Re: Empty markup lines behavior change (maybe regression) in dev (2.21.7) than stable (2.20.0)
On 2020-10-07 8:20 pm, Andrew Bernard wrote:
If you use { " " } you will get a blank line, in 2.21.6. I don't know
about
other versions, I only use one.
Something else must be going on, as I cannot reproduce the claimed
behavior.
I am seeing consistently that \line { "" } results in an empty-stencil:
\version "2.18.2"
#(format #t "\nversion=~s" (ly:version))
#(define-markup-command
(measure layout props arg)
(markup?)
(let* ((sten (interpret-markup layout props arg))
(xex (ly:stencil-extent sten X))
(yex (ly:stencil-extent sten Y)))
(format #t "\narg=~s\n\txex=~s\n\tyex=~s" arg xex yex)
sten))
\markup \measure \line { "" }
\markup \measure \line { " " }
\markup \measure \column { \line { "" } \line { "" } }
\markup \measure \column { \line { " " } \line { " " } }
version=(2 18 2)
arg=(# (""))
xex=(+inf.0 . -inf.0)
yex=(+inf.0 . -inf.0)
arg=(# (" "))
xex=(0.0 . 0.614579527559055)
yex=(0.0 . 0.0)
arg=(# ((#line-markup (layout props args)> ("")) (#props args)> (""
xex=(+inf.0 . -inf.0)
yex=(+inf.0 . -inf.0)
arg=(# ((#line-markup (layout props args)> (" ")) (#props args)> (" "
xex=(0.0 . 0.614579527559055)
yex=(-3.0 . 0.0)
Same output for:
version=(2 19 55)
version=(2 20 0)
version=(2 21 6)
-- Aaron Hill
Re: Empty markup lines behavior change (maybe regression) in dev (2.21.7) than stable (2.20.0)
If you use { " " } you will get a blank line, in 2.21.6. I don't know about
other versions, I only use one.
Andrew
Empty markup lines behavior change (maybe regression) in dev (2.21.7) than stable (2.20.0)
Try engrave this ly code:
\version "2.20.0"
>
> \header {
> title = \markup \column {
>\line { "Minuet" }
>\line { "" }
>\line { "" }
> }
> subtitle = "A study in accent and in the correct timing of half beats"
> }
>
{s}
By lilypond v2.20.0:
[image: image.png]
By lilypond v2.21.7:
[image: image.png]
Sometimes a ly code converted from music sheet software (like Finale), and
their composers prone to typeset casually like this. It's better to
keep accordance with the original appearance.
And I noticed that in SVG results of the new version, every individual
element was wrapped by a , what's the design intention? Something will
transform double times?
Re: Note range of a score
On 2020-10-07 5:37 pm, Andrew Bernard wrote: I just need the highest and lowest note, text, is all. From within LilyPond, something like this might work: \version "2.20.0" displayPitchRange = #(define-music-function (music) (ly:music?) (let ((pitches (music-pitches music))) (set! pitches (sort pitches ly:pitch g'2 } The intention is to use \displayPitchRange similar to \displayMusic. The rationale behind this is that I have set a New Complexity score for a newly developed Clarinet D'Amore, which has a wider range than clarinet, and few, if any sampled clarinet VST instruments go beyond a textbook clarinet range, which is not enough, and I need to work out how to deal with that. Everything is always non-standard over here at my desk! Oh, is that anything like the oboe d'amore? There's not much that can be done if your VST instrument is fixed in its logic. It is my opinion that enforcing the range on virtual instruments is a bad idea. Nothing stops someone from retuning or otherwise modifying a real world instrument to extend its natural range. And software should not care in the slightest. Just play a sample at whatever rate the user is telling you. (I suppose the virtual instrument designers are trying to "help" folks understand the normal range of instruments so they do not accidentally orchestrate something that would be unplayable.) Assuming you do not have access to the new instrument to sample it, you will have to seek out a good existing SoundFont/SFZ and then modify the pitch range of the extremal samples to extend them as far as you need. -- Aaron Hill
Re: Setting Gregorian chant: Note spacing for two note neumes seem to depend on length of lyric text
On 2020-10-07 11:03 am, Matthew Fong wrote:
I suppose I could also use markup on the note if it's
a graphical articulation?
