Re: Articulation sign in Haydn

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Dear Joram,

thanks much for the comprehensive answer! For the moment I'll go ahead 
with solution 3, slightly modified:


haydnOrnament = ^\markup \translate #'(-0.2 . 0) { \override 
#'(font-name . "Century Schoolbook L") \combine \fontsize #3 "~" \teeny 
\translate #'(0.39 . 0.2) "|" }


(This is because I use a different default roman font.)

Best
Lukas


Am 04.04.2018 um 23:23 schrieb Noeck:

Dear Lukas,

it is a "Haydn ornament" which is to my knowledge not in the Feta font
(Lilypond music font):
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/the-feta-font
It is in the Bravura font (SMuFL position U+E52F):
https://www.smufl.org/version/latest/glyph/ornamentHaydn/

According to this source (pate 117):
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194=ppr
it is “sometimes a four-note turn and sometimes a three-note mordent.”

I see at least three options:
1. Use a \turn or \mordent
2. Use the symbol from Bravura (there is something like \smuflglyph
"ornamentHaydn" if you use openlilylib)
3. Create your own symbol from existing glyphs like:
   { d'^\markup \combine \huge "~" \teeny \translate #'(0.35 . 0.2) "|" }


Cheers,
Joram


___
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: Articulation sign in Haydn

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Mark,

this is from Haydn's 13th symphony (D major), 1st movement, for instance 
bar 12 (Haydn complete works edition, Henle 1990).


Lukas


Am 04.04.2018 um 23:59 schrieb Mark Stephen Mrotek:


Lukas,

In which score did you see this ornament?

Mark

*From:*lilypond-user 
[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] *On Behalf 
Of *Lukas-Fabian Moser

*Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2018 1:26 PM
*To:* lilypond-user 
*Subject:* Articulation sign in Haydn

Dear all,

in a Haydn score I encountered the following articulation sign:

Is there a way to obtain this with Lilypond? I didn't succeed in 
searching the manuals and the LSR.


Best
Lukas



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

Re: Exited with return code -1073741819

[Helge Kruse]

Am 05.04.2018 4:35 vorm. schrieb "David Wright" :


> > It seems that beyond a certain level of complexity I get Exit. In the
> > current example it's return code -1073741819, but it can be other codes.

Googling 1073741819 is jaw-dropping. I don't think you'll find out
anything specific from that particular code.

Well, using a search machine to find an error code interpretation is not
necesdarily sensible. The number -1073741819 (a bit different) can also
represented as 0xC005 assuming thar the program use a 32 bit number
range.
That error code is a composition of the error number (5: access denied) and
the error class. 0xC000 stands for generic error.
So all you get from the code is "access denied". The actual error can only
be found if Lilypond issues the function that returned this code. Do you
think that the complete error message could be shared?
I also wonder why the error codes are displayed as decimal numbers.
Wouldn't it improve tge user experience if the code is readable?

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

Re: Exited with return code -1073741819

[Karlin High]

On 4/4/2018 10:40 PM, Bruce Daniel wrote:
The problem only occurs when I take a song already (successfully) scored 
as a volta of 3 to 5 verses and split it into two back-to-back voltas to 
make for easier sight reading.


You will get better help if a tiny example is provided.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

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

Re: Exited with return code -1073741819

[Bruce Daniel]

Thanks David and Harm.
Before troubling you more I will try 2.19.81. In fact I am already using
2.18.1.

The .ly file was 24 KB.
The problem only occurs when I take a song already (successfully) scored as
a volta of 3 to 5 verses and split it into two back-to-back voltas to make
for easier sight reading.

Cheers, Bruce

On 5 April 2018 at 12:35, David Wright  wrote:

> On Sun 01 Apr 2018 at 07:13:10 (+1000), Bruce Daniel wrote:
> > Just a bit more information.
> > The problem only occurs when I have two volta sections back to back.
> > Cheers, Bruce
> >
> > On 31 March 2018 at 20:41, Bruce Daniel  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lilypond users,
> > >
> > > I've come across a recurring problem with strophic songs I'm working
> on.
> > > It seems that beyond a certain level of complexity I get Exit. In the
> > > current example it's return code -1073741819, but it can be other
> codes.
>
> Googling 1073741819 is jaw-dropping. I don't think you'll find out
> anything specific from that particular code.
>
> > > If the engrave fails, I can delete some words from one verse which
> allows
> > > me to add words to another verse. This suggests to me a limiting file
> size
> > > or level of complexity. I've had this problem now with 2 or 3 songs in
> a
> > > 20-song cycle I am working on.
>
> Presumably you get these errors when you're compiling a single song?
>
> > > The strophic songs are complex in that there
> > > are lots of "splits" in the vocal line due to different scanning of the
> > > words in different verses.
>
> It might be worth knowing what you mean here, and how you're "splitting".
>
> > > I am currently half a verse from the end of the last song and cannot
> > > manage to finish it! I admit to having no clue as to where the fault is
> > > coming from. Obviously a tiny example will not simulate it, so
> > > unfortunately I can only attach the whole song.
>
> How large is the source file? The image files that people post here
> should easily exceed the size of LP source files. I plead guilty to
> once posting 267KB.
>
> > > You should find (I have
> > > tried this on 2 computers, both Windows 10) that adding a word or two
> to
> > > the last verse will cause the error. Then delete a word or two from the
> > > previous verse and it will work again.
>
> It would appear that any sort of nudge can be enough to "fix" things
> (ie avoid whatever causes the error). For example, removing trailing
> whitespace from the source is reported as fixing a "similar" problem
> here:
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2017-07/msg00308.html
>
> > > Any help you can give would be much appreciated; the project has been a
> > > lot of work and the finishing line is in sight!
> > >
> > > Lilypond version 2.16.0
>
> I agree with Harm: upgrade. With an error like this, running the
> source through convert-ly even only as far as 2.18.2 might be enough
> to allow it to compile.
>
> > > PS: the effort to learn Lilypond was absolutely worth the effort. The
> joy
> > > of seeing these completed scores of Shubert's music I cannot describe;
> no
> > > other software comes close! Congratulations to all the developers.
>
> Seconded.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Exited with return code -1073741819

