
\shape #'((0 . 0)(0 . 0)(0 . 0)(0 . 0)) Slur
c( g' c e g /


For completeness’ sake: it can also be used like a tweak, i.e.
c-\shape #'(…) (
In case you like that better.

Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Setting the number for \mark \default

[Mojca Miklavec]

Dear Robin,

On 14 November 2016 at 17:28, Robin Bannister wrote:
> Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>
>> I eventually needed to run "locate rehearsal-mark-letter.ly" on my
>> computer and inspect the contents to arrive to the answer.
>
> I was referring to the regression tests at
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/input/regression/collated-files.html
> This links to all the test files (like rehearsal-mark-letter.ly)
> and shows what they produce.

Thank you. I don't remember running into that page before, but I
certainly like the graphical representation of this page more than
grepping my local hard drive :)

Thanks for another hint.

Mojca

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Setting the number for \mark \default

[Robin Bannister]

Mojca Miklavec wrote:


I eventually needed to run "locate rehearsal-mark-letter.ly" on my
computer and inspect the contents to arrive to the answer.



I was referring to the regression tests at
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/input/regression/collated-files.html
This links to all the test files (like rehearsal-mark-letter.ly)
and shows what they produce.

As test files, they have to include arcane and rare situations.
But they also exhaustively exercise the ordinary stuff,
so you may find examples here that are omitted from the manuals
(to avoid exhaustively exercising the readers of same?).



Cheers,
Robin





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Setting the number for \mark \default

[Mojca Miklavec]

Dear Robin,

On 14 November 2016 at 15:58, Robin Bannister wrote:
> Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is there a way to just set the counter without printing the mark
>> itself? (I would like to set the counter at the beginning of Coda and
>> then use \markDefault where appropriate just like everywhere else.)
>>
>> Documentation points to
>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/internals/rehearsalmark
>> but I don't see any obvious way to set the number.
>
>
>
> This links to 3.1.89 RehearsalMark which says:
>> RehearsalMark objects are created by: Mark_engraver.
> That links to 2.2.66 Mark_engraver which says:
>>  rehearsalMark (integer)  The last rehearsal mark printed.
>
>
> You can see an example regarding this in the regression tests.
> Searching for 'The mark may be set with' takes you to
>   rehearsal-mark-letter.ly
> which shows setting to #24 without triggering a \mark,
> the next \mark \default uses #25, producing 'Y'.

Thanks a lot for explanation. So
\set Score.rehearsalMark = #4
it is.

Actually the page
"http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/bars; already
says:

"The value to use is stored in the property rehearsalMark."

but this wasn't enough of a hint for a beginner like me and I
eventually needed to run "locate rehearsal-mark-letter.ly" on my
computer and inspect the contents to arrive to the answer.

I would find it useful if the following example:

\relative c'' {
  c1 \mark \default
  c1 \mark \default
  c1 \mark #8
  c1 \mark \default
  c1 \mark \default
}

was extended to also include something like
   \set Score.rehearsalMark = #20
followed by another mark or two.

"An example is worth 1000 words :)"

Seeing that in the example would make it more obvious to me what I needed to do.

Thank you,
Mojca

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Setting the number for \mark \default

[Robin Bannister]

Mojca Miklavec wrote:


Is there a way to just set the counter without printing the mark
itself? (I would like to set the counter at the beginning of Coda and
then use \markDefault where appropriate just like everywhere else.)

Documentation points to
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/internals/rehearsalmark
but I don't see any obvious way to set the number.



This links to 3.1.89 RehearsalMark which says:
> RehearsalMark objects are created by: Mark_engraver.
That links to 2.2.66 Mark_engraver which says:
>  rehearsalMark (integer)  The last rehearsal mark printed.


You can see an example regarding this in the regression tests.
Searching for 'The mark may be set with' takes you to
  rehearsal-mark-letter.ly
which shows setting to #24 without triggering a \mark,
the next \mark \default uses #25, producing 'Y'.


Cheers,
Robin



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: alternative notehead style breaks cross-staff stem

[Urs Liska]

Am 14.11.2016 um 14:43 schrieb Urs Liska:
> The next step would be to have two notes connect their stems when *not*
> in different staves, e.g.