I can think of four ways to decorate a note:
\version "2.20.0"
decoMarkup = \markup \circle \normalsize \normal-text !
decoDynamic = #(make-dynamic-script decoMarkup)
decoFingering = \finger \decoMarkup
decoScript = \tweak stencil #ly:text-interface::print
\tweak text \decoMarkup
\staccato
{
\override TextScript.color = #'(0.9 0.4 0.3)
\override Script.color = #'(0.9 0.8 0.3)
\override Fingering.color = #'(0.3 0.8 0.4)
\override DynamicText.color = #'(0.3 0.6 0.9)
\set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
4 \decoScript ^\decoMarkup \decoDynamic
}
TextScript is the most straightforward, although it may require tweaking
to get its positioning as desired. DynamicText aligns differently by
default, so it might be better candidate; however, it assumes the
\dynamic font style which would require use of \normal-text to
counteract.
Fingering and Script are both interesting because they naturally can
exist within the staff lines while still avoiding collisions with other
elements. Fingering both assumes the \number font style and a smaller
font size; so you may need to use both \normal-text and \normalsize, as
demonstrated in the example above.
Customizing Script involves hijacking an existing articulation, so it is
the least "clean" of the options. Note that each articulation has its
own preferred spacing and alignment, so you may need to play around a
bit to find one that matches your needs.
-- Aaron Hill
Re: Note range of a score
Thanks Aaron - that's perfect! Never had need of that before. A great function. Andrew On 8/10/2020 11:22 am, Aaron Hill wrote: Seems like something the Ambitus_engraver would help with.
Re: Note range of a score
I just need the highest and lowest note, text, is all. The rationale behind this is that I have set a New Complexity score for a newly developed Clarinet D'Amore, which has a wider range than clarinet, and few, if any sampled clarinet VST instruments go beyond a textbook clarinet range, which is not enough, and I need to work out how to deal with that. Everything is always non-standard over here at my desk! Andrew On 8/10/2020 11:22 am, Aaron Hill wrote: On 2020-10-07 5:00 pm, Andrew Bernard wrote: Has anybody written a script to find the highest and lowest notes in a part or a score etc? Seems like something the Ambitus_engraver would help with. In what format do you need the information?
Re: Note range of a score
I should add that I use absolute pitch notation exclusively, which makes this an easier proposition for textual processing. On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 at 11:00, Andrew Bernard wrote: > > Has anybody written a script to find the highest and lowest notes in a > part or a score etc?
Re: Note range of a score
On 2020-10-07 5:00 pm, Andrew Bernard wrote: Has anybody written a script to find the highest and lowest notes in a part or a score etc? Seems like something the Ambitus_engraver would help with. In what format do you need the information? -- Aaron Hill
Note range of a score
Has anybody written a script to find the highest and lowest notes in a part or a score etc? Andrew
Re: feature requests: scalable \shape values; (stem) for \shapeII
Le 07/10/2020 à 19:50, Jean Abou Samra a écrit :
Le 07/10/2020 à 18:58, Martín Rincón Botero a écrit :
Hello Jean,
thanks for further exploring the first request. In my experience with
Lilypond 2.20 \shape doesn’t scale with set-global-staff-size either.
I’m already kinda “used” to writing smaller values —my primitive math
only cooperated with me today to figure that I can use fractions to
easily scale numbers when I use a smaller font (with set or magnify),
but I realized it’s not only cumbersome but also a great property
like the (head) mode in \shapeII can’t take advantage of proper
scaling to do its job well, which is a pity. With ‘set’ it might also
be that it works sometimes and sometimes not. I’m pretty sure it
doesn’t reliably scale anyways.