[David Wright]

On Sun 01 Apr 2018 at 07:13:10 (+1000), Bruce Daniel wrote:
> Just a bit more information.
> The problem only occurs when I have two volta sections back to back.
> Cheers, Bruce
> 
> On 31 March 2018 at 20:41, Bruce Daniel  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Lilypond users,
> >
> > I've come across a recurring problem with strophic songs I'm working on.
> > It seems that beyond a certain level of complexity I get Exit. In the
> > current example it's return code -1073741819, but it can be other codes.

Googling 1073741819 is jaw-dropping. I don't think you'll find out
anything specific from that particular code.

> > If the engrave fails, I can delete some words from one verse which allows
> > me to add words to another verse. This suggests to me a limiting file size
> > or level of complexity. I've had this problem now with 2 or 3 songs in a
> > 20-song cycle I am working on.

Presumably you get these errors when you're compiling a single song?

> > The strophic songs are complex in that there
> > are lots of "splits" in the vocal line due to different scanning of the
> > words in different verses.

It might be worth knowing what you mean here, and how you're "splitting".

> > I am currently half a verse from the end of the last song and cannot
> > manage to finish it! I admit to having no clue as to where the fault is
> > coming from. Obviously a tiny example will not simulate it, so
> > unfortunately I can only attach the whole song.

How large is the source file? The image files that people post here
should easily exceed the size of LP source files. I plead guilty to
once posting 267KB.

> > You should find (I have
> > tried this on 2 computers, both Windows 10) that adding a word or two to
> > the last verse will cause the error. Then delete a word or two from the
> > previous verse and it will work again.

It would appear that any sort of nudge can be enough to "fix" things
(ie avoid whatever causes the error). For example, removing trailing
whitespace from the source is reported as fixing a "similar" problem
here:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2017-07/msg00308.html

> > Any help you can give would be much appreciated; the project has been a
> > lot of work and the finishing line is in sight!
> >
> > Lilypond version 2.16.0

I agree with Harm: upgrade. With an error like this, running the
source through convert-ly even only as far as 2.18.2 might be enough
to allow it to compile.

> > PS: the effort to learn Lilypond was absolutely worth the effort. The joy
> > of seeing these completed scores of Shubert's music I cannot describe; no
> > other software comes close! Congratulations to all the developers.

Seconded.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Filip,

As an 18c specialist myself and harpsichord player, I would not be
attempting to mimic Bach's musical handwriting. There's really no need. And
for people not familiar with that idiosyncrasy you will confuse them, as it
is non standard. My aim in engraving is clarity for the player, and this
idea takes it away. Besides, if you really want to do Bach manuscripts then
pretty soon you need curvilinear tapered beams (which we don't have).
Engraving is a different medium to handwriting. I don't think you have to
mirror it.

Nevertheless, give it a couple of days and I am sure the learned colleagues
on the list will cook something up for you! :-)

In any case, welcome to the Pond!

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

Corrected: Beaming in LilyPond

[Filip May'r]

Hello all,


I am a new user of LilyPond and so far have found it to be a great tool. It is 
relatively easy to learn (at least the basics), free and extensive.


May I suggest an added feature: An option to stack additional note beams for 
shorter note values on the opposite side of the first beam, that is, stacking 
up (or down) away from, instead of toward, the note head.


I ran into this problem when transcribing Bach's double violin concerto using 
LilyPond.


This is the bar (31) in the manuscript:


[cid:9b5e704f-57ea-4303-a1b6-85c7b6f3b376]


Specifically the issue is with the 2nd and 3rd (c & d) notes into the bar:


[cid:78da67db-956e-426a-9c10-ac2ec1e02d07]


Attempting the usual stem direction changes and manual beaming results in this:


[cid:3140f8dd-91e4-4abc-90bf-f3b40c80d3ea]

The 16th note beam collides with the c and d note heads!


I have not found how to correct this. However, a feature that would simply 
allow that the diminutive note value beams stack down away from the note head 
would fix this very neatly. To further demonstrate: I will change the 16th 
notes in the bar to 32nd notes:


[cid:32410ce8-bd8e-4a2a-876c-e4e6ea467660]

For every halving of the note value an additional beam is stacked up going up 
toward the note head. In such circumstance as the above examples demonstrate it 
would be ideal that those beams would stack going down away from the note head, 
toward the bottom of the staff, exactly what is done in the handwritten copy.


If anyone knows or finds a work-around to this, please share.


Regards

- F.M.




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

Re:DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding in temporary polyphony