Never mind, I have found out how to generate my stuff as a chord.

Urs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Stepping down and moving on

[David Sumbler]

Hi David

I can only echo the good wishes and thanks that others have already
expressed.  Lilypond is a great program - the more I use it the more I
can see the potential if I can ever get my head around the finer
points.

Meanwhile the list provides great support, and you have been a major
contributor to the on-list help as well as to the project itself.

So - thanks again, and good luck in your new post.

David


On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 18:09 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Hi folks and team,
> 
> while I haven't really occupied an official function in LilyPond
> development, it's hard to deny that I have effectively functioned as
> acting chief architect and vetter (with a rather mottled
> performance).
> 
> Partly in connection with a drop of my productivity particularly this
> year, the amount of financial support for my work from members of the
> LilyPond community went down from overall survivable to
> disastrous.  Of
> course this is bitter for those of you that did contribute in
> significant amounts to my subsistence but I have to be moving on.
> 
> I have accepted a full-time development (and team management)
> position
> with another company.  Due to their project and team expansion plans,
> I will be starting already in December.
> 
> This employment is in another city.  I'll be travelling back and
> forth
> weekly for the foreseeable future.  While I might be working on some
> LilyPond side projects interesting to me occasionally, I will not be
> able to do any serious amound of coordination or other activity
> involving me with LilyPond's community.
> 
> As my communication style has proven to be a somewhat mixed blessing
> for
> the purpose of attracting long-term developers, I expect that this
> may
> help in the long run for finding a different balance of areas
> LilyPond
> is getting worked on.
> 
> During his tenure as LilyPond leader, Graham has demonstrated that
> even
> without a central technical lead there is a lot of potential to focus
> the resources of people willing to work on and expand LilyPond and we
> have been continuing to reap the results of his talent for organizing
> people into useful teams even though I have not really figured out
> how
> to fill gaps in the various teams and tools managing LilyPond's
> infrastructure to offset the "natural" amounts of fluctuation.
> 
> I'll try seeing through the release of 2.20 in the little time
> remaining
> to me both before and after starting my job.  My main worry is the
> current comparative amount of instability with regard to font
> handling,
> and my main bad taste is that 2.20.1 will not be able to support
> Guile 2: there is no way that anything deserving the label of
> "stable"
> and including Guile 2 will come about in the rest of my tenure.
> 
> There are also several half-completed features that are a nuisance.
> I do not expect to be able to to a significant amount of work on them
> in
> the foreseeable future.
> 
> Once consequence, of course, is that my requirement for funding is
> over.
> I am greatly thankful to the people who have enabled me to keep
> working
> on LilyPond as long as I did, but what remains in my bank account, in
> spite of being quite less than what I started with when working on
> LilyPond, is sufficient to tide me over the time to my first
> paycheck.
> 
> So I would ask you to cancel any regular bank payments you might
> still
> have in place as of December: I don't see that I will have a
> reasonable
> chance at returning a tangible value for them.
> 
> Thanks for making me stay in the pond as long as I did!
> 

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Ties break the ability to add lyrics

[Mojca Miklavec]

Dear Phil,

On 14 November 2016 at 14:34, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Mojca Miklavec"
>>
>> While trying to add slightly more complex fingerings (button label +
>> finger number) on top of some scores, I'm facing a problem with ties
>> on the following structure:
>>
>>  << {f'2~} {s8 d'4.~} {s4 b4~} {s4. g8} >>
>>  4. 8 |
>>
>> (This is some "simplification" that would look ugly if I would tie
>> five chords together; it should be clear enough for the player, so I
>> would like to leave this visual output.)
>>
>> I'm misusing lyrics to add fingerings because that was the only way I
>> found so far that gives me satisfactory output (with horrible and very
>> error-prone input).
>
> \set melismaBusyProperties = #'() will make each lyric syllable align on a
> note whether it's tied, slurred or beamed.

Wonderful, thank you very much.

(I saw that command on the page earlier, but didn't immediately
understand the meaning.)