Thank you for opening that issue!
Could you show an example? The images were created using LilyPond
2.19.83 on the following examples:
\version "2.19.83"
{ c'1-\shape #'((0 . 0) (0 . 10) (0 . -10) (0 . 0)) ~ c' }
\version "2.19.83"
#(set-global-staff-size 10)
{ c'1-\shape #'((0 . 0) (0 . 10) (0 . -10) (0 . 0)) ~ c' }
As you can see, the tie does scale properly, compared to the use of
layout-set-staff-size:
The same happens with a recent build.
Best,
Jean
Apparently the images weren't sent properly. You'll find them attached.
Re: Setting Gregorian chant: Note spacing for two note neumes seem to depend on length of lyric text
Hello Aaron,
You're quite right. I don't need to alter the note duration in the scope --
it's simply a graphical articulation I wish to add, like the tenuto.
I actually do prefer the first solution. The second one for falsobordone
(or current problem). I suppose I could also use markup on the note if it's
a graphical articulation?
Many thanks,
mattfong
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 10:06 AM Aaron Hill wrote:
> On 2020-10-07 8:44 am, Matthew Fong wrote:
> > Hello Aaron,
> >
> > I did find an issue with your syllable function. It seems to swallow up
> > dots, that is, if I take your sample code
> > \syllable { a'\( \melisma c'' b'\tenuto \melismaEnd }
> >
> > and add a dot, it is ignored. I am playing around with an episema vs.
> > dot.
> > \syllable { a'4.\( \melisma c'' b'\tenuto \melismaEnd }
>
> The dot is part of the duration, which is overridden by \syllable. In
> fact, \syllable completely ignores any durations that might be
> specified. The intention here is that \syllable is fully responsible
> for defining duration, so as a user you would be advised not to include
> any durations within the music expression.
>
> Do you need the actual rhythmic Dot or simply a dot-shaped articulation?
>
>
>
> Another way of looking at the problem is for a function to manage
> scaling provided music of arbitrary length to fit within the measure.
> This is a significantly easier task from the engineering perspective, as
> LilyPond provides all the building blocks:
>
>
> \version "2.20.0"
>
> fitTo =
> #(define-music-function
>(duration music)
>(ly:duration? ly:music?)
>(ly:music-compress music
> (ly:moment-div
>(ly:duration-length duration)
>(ly:music-length music
>
> { \time 1/4 \hide Staff.BarLine \omit Stem \omit Flag
>\fitTo 4 { a'4\( c'' b'4*3\tenuto }
>\fitTo 4 { a'2 b'2*4\) }
>\fitTo 4 { a'4. c''8-> a'4_( b'4*2) }
>\fitTo 4 { b'\breve } }
> \addlyrics {
>lor -- _ _ em _ i -- _ _ psum
> }
>
>
> The results above are similar to earlier examples I posted in terms of
> spacing and clumping of notes. The added bonus is that different note
> heads are possible, as \syllable only outputs quarter notes. Of course,
> I had to \omit Flag due to the presence of an eighth note in the third
> note group.
>
> \syllable is still much nicer from the user's perspective, as one can
> safely think in terms of pitch only. The above example required me as
> the user to manually compute the durations of notes so that they would
> scale properly and be consistent from measure to measure. Try changing
> the "2*4" in the second note group to "2*3" or "2*5" and note how the
> entire spacing of the piece is impacted.
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>
Re: feature requests: scalable \shape values; (stem) for \shapeII
Le 07/10/2020 à 18:58, Martín Rincón Botero a écrit :
Hello Jean,
thanks for further exploring the first request. In my experience with
Lilypond 2.20 \shape doesn’t scale with set-global-staff-size either.