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Thomas Morley 
> Subject: Re: DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding in temporary polyphony
> 2018-04-04 7:30 GMT+02:00 Flaming Hakama by Elaine <
> ela...@flaminghakama.com>:
> >
> >>
> >> I am not top posting
> >
> >
> >
> > HI.
> >
> > Please let me know if you can answer this question.
> >
> > I am using temporary voices to set horizontal dynamic spacing.  Which
> works
> > fine.
> > But the side effect is that the dynamics in the second voice don't obey
> > DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding
> >
> > How can I get the dynamics on the second voice to obey the staff padding?
> >
> > \version "2.19.15"
> >
> > \new Staff {
> > \override DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding = #3.0
> > \relative c' {
> >  f1\p
> >  <<
> >  \relative c' { f1 } \\
> >
> >  %  How do I get this voice to obey the DynamicLineSpanner.staff-
> padding
> > ?
> >  { s1\p }
> >  >>
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
> > (The actual version I'm running is 2.19.81)
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > David Elaine Alt
>
> \version "2.19.81"
>
> % The << \\ >> construct creates two new Voices named "1" and "2".
> % The override before is in an unnamed Voices and only working in this
> Voice.
> % I'll demonstrate with colors:
>
> %% Default
> {
>   \override DynamicText.color = #red
>   f'1\p
>   <<
>   f'1
>   \\
>   s\p
>   >>
> }
>
> %% Apply to new Voice as well
> {
>   \override DynamicText.color = #red
>   f'1\p
>   <<
>   f'1
>   \\
>   { \override DynamicText.color = #red s\p }
>   >>
> }
>
> %% Initiate \new Voice  = "2" and put the override in \with { }
> %% Keep it alive
> \new Staff <<
>   \new Voice  = "2"
>   \with { \override DynamicText.color = #red }
>   s1*2
>
>   {
> \override DynamicText.color = #red
> f'1\p
> <<
> f'1
> \\
> s\p
> >>
>   }
> >>
>
>
> %% Use named Voices and apply \voices
> \new Voice = "main" {
>   \override DynamicText.color = #red
>   f'1\p
>   \voices 1,main
>   <<
>   f'1
>   \\
>   s\p
>   >>
> }
>
> %% or manually
> \new Voice = "main" {
>   \override DynamicText.color = #red
>   f'1\p
>   <<
>   f'1
>   \\
>   \context Voice = "main" s\p
>   >>
> }
>
> %% Use \layout
> \score {
>   {
> f'1\p
> <<
> f'1
> \\
> s\p
> >>
>   }
>   \layout {
>   %% Using \context { \Voice ... } } is actually not needed here.
>   %% The override is already in a Bottom-context
>   \context {
> \Voice
>   \override DynamicText.color = #red
> }
>   }
> }
>
> %% Apply the override in Staff-context via \with
> \new Staff \with { \override DynamicText.color = #red }
> {
>   f'1\p
>   <<
>   f'1
>   \\
>   s\p
>   >>
> }
>
> %% Probably easiest
> %% Don't use << ... \\ ... >> to avoid creation of new Voices
> {
>   \override DynamicText.color = #red
>   f'1\p
>   <<
>   f'1
>   s\p
>   >>
> }
>
>
> HTH,
>   Harm
>




Thanks for the clear and thorough explanation, with so many options!

Since I am interested in this override for all voices on the staff, it
probably makes more semantic sense for me to use the layout context or \new
Staff \with { \override ... }.

However, I will probably go with << {} {} >> instead of << {} \\ {} >>,
since I suspect that it might help me also avoid having to fiddle with the
stem and slur directions.


Thanks,

David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: \rounded-box vs. \box in text markup

[Emilio Millan]

Thanks, Ben, for that recommendation. It definitely could work. Plus
it got me to stumble on a couple of other possible options. It looks
like in my example, either of the following would also work:

\override Score.SpacingSpanner.shortest-duration-space = #4.5

\override TextScript.outside-staff-priority = ##f

They would have to be used with some care in a more complex context,
but better to have the tools than not.

Thanks again!
Emilio


On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:42 PM, Emilio Millan  wrote:
> Hi all. I'm a fairly new user so I may be missing something obvious.
>
> In the following example, is there a way to "snug up" the rounded boxes over
> the second note so that they are vertically spaced like the boxes over the
> first note?
>
> \version "2.19.80"
> {
>   f''2^\markup{\box "1"}^\markup{\box "2"}^\markup{\box "3"}
>   f''2^\markup{\rounded-box "1"}^\markup{\rounded-box
> "2"}^\markup{\rounded-box "3"}
> }
>
> Regards,
> Emilio

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

Re: Clefs

[Shane Brandes]

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/tas3/musoffcanons.html


On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:32 PM, Ben  wrote:
> On 4/4/2018 8:29 PM, Shane Brandes wrote:
>
> No it is a mirror image that indicates retrograde. Not on that page.
>
> S.
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Ben  wrote:
>
> On 4/4/2018 6:04 PM, Ethan Sue wrote:
>
> Hello
> I am transcribing some baroque canons. Does anyone know how to make upside
> down/backwards clefs?
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Do you have a picture of what exactly you mean?
> Is the clef you want featured anywhere on this page?
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/clef-styles
>
>
>
> Do have you a photo of the clef?
>
>

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

Re: Clefs

[Ben]

On 4/4/2018 8:29 PM, Shane Brandes wrote:

No it is a mirror image that indicates retrograde. Not on that page.

S.

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Ben  wrote:

On 4/4/2018 6:04 PM, Ethan Sue wrote:

Hello
I am transcribing some baroque canons. Does anyone know how to make upside
down/backwards clefs?



Hello,

Do you have a picture of what exactly you mean?
Is the clef you want featured anywhere on this page?

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/clef-styles




Do have you a photo of the clef?


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

Re: Clefs

[Shane Brandes]

No it is a mirror image that indicates retrograde. Not on that page.

S.

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Ben  wrote:
> On 4/4/2018 6:04 PM, Ethan Sue wrote:
>
> Hello
> I am transcribing some baroque canons. Does anyone know how to make upside
> down/backwards clefs?
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Do you have a picture of what exactly you mean?
> Is the clef you want featured anywhere on this page?
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/clef-styles
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: rounded-boxes and \textLengthOn

[Ben]

On 4/4/2018 7:44 PM, Emilio Millan wrote:

Hi again all. I've got another question.

The LilyPond code below produces the music in the attached image file.

The first three measures are, I think, correct behavior and the fourth
is not. (Pretty obscure, I'd admit.)

Can anyone think of a workaround to use rounded-boxes as in the fourth
measure but without the stair-stepping?