Thanks again,
Mojca

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: repeat with different dynamic - midi output

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Hi Gianmaria,

How about:

\score { { <>\p \frag <>\f \frag } \midi{}}

HTH,
Cheers,
Pierre

2016-11-14 14:55 GMT+01:00 Gianmaria Lari :

>
>
> On 14 November 2016 at 12:03, Bernhard Kleine 
> wrote:
>
>> Am 14.11.2016 um 11:16 schrieb Gianmaria Lari:
>>
>> I have something like this:
>>
>> frag = { \repeat volta 2 {c'^\markup {p (2nd time: f)} d' e' f'}}
>>
>> \score {\frag \layout{}}
>>
>> \score {\unfoldRepeats \frag \midi{}}
>>
>>
>> As you can see I mentioned in the markup that the first time the score
>> should be played piano and the second forte. Is there any way to write is
>> as a true dynamic and make lilypond generate a corresponding midi?
>>
>> Thank you, g.
>>
>> Use alternatives.
>> Bernhard
>>
>> Uhm... an empty volta with only alternatives? This is the only thing I
> have been able to do but it is far from what I need...
>
> frag = {a4 b c' d'}
> \score
> {
>   \repeat volta 2 {} \alternative {{\frag} {\frag}}
> }
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: repeat with different dynamic - midi output

[Gianmaria Lari]

On 14 November 2016 at 12:03, Bernhard Kleine 
wrote:

> Am 14.11.2016 um 11:16 schrieb Gianmaria Lari:
>
> I have something like this:
>
> frag = { \repeat volta 2 {c'^\markup {p (2nd time: f)} d' e' f'}}
>
> \score {\frag \layout{}}
>
> \score {\unfoldRepeats \frag \midi{}}
>
>
> As you can see I mentioned in the markup that the first time the score
> should be played piano and the second forte. Is there any way to write is
> as a true dynamic and make lilypond generate a corresponding midi?
>
> Thank you, g.
>
> Use alternatives.
> Bernhard
>
> Uhm... an empty volta with only alternatives? This is the only thing I
have been able to do but it is far from what I need...

frag = {a4 b c' d'}
\score
{
  \repeat volta 2 {} \alternative {{\frag} {\frag}}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: alternative notehead style breaks cross-staff stem

[Urs Liska]

Am 13.11.2016 um 21:44 schrieb Thomas Morley:
> 2016-11-13 15:45 GMT+01:00 Urs Liska :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm trying to build something like similar to an automated harmonic
>> display on two staves, and it seems that alternative note head styles
>> break the cross staff stems:
>>
>> ...
>
> Hi Urs,
>
> cross-staff Stems are only printed if certain conditions are fullfilled.
> One of them is the Stem's left edge are within a range 0.001
> -> `close-enough?' in music-functions.scm
>
> In a recent thread I developed `pushNC' to force the Stems doing so.
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00230.html
>
> Works here as well:
>
> ...
>
> HTH,
>   Harm

Thank you, this indeed works well for my purpose, I'll soon share the
results.

The next step would be to have two notes connect their stems when *not*
in different staves, e.g.

\new Staff {
  <<
{
  \voiceOne
  g''4 -\harmonic
}
\new Voice {
  \voiceOne
  c'4
}
  >>
}

It seem crossStaff doesn't support this. But OTOH it may be simple to
calculate the lower stem's length in this case (as opposed to real cross
staff where you don't know the staff distance).

Urs

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Ties break the ability to add lyrics

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "Mojca Miklavec" 

To: "lilypond-user" 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 12:31 PM
Subject: Ties break the ability to add lyrics



Hi,

While trying to add slightly more complex fingerings (button label +
finger number) on top of some scores, I'm facing a problem with ties
on the following structure:

 << {f'2~} {s8 d'4.~} {s4 b4~} {s4. g8} >>
 4. 8 |

(This is some "simplification" that would look ugly if I would tie
five chords together; it should be clear enough for the player, so I
would like to leave this visual output.)

I'm misusing lyrics to add fingerings because that was the only way I
found so far that gives me satisfactory output (with horrible and very
error-prone input).


\set melismaBusyProperties = #'() will make each lyric syllable align on a 
note whether it's tied, slurred or beamed.