I’m already kinda “used” to writing smaller values —my primitive math
only cooperated with me today to figure that I can use fractions to
easily scale numbers when I use a smaller font (with set or magnify),
but I realized it’s not only cumbersome but also a great property like
the (head) mode in \shapeII can’t take advantage of proper scaling to
do its job well, which is a pity. With ‘set’ it might also be that it
works sometimes and sometimes not. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t reliably
scale anyways.
Thank you for opening that issue!
Could you show an example? The images were created using LilyPond
2.19.83 on the following examples:
\version "2.19.83"
{ c'1-\shape #'((0 . 0) (0 . 10) (0 . -10) (0 . 0)) ~ c' }
\version "2.19.83"
#(set-global-staff-size 10)
{ c'1-\shape #'((0 . 0) (0 . 10) (0 . -10) (0 . 0)) ~ c' }
As you can see, the tie does scale properly, compared to the use of
layout-set-staff-size:
The same happens with a recent build.
Best,
Jean
Re: Setting Gregorian chant: Note spacing for two note neumes seem to depend on length of lyric text
On 2020-10-07 8:44 am, Matthew Fong wrote:
Hello Aaron,
I did find an issue with your syllable function. It seems to swallow up
dots, that is, if I take your sample code
\syllable { a'\( \melisma c'' b'\tenuto \melismaEnd }
and add a dot, it is ignored. I am playing around with an episema vs.
dot.
\syllable { a'4.\( \melisma c'' b'\tenuto \melismaEnd }
The dot is part of the duration, which is overridden by \syllable. In
fact, \syllable completely ignores any durations that might be
specified. The intention here is that \syllable is fully responsible
for defining duration, so as a user you would be advised not to include
any durations within the music expression.
Do you need the actual rhythmic Dot or simply a dot-shaped articulation?
Another way of looking at the problem is for a function to manage
scaling provided music of arbitrary length to fit within the measure.
This is a significantly easier task from the engineering perspective, as
LilyPond provides all the building blocks:
\version "2.20.0"
fitTo =
#(define-music-function
(duration music)
(ly:duration? ly:music?)
(ly:music-compress music
(ly:moment-div
(ly:duration-length duration)
(ly:music-length music
{ \time 1/4 \hide Staff.BarLine \omit Stem \omit Flag
\fitTo 4 { a'4\( c'' b'4*3\tenuto }
\fitTo 4 { a'2 b'2*4\) }
\fitTo 4 { a'4. c''8-> a'4_( b'4*2) }
\fitTo 4 { b'\breve } }
\addlyrics {
lor -- _ _ em _ i -- _ _ psum
}
The results above are similar to earlier examples I posted in terms of
spacing and clumping of notes. The added bonus is that different note
heads are possible, as \syllable only outputs quarter notes. Of course,
I had to \omit Flag due to the presence of an eighth note in the third
note group.
\syllable is still much nicer from the user's perspective, as one can
safely think in terms of pitch only. The above example required me as
the user to manually compute the durations of notes so that they would
scale properly and be consistent from measure to measure. Try changing
the "2*4" in the second note group to "2*3" or "2*5" and note how the
entire spacing of the piece is impacted.