Thanks!
Emilio



\version "2.19.81"

{
   \time 2/4
   \textLengthOn

   c8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}

   c8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}

   c8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}

   c8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
}

Attached photo is correct, sorry my internet has been wonky tonight, no 
clue why it wasn't sending correctly these times.


Does this help get the layout correct?

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

Re: rounded-boxes and \textLengthOn

[Ben]

On 4/4/2018 7:44 PM, Emilio Millan wrote:

Hi again all. I've got another question.

The LilyPond code below produces the music in the attached image file.

The first three measures are, I think, correct behavior and the fourth
is not. (Pretty obscure, I'd admit.)

Can anyone think of a workaround to use rounded-boxes as in the fourth
measure but without the stair-stepping?

Thanks!
Emilio



\version "2.19.81"

{
   \time 2/4
   \textLengthOn

   c8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}

   c8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}

   c8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}

   c8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
}



Sorry, I pasted the wrong code in my last email...half asleep :)
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: rounded-boxes and \textLengthOn

[Ben]

On 4/4/2018 7:44 PM, Emilio Millan wrote:

Hi again all. I've got another question.

The LilyPond code below produces the music in the attached image file.

The first three measures are, I think, correct behavior and the fourth
is not. (Pretty obscure, I'd admit.)

Can anyone think of a workaround to use rounded-boxes as in the fourth
measure but without the stair-stepping?

Thanks!
Emilio



\version "2.19.81"

{
   \time 2/4
   \textLengthOn

   c8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}

   c8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}

   c8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}

   c8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
   d8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
   e8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
   f8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
}



Hi,

You could tweak something like this in a layout block maybe?

\layout {
    \context {
  \Score
  proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1/20)
    }
  }

(see attached)


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

rounded-boxes and \textLengthOn

[Emilio Millan]

Hi again all. I've got another question.

The LilyPond code below produces the music in the attached image file.

The first three measures are, I think, correct behavior and the fourth
is not. (Pretty obscure, I'd admit.)

Can anyone think of a workaround to use rounded-boxes as in the fourth
measure but without the stair-stepping?

Thanks!
Emilio



\version "2.19.81"

{
  \time 2/4
  \textLengthOn

  c8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
  d8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
  e8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}
  f8^\markup{\dir-column {+1 +2 +3}}

  c8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
  d8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
  e8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}
  f8^\markup{\dir-column \box {+1 +2 +3}}

  c8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
  d8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
  e8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}
  f8^\markup{\dir-column \circle {+1 +2 +3}}

  c8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
  d8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
  e8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
  f8^\markup{\dir-column \rounded-box {+1 +2 +3}}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Clefs

[Ben]

On 4/4/2018 6:04 PM, Ethan Sue wrote:

Hello
I am transcribing some baroque canons. Does anyone know how to make 
upside down/backwards clefs?





Hello,

Do you have a picture of what exactly you mean?
Is the clef you want featured anywhere on this page?

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/clef-styles


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

Clefs

[Ethan Sue]

Hello
I am transcribing some baroque canons. Does anyone know how to make upside
down/backwards clefs?
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: Articulation sign in Haydn

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

Simon,

Realized on closer look.
Regret the misdirection.

Mark

-Original Message-
From: Simon Albrecht [mailto:simon.albre...@mail.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:01 PM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek ; 'Lukas-Fabian Moser' 
; 'lilypond-user' 
Subject: Re: Articulation sign in Haydn

On 04.04.2018 23:44, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote:
>
> Does this work?
>
> \version "2.19.80"
>
> \relative c'' {
>
>   \grace {a'4} g2\mordent
>
> }
>

Of course it works, but it’s a different ornament.

Best, Simon


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

RE: Articulation sign in Haydn

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

Lukas, 

 

In which score did you see this ornament?

 

Mark

 

From: lilypond-user [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] 
On Behalf Of Lukas-Fabian Moser
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 1:26 PM
To: lilypond-user 
Subject: Articulation sign in Haydn

 

Dear all,

in a Haydn score I encountered the following articulation sign:



 

Is there a way to obtain this with Lilypond? I didn't succeed in searching the 
manuals and the LSR.

Best
Lukas

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

Re: Articulation sign in Haydn

[Simon Albrecht]

On 04.04.2018 23:44, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote:


Does this work?

\version "2.19.80"

\relative c'' {

  \grace {a'4} g2\mordent

}



Of course it works, but it’s a different ornament.

Best, Simon

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

RE: Articulation sign in Haydn

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

Lukas,

 

Does this work?

 

\version "2.19.80"

\relative c'' {

  \grace {a'4} g2\mordent 

}

 

Mark

 

From: lilypond-user [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] 
On Behalf Of Lukas-Fabian Moser
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 1:26 PM
To: lilypond-user 
Subject: Articulation sign in Haydn

 

Dear all,

in a Haydn score I encountered the following articulation sign:



 

Is there a way to obtain this with Lilypond? I didn't succeed in searching the 
manuals and the LSR.

Best
Lukas

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

Re: Articulation sign in Haydn

[Noeck]

Dear Lukas,

it is a "Haydn ornament" which is to my knowledge not in the Feta font
(Lilypond music font):
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/the-feta-font
It is in the Bravura font (SMuFL position U+E52F):
https://www.smufl.org/version/latest/glyph/ornamentHaydn/

According to this source (pate 117):
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194=ppr
it is “sometimes a four-note turn and sometimes a three-note mordent.”

I see at least three options:
1. Use a \turn or \mordent
2. Use the symbol from Bravura (there is something like \smuflglyph
"ornamentHaydn" if you use openlilylib)
3. Create your own symbol from existing glyphs like:
  { d'^\markup \combine \huge "~" \teeny \translate #'(0.35 . 0.2) "|" }


Cheers,
Joram


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

Re: Problem with a font

[Simon Albrecht]

On 03.04.2018 17:30, Walter Garcia-Fontes wrote:

Just a question, sorry if it is obvious, what do you mean by
"typographic apostrophes/quotation marks"?


