Re: Enharmonically override key signature
Hi Craig!
You might try to tag the key signatures:
\version "2.20.00"
\language "english"
\include "enharmonic.ly"
fluteNotes = { \repeat unfold 3 { c'4 d' e' f' } }
altosaxNotes = \transpose c' ef
{ \repeat unfold 3 { c'4 d' e' f' } }
global = {
\key bf \major
s1
\tag #'flatMusic { \key cf \major }
\tag #'generalMusic { \key b \major }
s1
\key ef \major
s1
}
\score {
<<
\new Staff {
\set Staff.instrumentName = "Flute"
<<
\keepWithTag #'generalMusic \global
\fluteNotes
>>
}
\new Staff {
\set Staff.instrumentName = "Alto Sax"
\transpose ef c'
<<
\keepWithTag #'flatMusic \global
\altosaxNotes
>>
}
>>
}
It's not as elegant as having it automated, but it worked for me at the few
occasions, where I had that problem. You only need to be cautious about
using \global without a \keepWithTag, but Lilypond will give you a warning
about colliding key signatures then.
All the best
Christian
Am Di., 30. März 2021 um 01:43 Uhr schrieb Craig Dabelstein <
craig.dabelst...@gmail.com>:
> Thanks Kieren. That worked for my over-simplified MWE. But here's my
> real-world problem with multiple key changes. There are only some that need
> to be over-ridden enharmonically. See bar 2 of the Alto Sax where I'd like
> to override this key signature without changing the whole global setup. Is
> this possible?
>
> All the best,
>
> Craig
>
> %%%
>
> \version "2.20.00"
> \language "english"
>
> \include "enharmonic.ly"
>
> fluteNotes = { \repeat unfold 3 { c'4 d' e' f' } }
>
> altosaxNotes = \transpose c' ef
> { \repeat unfold 3 { c'4 d' e' f' } }
>
> global = {
> \key bf \major
> s1
> \key b \major
> s1
> \key ef \major
> s1
> }
>
> \score {
> <<
> \new Staff {
> \set Staff.instrumentName = "Flute"
> <<
> \global
> \fluteNotes
> >>
> }
> \new Staff {
> \set Staff.instrumentName = "Alto Sax"
> \transpose ef c'
> <<
> \global
> \altosaxNotes
> >>
> }
> >>
> }
>
> %%
>
>
> Craig Dabelstein
> Owner, Maxime's Music
> cr...@concertbandmusicstore.com
> 19 Twelfth Ave, Kedron QLD 4031
>
> [image: App Social Buttons Image]
>
> Maxime's Music [image: arrow]
> Create your own email signature
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 09:23, Kieren MacMillan <
> kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> > In this snippet, how can I override the Alto Sax key signature so it
>> displays as A-flat major instead of G-sharp major?
>>
>> \transpose ds c'
>>
>> But then you’ll probably want the old “naturalize notes” snippet
>> (wherever that is…).
>>
>> Hope that helps!
>> Kieren.
>>
>>
>> Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
>> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
>> ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
>>
>>
Re: next issue with renaissance guitar tablature - lines representing sustained notes
Hi Bart!
You're probably right about the line. If you happen to be able of reading
german literature, there would also be "2000 Jahre Europäische Schriften -
Eine Einführung in die Notationskunde" (roughly translated to "2000 years
of european writing - An introduction to the study of notation") by Karl
Schnürl, published at "Verlag Holzhausen" in 2000. There he describes the
line as "indicating to let the finger on the string." ("[...], die das
Liegenlassen des Greiffingers bezeichnen.") So, while in tablature it's not
always clear how long a note really is (as the only point that's clearly
defined is where the note begins) at least this gives an indication that
those notes should definitely be longer.
(Although before you run and buy the book: to be honest, it's more a
compendium about many things. But it was used by my
study-of-notation-professor at university to make us familiar with
tablature as it covers most things on relatively few pages.)
All the best
Christian
Am Sa., 27. März 2021 um 14:51 Uhr schrieb bart deruyter <
bart.deruy...@gmail.com>:
> Hello,
>
> this community continues to amaze me. For me this is really mind
> blowing :-). Wow, thanks, I'm without words here. It is indeed exactly what
> I could use!
>
> Concerning the meaning of the line, I think I was right. Yesterday, on
> archive.org, I found a book by Willi Appel from 1949, 'The Notation of
> Polyphonic Music 900-1600', where he describes the use of these lines in
> lute tablature with a transcription.