-- Aaron Hill
Re: feature requests: scalable \shape values; (stem) for \shapeII
Hello Jean, thanks for further exploring the first request. In my experience with Lilypond 2.20 \shape doesn’t scale with set-global-staff-size either. I’m already kinda “used” to writing smaller values —my primitive math only cooperated with me today to figure that I can use fractions to easily scale numbers when I use a smaller font (with set or magnify), but I realized it’s not only cumbersome but also a great property like the (head) mode in \shapeII can’t take advantage of proper scaling to do its job well, which is a pity. With ‘set’ it might also be that it works sometimes and sometimes not. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t reliably scale anyways. Thank you for opening that issue! www.martinrinconbotero.com On 7. Oct 2020, 18:44 +0200, Jean Abou Samra , wrote: > > Now that we’ve been talking about \shape and \shapeII, I would like to ask > > if it’s possible that values put for \shape(II) could scale according to > > staff size. Whenever I have a smaller staff, whatever values work for a 20 > > points staff are too much for smaller staves (either with a smaller font > > size or with \magnify). It would be great, from a user perspective, that a > > (0 . 1) value would produce a similar/proportional result no matter the > > size of the staff, instead of being always in a different “scale” every > > time you have different staff sizes (so that you have to put smaller values > > for smaller staves). That would also be useful if you decide later to > > increase or decrease the font size used. For \shapeII it would mean that > > the (head) attachment would work (instead of making a mess of the score) > > when for example there are different staff sizes in the same score (as in > > piano scores) —this is however my speculation. > > > > My second feature request is for \shapeII. I find it great to have a (head) > > attachment value instead of having to manually calculate how much of an > > offset it would take to bring the slur closer to the head. Consequently, it > > would be nice if you could do the same with (stem) for cases when you have > > a slur that begins/ends above a stem/beam. > > > > Best regards, > > Martín. > Hello, > I believe the first feature request you formulate is actually a bug, because > it does work with set-global-staff-size, but not layout-set-staff-size or > \magnifyStaff. > I opened https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6054. > Best, > Jean
feature requests: scalable \shape values; (stem) for \shapeII
Now that we’ve been talking about \shape and \shapeII, I would like to ask if it’s possible that values put for \shape(II) could scale according to staff size. Whenever I have a smaller staff, whatever values work for a 20 points staff are too much for smaller staves (either with a smaller font size or with \magnify). It would be great, from a user perspective, that a (0 . 1) value would produce a similar/proportional result no matter the size of the staff, instead of being always in a different “scale” every time you have different staff sizes (so that you have to put smaller values for smaller staves). That would also be useful if you decide later to increase or decrease the font size used. For \shapeII it would mean that the (head) attachment would work (instead of making a mess of the score) when for example there are different staff sizes in the same score (as in piano scores) —this is however my speculation. My second feature request is for \shapeII. I find it great to have a (head) attachment value instead of having to manually calculate how much of an offset it would take to bring the slur closer to the head. Consequently, it would be nice if you could do the same with (stem) for cases when you have a slur that begins/ends above a stem/beam. Best regards, Martín. Hello, I believe the first feature request you formulate is actually a bug, because it does work with set-global-staff-size, but not layout-set-staff-size or \magnifyStaff. I opened https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6054. Best, Jean
Re: Setting Gregorian chant: Note spacing for two note neumes seem to depend on length of lyric text
Hello Aaron,
I did find an issue with your syllable function. It seems to swallow up
dots, that is, if I take your sample code
\syllable { a'\( \melisma c'' b'\tenuto \melismaEnd }
and add a dot, it is ignored. I am playing around with an episema vs. dot.
\syllable { a'4.\( \melisma c'' b'\tenuto \melismaEnd }
Many thanks,
mattfong
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 12:48 PM Matthew Fong wrote:
> Holy smokes. This is a thing of beauty.
>
> Thank you Aaron! Not everything notation can be automated away, and I'm
> fine with the flexibility this offers.
>
> Many thanks,
> mattfong
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 11:32 AM Aaron Hill
> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-10-05 10:35 am, Matthew Fong wrote:
>> > Hello Aaron,
>> >
>> > Thank you for your help. That does make sense to me and works out quite
>> > well -- I don't yet have a grasp how various commands and settings are
>> > actually working in LilyPond. I found another example in the LilyPond
>> > documentation that shows the internal representation. Where do I find
>> > this
>> > for input I want to inspect further?
>> >
>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/extending/doubling-a-note-with-slurs-_0028example_0029
>> >
>> > I tested your syllable function with tweaks (like changing a notehead
>> > to a
>> > quilisma), and expressive marks like a tenuto. It appears the current
>> > code
>> > doesn't handle them (this is getting into advanced territory much more
>> > quickly than I expected).