Wikipedia is very good on that topic:



Best, Simon

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

Re: Making a \layout definition in Scheme

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.04.2018 um 22:31 schrieb David Kastrup:

Urs Liska  writes:


Am 04.04.2018 um 19:25 schrieb David Kastrup:

Urs Liska  writes:


OK, but now I have a follow-up question which is quite similar to my
other post from today (and I'm afraid the answer is similarly
embarrassing):

I managed to install an editionID to a specific movement's score with
this code:

(ly:score-add-output-def! score
  #{
\layout {
  \context {
\Score
#(editionID #f movement-path)
  }
}
  #})

which actually works when I use that "movement-path" variable to
address  in \editionMod later.

However, I would like to be able to also write this without the
permanent switches,

Permanent switches?  Huh?

Well, 'permanent' is of course the wrong word. What I'm (somewhat)
taking issue with is switching languages back and forth within one
expression.

Because?


Only because it's starting to become a somewhat alien element in the 
main body of the files. So basically a cosmetic issue (which I've 
dropped in the meantime, as said in my previous post).



i.e. in pure Scheme syntax.

Why?  Seriously.

My project library is getting more and more pure Scheme code, and
while sometimes I wonder if it's worth the effort it usually turns out
to do so, for example because things immediately become easier to
maintain or extend afterwards.

How so?



(make-kayser-score
 (make-grouped-staves 'GrandStaff
   'clarino-one 'clarino-two 'corno-one 'corno-two)
 'tympano
 (make-grouped-staves 'ChoirStaff 'soprano 'alto 'tenor 'bass)
 (make-grouped-staves 'StaffGroup
   (make-grouped-staves 'GrandStaff 'violin-one 'violin-two 'viola)
   'bc

(https://git.openlilylib.org/bfsc/kayser/blob/master/includes/lib/make-score.ily#L57)
is the result of the LilyPond=>Scheme condensation process. It still 
"features" a hard-coded score structure which is not an issue in the 
current project but which I want to replace with a parametric and 
template based infrastructure to produce scores. This code is a much 
better starting point for this than the original "LilyPond" version in 
https://git.openlilylib.org/bfsc/kayser/blob/5edb9fb11d1f462c19864614d75d9b9d3665e61b/includes/lib/make-score.ily





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

Re: Making a \layout definition in Scheme

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska  writes:

> Am 04.04.2018 um 19:25 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska  writes:
>>
>>> OK, but now I have a follow-up question which is quite similar to my
>>> other post from today (and I'm afraid the answer is similarly
>>> embarrassing):
>>>
>>> I managed to install an editionID to a specific movement's score with
>>> this code:
>>>
>>>(ly:score-add-output-def! score
>>>  #{
>>>\layout {
>>>  \context {
>>>\Score
>>>#(editionID #f movement-path)
>>>  }
>>>}
>>>  #})
>>>
>>> which actually works when I use that "movement-path" variable to
>>> address  in \editionMod later.
>>>
>>> However, I would like to be able to also write this without the
>>> permanent switches,
>> Permanent switches?  Huh?
>
> Well, 'permanent' is of course the wrong word. What I'm (somewhat)
> taking issue with is switching languages back and forth within one
> expression.

Because?

>>> i.e. in pure Scheme syntax.
>> Why?  Seriously.
>
> My project library is getting more and more pure Scheme code, and
> while sometimes I wonder if it's worth the effort it usually turns out
> to do so, for example because things immediately become easier to
> maintain or extend afterwards.

How so?

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Articulation sign in Haydn

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Dear all,

in a Haydn score I encountered the following articulation sign:


Is there a way to obtain this with Lilypond? I didn't succeed in 
searching the manuals and the LSR.


Best
Lukas

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

Re: Making a \layout definition in Scheme

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.04.2018 um 19:25 schrieb David Kastrup:

Urs Liska  writes:


OK, but now I have a follow-up question which is quite similar to my
other post from today (and I'm afraid the answer is similarly
embarrassing):

I managed to install an editionID to a specific movement's score with
this code:

   (ly:score-add-output-def! score
 #{
   \layout {
 \context {
   \Score
   #(editionID #f movement-path)
 }
   }
 #})

which actually works when I use that "movement-path" variable to
address  in \editionMod later.

However, I would like to be able to also write this without the
permanent switches,

Permanent switches?  Huh?


Well, 'permanent' is of course the wrong word. What I'm (somewhat) 
taking issue with is switching languages back and forth within one 
expression.





i.e. in pure Scheme syntax.

Why?  Seriously.


My project library is getting more and more pure Scheme code, and while 
sometimes I wonder if it's worth the effort it usually turns out to do 
so, for example because things immediately become easier to maintain or 
extend afterwards.


So that's why I'm looking for ways to "smoothen" code snippets like the 
one listed above.





But unlike \key I can't simply "call" layout.

My impression (after looking at the Scheme functions reference page
and a number of source files) is that I could use (ly:make-output-def)
to create the output definition and then use
ly:output-def-set-variable! to achieve the goal.

An output definition created from scratch will be neither layout
definition, midi definition, nor paper block.  You are better off
copying an existing template.  Which is what #{ \layout ... #} does
($defaultlayout or something like that).


But after trying out a number of things I must admit I don't get to an
  end with it.

So again I have to hope for any hint ...

If you want to replace the parser with your own Scheme code, your best
bet is to look in lily/parser.yy and check what the actual parser code
does.  There is no user-level documentation for rewriting any LilyPond
code in Scheme.  Because it would be sort-of pointless given the
user-level #{ ... #} construct.


The file I'm working on is only halfway "user-level", since it's the 
machinery hidden from the user in a black box.
However, considering your comments above I assume that in *this* case 
it's the better choice to simply leave it as it is.