--
Phil Holmes 



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Ties break the ability to add lyrics

[Mojca Miklavec]

On 14 November 2016 at 13:31, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While trying to add slightly more complex fingerings (button label +
> finger number) on top of some scores, I'm facing a problem with ties
> on the following structure:
>
>   << {f'2~} {s8 d'4.~} {s4 b4~} {s4. g8} >>
>   4. 8 |

I just realized that I could probably use the technique mentioned in

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/techniques-specific-to-lyrics
Polyphony with shared lyrics
like
\new NullVoice = "aligner" \aligner
but that will add yet another layer of complexity (or let's better
call it "yet another repetition of the same thing and yet another
option where things could go wrong") to the already annoyingly
error-prone way of entering button names.

(It would be really awesome if I could enter button names and finger
numbers right next to the music itself.)

Mojca

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Ties break the ability to add lyrics

[Mojca Miklavec]

Hi,

While trying to add slightly more complex fingerings (button label +
finger number) on top of some scores, I'm facing a problem with ties
on the following structure:

  << {f'2~} {s8 d'4.~} {s4 b4~} {s4. g8} >>
  4. 8 |

(This is some "simplification" that would look ugly if I would tie
five chords together; it should be clear enough for the player, so I
would like to leave this visual output.)

I'm misusing lyrics to add fingerings because that was the only way I
found so far that gives me satisfactory output (with horrible and very
error-prone input).

I would like to put a label on top of every note/chord (I don't need
it on the last one), but for some (unknown to me) reason Lilypond
skips all notes in the structure when I use ties. The attachment
demonstrates this. The labels in the first two measures look ok, but
the labels in the second two measures skip some notes. (Fingerings in
the third example look OK, but are not visually appealing.) Sure, I'm
aware that the second note in a tie should not get its own lyrics, but
I would expect five "slots" in the 3rd and 4th measure for example (4
in the 3rd measure and one in the 4th measure, skipping the first
chord in the 4th measure).

I want to add that the usual fingerings work just fine and in fact I
would prefer to use fingerings if I would find a way to get a
satisfactory output (all fingerings aligned vertically above the
line).

Examples of similar scores (showing the usual desired output):
https://github.com/mojca/frajtonarca/tree/master/tablature/avtorske

If there is a better / more proper way to use "__", please also correct me.

Thank you,
Mojca


PS: please CC me

-

\version "2.19.30"
\language "deutsch"

melody = \fixed c' {
  \time 2/4
  \key b \major

  % this is missing ties
  % but allows adding button labels
  << {f'2} {s8 d'4.} {s4 b4} {s4. g8} >>
  4. 8 |

  % this contains proper ties,
  % but doesn't allow adding button labels
  \set tieWaitForNote = ##t
  << {f'2~} {s8 d'4.~} {s4 b4~} {s4. g8} >>
  4. 8 |

  8|
  8. 16 4 |

  % built-in mechanism for fingerings does both
  << {f'2~-4} {s8 d'4.~-3} {s4 b4~-2} {s4. g8-1} >>
  4. 8 |
}

buttonsIV = \lyricmode {
  "4"__ _ _ _ _ "4"
  "4/B6" __ _ _ _ _ "4/B6"
}
buttonsIII = \lyricmode {
  \skip 1 "3"__ _ _ _ ""
  \skip 1 "3/B5" __ _ _ _ ""
}

buttonsII = \lyricmode {
  \skip 1 \skip 1 "2"__ _ _ ""
  \skip 1 \skip 1 "2/B4" __ _ _ ""
}

buttonsI = \lyricmode {
  \skip 1 \skip 1 \skip 1 "1""1""1"
  \skip 1 \skip 1 \skip 1 "1/C5" "1/B3" "1/B3"
}

\score {
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Lyrics = "buttonsIV"  \with { \override
VerticalAxisGroup.staff-affinity = #DOWN }
\new Lyrics = "buttonsIII" \with { \override
VerticalAxisGroup.staff-affinity = #DOWN }
\new Lyrics = "buttonsII"  \with { \override
VerticalAxisGroup.staff-affinity = #DOWN }
\new Lyrics = "buttonsI"   \with { \override
VerticalAxisGroup.staff-affinity = #DOWN }
\new Voice  = "melody" { \melody }
\context Lyrics = "buttonsIV"  { \lyricsto "melody" { \buttonsIV  } }
\context Lyrics = "buttonsIII" { \lyricsto "melody" { \buttonsIII } }
\context Lyrics = "buttonsII"  { \lyricsto "melody" { \buttonsII  } }
\context Lyrics = "buttonsI"   { \lyricsto "melody" { \buttonsI   } }
  >>
}


test-golica.ly
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: repeat with different dynamic - midi output