>>
>> Argh... I feared you might want to go in that direction. Simple runs of
>> pitches are rarely enough. :/
>>
>> Here's a more generalized approach that modifies durations, preserving
>> other events and properties:
>>
>>
>> \version "2.20.0"
>>
>> syllable =
>> #(define-music-function
>>(notes)
>>(ly:music?)
>>;; Adjust this number to support longer runs of notes.
>>(define denominator 5)
>>(let ((dur (ly:make-duration 2 0 1 denominator))
>> (count 0)
>> (last '()))
>> (for-some-music
>>(lambda (m)
>> (if (music-is-of-type? m 'rhythmic-event)
>>(begin
>> (set! count (1+ count))
>> (set! last m)
>> (ly:music-set-property! m 'duration dur)
>> #t)
>>#f))
>>notes)
>> (if (ly:music? last)
>>(ly:music-set-property! last
>> 'duration
>> (ly:make-duration 2 0
>>(- denominator (1- count))
>>denominator)))
>> notes))
>>
>> redNotes = \override NoteHead.color = #red
>> { \time 1/4 \hide Staff.BarLine \omit Stem
>>\syllable { a'\( \melisma c'' b'\tenuto \melismaEnd }
>>\syllable { \redNotes a' b'\) \undo \redNotes }
>>\syllable { \breathe \[ a' c''\accent a'_( b') \] }
>>\syllable { b'\espressivo } }
>> \addlyrics {
>>lor -- em _ i -- _ _ psum
>> }
>>
>>
>> There is much more flexibility at the cost of no longer automatically
>> adding \melisma/\melisaEnd nor Slurs. In fact, the example shows a
>> PhrasingSlur starting in one "syllable" ending in the following.
>>
>> NOTE: This function does not handle chords properly.
>>
>>
>> -- Aaron Hill
>>
>
Re: Dimensions vs outline
Le 05/10/2020 à 22:32, Pierre Perol-Schneider a écrit : Yes Jean, this is exactly the type of example I was looking for. Thank you! It should be added to: https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/other#index-_005cwith_002ddimensions and to: https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/other#index-_005cwith_002doutline as a speaking example. Cheers, Pierre Well, I was unable to make an example where both ways would produce meaningful output... I opened https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/440 to clarify the documentation. What do you think? Cheers, Jean
repeat volta and \barNumberCheck
Hi. I'm hoping to get some input from this wonderful group.
It seems that repeat volta and \barNumberCheck don't work well
together when you use the \alternative function. If you put a
\barNumberCheck inside of a repeat volta, the \braNumberCheck fails
all the time. I think it's because when you go through the music a
second time, the numbering is off.
This may not be a bug, but it's pretty inconvenient. Here's my MWE:
%%% Start
\version "2.20.0"
rightHand = \relative c' {
\repeat volta 2 {
\partial 4 f4
\barNumberCheck 2
c4 d e
}
\repeat volta 2 {
f4 |
\barNumberCheck 3
c4 d e f |
}
}
\include "articulate.ly"
\score {
\articulate {
\new Staff \rightHand
}
}
%%%End
Hello,
I believe the problem is not related to \repeat volta. The output with
articulate.ly
is definitely wrong (it inserts rests, not sure why; I can't comment
here since I never
used this script). You still get warnings whenremoving its use, and that
of \repeat:
\version "2.21.7"
\new Voice \relative c' {
\partial 4 f4
\barNumberCheck 2
c4 d e
f4 |
\barNumberCheck 3
c4 d e f |
}
This comes from a misexpectation: from LilyPond's point of view, a
partial does not count
as a measure. If you try:
\layout {
\context {
\Score
\override BarNumber.break-visibility = #all-visible
}
}
you will see that measure 1 is the first whole measure.