Urs



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

Re: Changed dim chord name

[Ben]

On 4/4/2018 2:11 PM, Joseph Austin wrote:

Is there a way to change the printed name for a dim7 chord from  Xº to Xdim7 ?
I saw this question asked in an archive but didn't see an answer.





Hi,

I guess you mean something like this?
(see attached)

\version "2.19.80"

\language "english"

chExceptionMusic =  { 4-\markup { \super "dim7" } }

chExceptions = #(append
 (sequential-music-to-chord-exceptions chExceptionMusic #t)
 ignatzekExceptions)

<<
    \chords { \set chordNameExceptions = #chExceptions gs4:dim7 }
    gs'4
>>


(http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/chord-dim7-td14428.html)


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

Changed dim chord name

[Joseph Austin]

Is there a way to change the printed name for a dim7 chord from  Xº to Xdim7 ?
I saw this question asked in an archive but didn't see an answer.



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

Re: Making a \layout definition in Scheme

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska  writes:

> OK, but now I have a follow-up question which is quite similar to my
> other post from today (and I'm afraid the answer is similarly
> embarrassing):
>
> I managed to install an editionID to a specific movement's score with
> this code:
>
>   (ly:score-add-output-def! score
> #{
>   \layout {
> \context {
>   \Score
>   #(editionID #f movement-path)
> }
>   }
> #})
>
> which actually works when I use that "movement-path" variable to
> address  in \editionMod later.
>
> However, I would like to be able to also write this without the
> permanent switches,

Permanent switches?  Huh?

> i.e. in pure Scheme syntax.

Why?  Seriously.

> But unlike \key I can't simply "call" layout.
>
> My impression (after looking at the Scheme functions reference page
> and a number of source files) is that I could use (ly:make-output-def)
> to create the output definition and then use
> ly:output-def-set-variable! to achieve the goal.

An output definition created from scratch will be neither layout
definition, midi definition, nor paper block.  You are better off
copying an existing template.  Which is what #{ \layout ... #} does
($defaultlayout or something like that).

> But after trying out a number of things I must admit I don't get to an
>  end with it.
>
> So again I have to hope for any hint ...

If you want to replace the parser with your own Scheme code, your best
bet is to look in lily/parser.yy and check what the actual parser code
does.  There is no user-level documentation for rewriting any LilyPond
code in Scheme.  Because it would be sort-of pointless given the
user-level #{ ... #} construct.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Making a \layout definition in Scheme (was: edition-engraver and multiple scores)

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.04.2018 um 12:17 schrieb Urs Liska:



Am 04.04.2018 um 10:32 schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:

... there is a function
ly:score-add-output-def!
to add layout- and midi-blocks to a score object.

Cheers
Jan-Peter


Thanks, this finally is what I should have been looking for!
Bess
Urs



OK, but now I have a follow-up question which is quite similar to my 
other post from today (and I'm afraid the answer is similarly embarrassing):


I managed to install an editionID to a specific movement's score with 
this code:


  (ly:score-add-output-def! score
#{
  \layout {
\context {
  \Score
  #(editionID #f movement-path)
}
  }
#})

which actually works when I use that "movement-path" variable to 
address  in \editionMod later.


However, I would like to be able to also write this without the 
permanent switches, i.e. in pure Scheme syntax.

But unlike \key I can't simply "call" layout.

My impression (after looking at the Scheme functions reference page and 
a number of source files) is that I could use (ly:make-output-def) to 
create the output definition and then use ly:output-def-set-variable! to 
achieve the goal. But after trying out a number of things I must admit I 
don't get to an end with it.


So again I have to hope for any hint ...

Best
Urs

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

Re: Issue a key change in Scheme syntax

[Thomas Morley]

2018-04-04 17:08 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> Urs Liska  writes:

> It's confusing for experienced users but
> not for beginners.
>
> It's designed to work as expected, for completely unrealistic
> expectations.
>
>> Arrgh.
>
> You got that right.
>
> --
> David Kastrup

ROFL

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

Re: Issue a key change in Scheme syntax

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska  writes:

> Am 04.04.2018 um 13:17 schrieb David Kastrup:

[...]

>>> Is it possible to write the Scheme function issuing the key change
>>> with the pitch and the generic mode as input?
>> (key-signature
>>   (key
>> (get-meta-option base-path 'key-tonic)
>> (get-meta-option base-path 'key-mode)))
>>
>> Obviously I am missing something here.
>
> No.
>
>>
>> Of course, you can also take a look at the definition of \key in
>> ly/music-function-init.ly if you want to stick with 2.18 or something.
>>
>
> I *still* get confused by so many basic things, for example the fact
> that \key, \time etc. are not (all) elements that are directly
> processed by the parser but may be implemented as functions and thus
> can *directly* be called through Scheme syntax.

Well, they _are_ still music functions.  Calling them "through Scheme
syntax" only made good sense once the "parser/location" arguments were
no longer needed.  "key" is _not_ a proper function.  It still is a
music function but it now has an "apply" method that typechecks all the
arguments, caters for optional arguments (if the type doesn't fit or
*unspecified* is given explicitly, the default is used instead) and then
extracts the music function internal function and calls it.

In short: this looks quite more simple and logical and "basic" than it
actually is under the hood.  It's confusing for experienced users but
not for beginners.

It's designed to work as expected, for completely unrealistic
expectations.

> Arrgh.

You got that right.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Using articulate.ly without modifying the visual output

[Gianmaria Lari]

On 4 April 2018 at 13:50, David Kastrup  wrote:

> Paolo Prete  writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to produce from the same .ly file, a .midi file with the
> > articulate.ly script and a .pdf WITHOUT the articulate.ly script.
> >
> > How can I do that?