> The technique was called 'close play' or 'covered play':
> https://archive.org/details/notationofpolyph1953apel/page/70/mode/2up?ref=ol=theater=covered+play
>
> Maybe this book is of interest as a source for other people who are
> working on music from that time.
>
> grtz,
> Bart
>
> https://esmiltania.be
> On Twitter
> On Google+
Re: Suggestion: Use non powers of 2 for tuplets
Thanks for that lengthy answer, David!
Of course it's easy for me to find pros and cons without having the
responsibility over such a big project. At the end of the day it's you devs
that watch over the sanity and compatibility of Lilypond - and that's good
this way. After all I just wanted to point out some potential positive side
aspects where I saw the negative ones well covered, because I (still) think
the idea has at least potential. :)
@Martín:
> Except when it wouldn’t be easy to notate that way. In a 4/5 time what can
> easily be notated as \tuplet 5/4 { c2 d4 e4 } (an incomplete tuplet, which is
> what I would expect to see in print) would have to be notated as "c2,5 d5 e5"
> using this other notation. Other irrational time signatures would need such
> decimal numbers for some note values as well. It doesn’t seem to be more
> practical to deal with decimals than just writing what you intend Lilypond to
> print, in your case "c2 \tuplet 3/2 {d4 e }".
>
> When having multiple ways to do things it's always easy to find examples
where one way is superior to the other. This in itself does not necessarily
lead to one way being worse than the other. (And yes, "c2.5" doesn't make
sense at all, even though it would be a mathematically well defined length.)
Anyway, that's more than I ever wanted to say on this topic. Hope you all
have a nice weekend!
All the best
Christian
Am Sa., 27. März 2021 um 00:16 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup :
> Christian Masser writes:
>
> > Hi David!
> >
> > Fully understanding that you would probably be the one that would
> > (have or not have to) implement this mess,
>
> No, that isn't it. I am not really all that conservative: there have
> been loads of stuff I squeezed into the existing syntax, usually trying
> to make sure that it fits logically there.
>
> But LilyPond's concept of durations is solidly married to notational
> conventions that are rooted in powers of two. It is somewhat
> normatively rooted in classical conventions (which means that the
> representation for things like chant is overly rhythmically rigid and it
> doesn't reflect the ambiguities of mensural notation) but in the end the
> graphical symbols it picks for representing note lengths are tightly
> related to the input, and the internal representation of music, again,
> is both representative of the input and the graphical output.
>
> > instead of trying to answer every single question you asked, I'd like
> > to make a technical proposal of how those notes could be
> > rendered. (And just for context: I very well understand, that Lilypond
> > has to display music for other people to play, and I'm one of those
> > guys that will try 10-20 different versions of a bar if I get the
> > feeling that my idea isn't clearly put to paper - so I do understand
> > that there's a difference between "c4. c4." and "\tuplet 2/3 { c4 c4
> > }" ).
> >
> > The major problem behind the concept of single tuplet-parts like "c6" -
> or
> > in the syntax we have right now: "\times 2/3 { c4 }" - is, that our
> western
> > music has no common consensus of how to write unfinished tuplets. The way
> > I've seen these written was with a "unfinished" bracket above it. (So the
> > small line at the right end of the bracket was missing.) If you're
> > interested in it, I should have a picture of the corresponding bars
> > somewhere.
> >
> > My proposal would be:
> > a) Display a note with length x using the largest base-2-note smaller
> than
> > it. For example: c3 would be displayed using c2, c5/6/7 using c4,
> > c9/10/11/etc. using c8 and so on.
> > b) Display them with an open bracket above the note, showing the
> > corresponding number above it, no groupings unless
> > c) Use '[' and ']' to manually group those notes. Maybe(!) automise
> > grouping whenever note values add up to a base-2-value. (Or for example,
> if
> > the time signature is quarter based, auto-group only when a multiple of a
> > quarter is reached. Semi-quaver based? Auto-group only when a multiple
> of a
> > semi-quaver is reached.)
>
> Again: it is not LilyPond's job to invent notation. If you have a
> notation system and want to give LilyPond the capability of reflecting
> parts of it in the input, one can see what would be required for making
> music functions et al flexible enough to deal with a reasonable input
> representation.