That's the behavior I'd expect as a musician. You can still override it
if you so like,
by starting the music with
\set Score.currentBarNumber = 2
Best,
Jean Abou-Samra
Re: Future of openLilyLib
Le 07/10/2020 à 16:30, Federico Bruni a écrit : Il giorno mer 7 ott 2020 alle 16:24, Jean Abou Samra ha scritto: PPS: I see you shut down openlilylib.org. Is the source archived somewhere so I can better understand openLilyLib? I think it's here: https://github.com/openlilylib-documentation/main-site/ Thanks!
Re: Future of openLilyLib
Il giorno mer 7 ott 2020 alle 16:24, Jean Abou Samra ha scritto: PPS: I see you shut down openlilylib.org. Is the source archived somewhere so I can better understand openLilyLib? I think it's here: https://github.com/openlilylib-documentation/main-site/
Re: Future of openLilyLib
Well, despite two of today's statements arguing otherwise I must say I have come to a different conclusion. I have given myself exactly two weeks to make a determination, and I realized I have obviously overestimated the value and impact of my pet project openLilyLib. The two weeks until yesterday since my (I think pretty strong and explicit) statement did not trigger *anything* except one stupid and off-topic discussion. So I realize there is no substantial need for openLilyLib, and I don't have the resources left (in terms of time and mental or physical energy) to push it forward without community support. And to be honest, to include \shapeII into LilyPond or not is definitely not a matter of having openLilyLib or not. So today I copied all the relevant repositories to my own Git server and removed myself from the corresponding Github organizations. I will use what is there to complete three substantial projects I still have on my desktop. Everything that is necessary to use and improve the library and the packages is still freely available and appropriately licensed, so if anybody considers it worth the effort they can do with it whatever seems suitable. Best Urs Hi Urs, Well, for me it's rather that I was initally willing to reply but the side track turned me off. I need to admit I have never really tried openLilyLib, mostly because it requires always running LilyPond with some magic option. I think there is potential in LilyPond packaging, as the LSR evidences. (What strikes me most in openLilyLib is its package for alternate notation fonts.) I have long had the project of a kind of mix between the LSR and openLilyLib's snippets repository, to combine the Git workflow and a web interface. I will raise this in my priority list. Kind regards, Jean PS: Those few who know more about the background shouldn't worry too much about the final character of this statement ... No clue what you meant here. Is 'character' as in novels, or strings? PPS: I see you shut down openlilylib.org. Is the source archived somewhere so I can better understand openLilyLib?
Re: openLilyLib git
Am 07.10.20 um 02:18 schrieb Andrew Bernard: > Urs and all, > > What happens to orphaned git repos? Not a case I am familiar with. > > I'd be happy to fork the OLL repo and take over the management and > development. Should I do that? Are you going to delete the existing > repo? > > Andrew > Hi Andrew, I would appreciate it, if you would take over the management. Let me know, when created your own fork. Jan-Peter
Re: Tremolo in MIDI
Il giorno mer 7 ott 2020 alle 13:12, Werner LEMBERG ha scritto: Ah. It's described in A.19 Available Music Functions. Hard to find because not indexed. Really? In my locally generated PDF of the NR the entry in the appendix *is* indexed. He probably searched at the U: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.21/Documentation/notation/lilypond-index.html#lilypond-index_cp_letter-U but the correct place is "MIDI, using repeats" scrolling down from here: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.21/Documentation/notation/lilypond-index.html#lilypond-index_cp_letter-M
Re: Tremolo in MIDI
> On 7 Oct 2020, at 09:54, Andrew Bernard wrote: > > According to the supported notation for MIDI in the NR, using \repeat > tremolo instead of :n works. Yet this MWE produces no tremolo in the > MIDI (as far as I can hear). What do I need to add to make it work? This is the method I found useful for ornaments, which allows for using tags inside the code, with the additional benefit that one can also engrave the expanded ornaments. Since the musical context decides how to realize ornaments, it seems best to write them out. Also for tremolos, one may put on more flags than is possible to actually perform, indicating as fast as possible. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2020-02/msg00228.html
Re: Tremolo in MIDI
> Ah. It's described in A.19 Available Music Functions. Hard to find > because not indexed. Really? In my locally generated PDF of the NR the entry in the appendix *is* indexed. Werner
Re: Tremolo in MIDI
> Where is \unfoldRepeats in the NR? Its usage is described in section 3.5.6, “Using repeats with MIDI” – it's also in the index... Werner
Re: Tremolo in MIDI
Ah. It's described in A.19 Available Music Functions. Hard to find because not indexed. Sorry for the noise. Andrew On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 21:49, Andrew Bernard wrote: > > Thank you so much. Where is \unfoldRepeats in the NR? It entirely eludes me.