[Bernhard Kleine]

Am 14.11.2016 um 11:16 schrieb Gianmaria Lari:
> I have something like this:
>
> frag = { \repeat volta 2 {c'^\markup {p (2nd time: f)} d' e' f'}}
>
> \score {\frag \layout{}}
>
> \score {\unfoldRepeats \frag \midi{}}
>
>
> As you can see I mentioned in the markup that the first time the score
> should be played piano and the second forte. Is there any way to write
> is as a true dynamic and make lilypond generate a corresponding midi?
>
> Thank you, g.
>
Use alternatives.
Bernhard

-- 
spitzhalde9
D-79853 lenzkirch
bernhard.kle...@gmx.net
www.b-kleine.com, www.urseetal.net
-
thunderbird mit enigmail
GPG schlüssel: D5257409
fingerprint:
08 B7 F8 70 22 7A FC C1 15 49 CA A6 C7 6F A0 2E D5 25 74 09



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: programming error: no solution found for Bezier intersection

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno lun 14 nov 2016 alle 9:14, Andrew Bernard 
 ha scritto:

Hello Federico,

FWIW, this compiles cleanly on 2.19.50 under Linux Mint, using the 
standard

distribution version. Not sure whether this fact is of any help.


I know that my minimal example compiles cleanly :)
That's what I meant to say when I wrote:

By commenting some code I found, by trial and error, the bar which 
triggers the error.
However, if I move that bar in a minimal example, I don't get the 
error.


But it doesn't compile on my real file and I'm asking for hints to 
understand what else might be wrong.
If anybody is interested in debugging this files, I may send it 
privately.


Thanks
Federico


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

repeat with different dynamic - midi output

[Gianmaria Lari]

I have something like this:

frag = { \repeat volta 2 {c'^\markup {p (2nd time: f)} d' e' f'}}

\score {\frag \layout{}}

\score {\unfoldRepeats \frag \midi{}}


As you can see I mentioned in the markup that the first time the score
should be played piano and the second forte. Is there any way to write is
as a true dynamic and make lilypond generate a corresponding midi?

Thank you, g.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Setting the number for \mark \default

[Mojca Miklavec]

Hi,

I'm using \markDefault from the following code for marking parts of music:

stdMarkFormat = {
  \set Score.markFormatter = #format-mark-box-letters
}
markDefault = {
  \stdMarkFormat
  \mark \default
}

But if I follow:
http://flaminghakama.com/adding-a-coda
to make Coda a "score" on its own, then the numbering is reset and
starts from A again.

  \score {
\new StaffGroup <<
  \new Staff {
... (the rest of the piece)
\markDefault
...
  }
>>
  }
  \score {
\new StaffGroup <<
  \new Staff {
... (the coda)
\markDefault % starts from A, undesired
...
 }
>>
  }

An example to overcome this is provided in
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/bars
namely to use something like
\mark #8

but I would like to reset the counter before starting writing the coda
and if I use "\mark #3", then this prints out an unboxed mark at the
place where I don't want it.

Surely I can just use
\stdMarkFormat
\mark #4
at the place where I wanted a boxed D, but that somehow defeats the
purpose of macros.

Is there a way to just set the counter without printing the mark
itself? (I would like to set the counter at the beginning of Coda and
then use \markDefault where appropriate just like everywhere else.)

Documentation points to
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/internals/rehearsalmark
but I don't see any obvious way to set the number.

Thank you,
Mojca

PS: An alternative question would be

How to break the score without introducing 'artificial pauses'
like 'hide everything, then \repeat unfold 3 { s1 }' as in
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=190

but it makes sense to ask this separately.

PPS: please CC me.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: programming error: no solution found for Bezier intersection

[Andrew Bernard]

Hello Federico,

FWIW, this compiles cleanly on 2.19.50 under Linux Mint, using the standard
distribution version. Not sure whether this fact is of any help.

Andrew




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user