Just in case you need a working simple example

\version "2.19.81"
\include "articulate.ly"

music = { a b b c'}

\score {\music \layout {}}
\score {\articulate \music \midi {}}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Issue a key change in Scheme syntax

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.04.2018 um 13:17 schrieb David Kastrup:

Urs Liska  writes:


Hi,

in my infrastructure I have a function that binds

(key-signature
  #{
\key
#(get-meta-option base-path 'key-tonic)
#(get-meta-option base-path 'key-mode)
  #})

but I would like to also change this to Scheme syntax (if it makes any
sense after all).

So?  Why don't you do it?


The first call to get-meta-option retrieves a Pitch object, the second
a list ((0 . 0) (1 . 0) (2 . 0) (3 . 0) (4 . 0) (5 . 0) (6 . 0)) which
had been stored as \major.

Obviously \key expects a pitch and a mode, but \displayMusic { \key d
\major } returns


(make-music

'SequentialMusic

'elements

(list (make-music

'KeyChangeEvent

'pitch-alist

(list (cons 1 0)

(cons 2 0)

(cons 3 1/2)

(cons 4 0)

(cons 5 0)

(cons 6 0)

(cons 0 1/2))

'tonic

(ly:make-pitch -1 1

where the steps of the scale obviously have already been "transposed"
to reflect d major.

So?


Is it possible to write the Scheme function issuing the key change
with the pitch and the generic mode as input?

(key-signature
  (key
(get-meta-option base-path 'key-tonic)
(get-meta-option base-path 'key-mode)))

Obviously I am missing something here.


No.



Of course, you can also take a look at the definition of \key in
ly/music-function-init.ly if you want to stick with 2.18 or something.



I *still* get confused by so many basic things, for example the fact 
that \key, \time etc. are not (all) elements that are directly processed 
by the parser but may be implemented as functions and thus can 
*directly* be called through Scheme syntax.


Arrgh.

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

Re: Using articulate.ly without modifying the visual output

[David Kastrup]

Paolo Prete  writes:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to produce from the same .ly file, a .midi file with the
> articulate.ly script and a .pdf WITHOUT the articulate.ly script.
>
> How can I do that?

One \score with a \layout block and one \score with a \midi block.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Issue a key change in Scheme syntax

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska  writes:

> Hi,
>
> in my infrastructure I have a function that binds
>
> (key-signature
>  #{
>\key
>#(get-meta-option base-path 'key-tonic)
>#(get-meta-option base-path 'key-mode)
>  #})
>
> but I would like to also change this to Scheme syntax (if it makes any
> sense after all).

So?  Why don't you do it?

> The first call to get-meta-option retrieves a Pitch object, the second
> a list ((0 . 0) (1 . 0) (2 . 0) (3 . 0) (4 . 0) (5 . 0) (6 . 0)) which
> had been stored as \major.
>
> Obviously \key expects a pitch and a mode, but \displayMusic { \key d
> \major } returns
>
>
> (make-music
>
> 'SequentialMusic
>
> 'elements
>
> (list (make-music
>
> 'KeyChangeEvent
>
> 'pitch-alist
>
> (list (cons 1 0)
>
> (cons 2 0)
>
> (cons 3 1/2)
>
> (cons 4 0)
>
> (cons 5 0)
>
> (cons 6 0)
>
> (cons 0 1/2))
>
> 'tonic
>
> (ly:make-pitch -1 1
>
> where the steps of the scale obviously have already been "transposed"
> to reflect d major.

So?

> Is it possible to write the Scheme function issuing the key change
> with the pitch and the generic mode as input?

(key-signature
 (key
   (get-meta-option base-path 'key-tonic)
   (get-meta-option base-path 'key-mode)))

Obviously I am missing something here.

Of course, you can also take a look at the definition of \key in
ly/music-function-init.ly if you want to stick with 2.18 or something.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Using articulate.ly without modifying the visual output

[Paolo Prete]

Hello,

I would like to produce from the same .ly file, a .midi file with the
articulate.ly script and a .pdf WITHOUT the articulate.ly script.

How can I do that?

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

Issue a key change in Scheme syntax

[Urs Liska]

Hi,

in my infrastructure I have a function that binds

(key-signature
 #{
   \key
   #(get-meta-option base-path 'key-tonic)
   #(get-meta-option base-path 'key-mode)
 #})

but I would like to also change this to Scheme syntax (if it makes any 
sense after all).


The first call to get-meta-option retrieves a Pitch object, the second a 
list ((0 . 0) (1 . 0) (2 . 0) (3 . 0) (4 . 0) (5 . 0) (6 . 0)) which had 
been stored as \major.


Obviously \key expects a pitch and a mode, but \displayMusic { \key d 
\major } returns



(make-music

'SequentialMusic

'elements

(list (make-music

'KeyChangeEvent

'pitch-alist

(list (cons 1 0)

(cons 2 0)

(cons 3 1/2)

(cons 4 0)

(cons 5 0)

(cons 6 0)

(cons 0 1/2))

'tonic

(ly:make-pitch -1 1

where the steps of the scale obviously have already been "transposed" to 
reflect d major.


Is it possible to write the Scheme function issuing the key change with 
the pitch and the generic mode as input?


Should I store something else as input instead?

Or should I simply leave it alone and stick to the interspersed LilyPond 
syntax?


Thanks for any suggestions

Urs

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

Re: edition-engraver and multiple scores

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.04.2018 um 10:32 schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:

... there is a function
ly:score-add-output-def!
to add layout- and midi-blocks to a score object.