Re: Tremolo in MIDI
Thank you so much. Where is \unfoldRepeats in the NR? It entirely eludes me. Andrew On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 19:34, Hwaen Ch'uqi wrote: > > Greetings Andrew, > > I use \unfoldRepeats in order to get any sort of repeat - including > tremolos - to work with midi.
feature requests: scalable \shape values; (stem) for \shapeII
Now that we’ve been talking about \shape and \shapeII, I would like to ask if it’s possible that values put for \shape(II) could scale according to staff size. Whenever I have a smaller staff, whatever values work for a 20 points staff are too much for smaller staves (either with a smaller font size or with \magnify). It would be great, from a user perspective, that a (0 . 1) value would produce a similar/proportional result no matter the size of the staff, instead of being always in a different “scale” every time you have different staff sizes (so that you have to put smaller values for smaller staves). That would also be useful if you decide later to increase or decrease the font size used. For \shapeII it would mean that the (head) attachment would work (instead of making a mess of the score) when for example there are different staff sizes in the same score (as in piano scores) —this is however my speculation. My second feature request is for \shapeII. I find it great to have a (head) attachment value instead of having to manually calculate how much of an offset it would take to bring the slur closer to the head. Consequently, it would be nice if you could do the same with (stem) for cases when you have a slur that begins/ends above a stem/beam. Best regards, Martín. www.martinrinconbotero.com
Re: Tremolo in MIDI
Greetings Andrew,
I use \unfoldRepeats in order to get any sort of repeat - including
tremolos - to work with midi.
New Complexity! I haven't heard that term since my school days. Pretty cool!
Hwaen Ch'uqi
On 10/7/20, Andrew Bernard wrote:
> I am new to MIDI output, so pardon me if a stupid question, but a
> search of the user archives did not reveal anything.
>
> According to the supported notation for MIDI in the NR, using \repeat
> tremolo instead of :n works. Yet this MWE produces no tremolo in the
> MIDI (as far as I can hear). What do I need to add to make it work? It
> would be a pity if this can't be made to work because the very piece I
> am setting is the usual New Complexity type of work for a woodwind
> instrument and it just so happens that about 15% of the piece is
> tremolo, so it would tedious to emulate tremolo by hand.
>
> Andrew
>
> %=
>
> \version "2.21.6"
>
> music = {
> c''4 d''
> \repeat tremolo 4 c''16 c''4 |
> d'' \repeat tremolo 4 g'16
> c'2 |
> }
>
> \score {
> \new Staff { \music }
> \layout { }
> \midi { }
> }
>
>
Tremolo in MIDI
I am new to MIDI output, so pardon me if a stupid question, but a
search of the user archives did not reveal anything.
According to the supported notation for MIDI in the NR, using \repeat
tremolo instead of :n works. Yet this MWE produces no tremolo in the
MIDI (as far as I can hear). What do I need to add to make it work? It
would be a pity if this can't be made to work because the very piece I
am setting is the usual New Complexity type of work for a woodwind
instrument and it just so happens that about 15% of the piece is
tremolo, so it would tedious to emulate tremolo by hand.
Andrew
%=
\version "2.21.6"
music = {
c''4 d''
\repeat tremolo 4 c''16 c''4 |
d'' \repeat tremolo 4 g'16
c'2 |
}
\score {
\new Staff { \music }
\layout { }
\midi { }
}