Cheers
Jan-Peter


Thanks, this finally is what I should have been looking for!
Bess
Urs

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

Re: DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding in temporary polyphony

[Thomas Morley]

2018-04-04 7:30 GMT+02:00 Flaming Hakama by Elaine :
>
>>
>> I am not top posting
>
>
>
> HI.
>
> Please let me know if you can answer this question.
>
> I am using temporary voices to set horizontal dynamic spacing.  Which works
> fine.
> But the side effect is that the dynamics in the second voice don't obey
> DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding
>
> How can I get the dynamics on the second voice to obey the staff padding?
>
> \version "2.19.15"
>
> \new Staff {
> \override DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding = #3.0
> \relative c' {
>  f1\p
>  <<
>  \relative c' { f1 } \\
>
>  %  How do I get this voice to obey the DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding
> ?
>  { s1\p }
>  >>
> }
> }
>
>
> (The actual version I'm running is 2.19.81)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Elaine Alt

\version "2.19.81"

% The << \\ >> construct creates two new Voices named "1" and "2".
% The override before is in an unnamed Voices and only working in this Voice.
% I'll demonstrate with colors:

%% Default
{
  \override DynamicText.color = #red
  f'1\p
  <<
  f'1
  \\
  s\p
  >>
}

%% Apply to new Voice as well
{
  \override DynamicText.color = #red
  f'1\p
  <<
  f'1
  \\
  { \override DynamicText.color = #red s\p }
  >>
}

%% Initiate \new Voice  = "2" and put the override in \with { }
%% Keep it alive
\new Staff <<
  \new Voice  = "2"
  \with { \override DynamicText.color = #red }
  s1*2

  {
\override DynamicText.color = #red
f'1\p
<<
f'1
\\
s\p
>>
  }
>>


%% Use named Voices and apply \voices
\new Voice = "main" {
  \override DynamicText.color = #red
  f'1\p
  \voices 1,main
  <<
  f'1
  \\
  s\p
  >>
}

%% or manually
\new Voice = "main" {
  \override DynamicText.color = #red
  f'1\p
  <<
  f'1
  \\
  \context Voice = "main" s\p
  >>
}

%% Use \layout
\score {
  {
f'1\p
<<
f'1
\\
s\p
>>
  }
  \layout {
  %% Using \context { \Voice ... } } is actually not needed here.
  %% The override is already in a Bottom-context
  \context {
\Voice
  \override DynamicText.color = #red
}
  }
}

%% Apply the override in Staff-context via \with
\new Staff \with { \override DynamicText.color = #red }
{
  f'1\p
  <<
  f'1
  \\
  s\p
  >>
}

%% Probably easiest
%% Don't use << ... \\ ... >> to avoid creation of new Voices
{
  \override DynamicText.color = #red
  f'1\p
  <<
  f'1
  s\p
  >>
}


HTH,
  Harm

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

Re: edition-engraver and multiple scores

[Jan-Peter Voigt]

... there is a function
ly:score-add-output-def!
to add layout- and midi-blocks to a score object.

Cheers
Jan-Peter

Am 3. April 2018 11:34:58 MESZ schrieb Urs Liska :
>I ran into an issue with the edition-engraver, targeting individual 
>scores when multiple scores are compiled within a bookpart.
>
>It's actually within the 'page-layout' or rather the 'breaks' 
>openLilyLib package, and I can imagine that my issue is related to 
>another one that was raised recently (that either of these packages 
>didn't work well with independent edition-engraver targets).
>
>The 'breaks' package 
>(https://github.com/openlilylib/breaks/blob/master/package.ily)
>installs 
>itself like this:
>
>% Install editionID
>\layout {
>   \context {
> \Score
> \editionID ##f breaks
>   }
>}
>
>which can later (e.g. in the page-layout.conditional-breaks package: 
>https://github.com/openlilylib/page-layout/blob/master/conditional-breaks/module.ily#L113)
>
>be addressed with (for example)
>
>% insert invisible barlines to enable breaks within measures
>\editionModList conditional-breaks breaks.Score.A
>\bar "" #in-measure-breaks
>
>This works perfectly - as long as there is only one score to be 
>compiled. However, if more than one score is compiled (at least in the 
>same bookpart) it seems that all the mods for all scores are merged 
>together, with the result that in each score all the line breaks for
>all 
>scores are applied.
>
>Am I understanding it right that I would have to use \editionID in a 
>layout block that only affects an individual score, giving them 
>individual names?
>
>And how could I do that if I don't have a literal \score {} block but 
>generate the scores like the following 
>(https://git.openlilylib.org/bfsc/kayser/blob/techdoc/includes/lib/engrave.ily#L163)
>
> (ly:book-process
>  workgroup-book ; a \book {} object
>  #{ \paper {} #}  ; non-functional, placeholder
>  $defaultlayout ;; merged from all layout definitions
>  (get-output-name
>
>where 'workgroup-book' is a \book to which multiple bookparts are added
>with
>
>(ly:book-add-bookpart! workgroup-book
>  (ly:make-book-part
>(let ((movements (get-movement-list work-path)))
>  (reverse
>  (append-map
>   list
>   (map (lambda (mvt)
>  (list (makeMovementTitle (append work-path (list mvt)
> movements)
>   (map (lambda (mvt)
> (make-score (append work-path (list mvt
> movements))
>
>where a list of alternating title markups and scores are added to the 
>bookpart, and the scores are created with (at its core)
>
> (ly:make-score
>  (make-music 'SimultaneousMusic 'elements
>(filter
> (lambda (l) (not (null? l)))
> (map (lambda (elt) (staff elt)) elements
>
>
>So IIUC it boils down to the question: how can I apply \editionID (or 
>some equivalent code) to a score that is created with ly:make-score. As
>
>far as I have seen ly:make-score will only accept the music expression 
>and not the \layout {} or \midi {} blocks I can nest within a \score {}
>
>written in LilyPond language.
>And: if I manage to "install" an edition ID within that expression, is 
>it true that I can later address this score specifically?
>
>Thanks for any hints or explanations
>Urs

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user