>
> But I would consider it a mistake to nail this into a hardwired syntax
> with a meaning not rooted in existing conventions. What are we going to
> do when conventions come into being that clash with what LilyPond has
> ch
Re: Suggestion: Use non powers of 2 for tuplets
Hi David!
Fully understanding that you would probably be the one that would (have or
not have to) implement this mess, instead of trying to answer every single
question you asked, I'd like to make a technical proposal of how those
notes could be rendered. (And just for context: I very well understand,
that Lilypond has to display music for other people to play, and I'm one of
those guys that will try 10-20 different versions of a bar if I get the
feeling that my idea isn't clearly put to paper - so I do understand that
there's a difference between "c4. c4." and "\tuplet 2/3 { c4 c4 }" ).
The major problem behind the concept of single tuplet-parts like "c6" - or
in the syntax we have right now: "\times 2/3 { c4 }" - is, that our western
music has no common consensus of how to write unfinished tuplets. The way
I've seen these written was with a "unfinished" bracket above it. (So the
small line at the right end of the bracket was missing.) If you're
interested in it, I should have a picture of the corresponding bars
somewhere.
My proposal would be:
a) Display a note with length x using the largest base-2-note smaller than
it. For example: c3 would be displayed using c2, c5/6/7 using c4,
c9/10/11/etc. using c8 and so on.
b) Display them with an open bracket above the note, showing the
corresponding number above it, no groupings unless
c) Use '[' and ']' to manually group those notes. Maybe(!) automise
grouping whenever note values add up to a base-2-value. (Or for example, if
the time signature is quarter based, auto-group only when a multiple of a
quarter is reached. Semi-quaver based? Auto-group only when a multiple of a
semi-quaver is reached.)
I'm sure there are questions and corner cases I haven't thought about, but
in general this would seem to me as a very sane default way to render these
elements and I - personally and subjectively - would consider it a
meaningful addition to Lilypond. (And I also think that it would be very
much in the spirit of Lilypond, but who am I to judge THAT?)
I understand at the same time that, given there is no convention right now,
this might result in compatibility problems if in 10, 20 years there would
be consensus about this and it would look completely different then
Lilypond hat implemented it - but this is something I highly doubt.
And after all: If the user doesn't like the way the notes are rendered,
there's always the possibility to use the conventional methods of \times
and \tuplet.
Hope this helps to convey my 2 cents a little bit clearer. :)
All the best
Christian
Am Fr., 26. März 2021 um 22:21 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup :
> Christian Masser writes:
>
> > Just adding my two cents to this debate. In my humble opinion it's pretty
> > clear what "12" in this context means as Lilypond's syntax is always
> about
> > the divisor. c4 is always a quarter of a whole note. Therefore c12 would
> > always be a twelth of a whole note, thus a third of a quarter note.
>
> You mean, an eighth triole? Or an eighth sextuplet?
> And c7 would always be a seventh of a whole note.
>
> How would this print? LilyPond does not only produce MIDI, you know.
> With this in mind, why should input like "c3" yield an error if it's
> > otherwise very consistend with the syntax and definitely unambiguous?
>
> It is unambiguous? Is it a half note triplet? Or a sextuplet in 2/1
> time? To be printed with a bracket or not?
> (And the dots also don't pose problems in a mathematical sense, as
> > it's clearly defined, that one dot prolonges the note by a half of
> > it's value, two dots by a half and a quarter and so on.)
>
> You are confusing the sonics with the visuals. LilyPond would not be
> free to replace c4. c4. with \tuplet 2/3 { c4 c4 } and vice versa even
> though the MIDI would sound the same.
> Things like these should be easy in Lilypond, considering it's sheer
> > flexibility and hackability. And if I were a composer writing in 5/6,
> > i would probably be happy if I could just write "c2 d6 e6 |".
>
> Problem is that LilyPond is not the one playing the music, but it
> produces a print that somebody has to play. And when there is no
> notation corresponding to the input, LilyPond will have a hard time
> suggesting how to play things.
>
--
> David Kastrup
>
Re: Suggestion: Use non powers of 2 for tuplets
Just adding my two cents to this debate. In my humble opinion it's pretty clear what "12" in this context means as Lilypond's syntax is always about the divisor. c4 is always a quarter of a whole note. Therefore c12 would always be a twelth of a whole note, thus a third of a quarter note. And c7 would always be a seventh of a whole note. With this in mind, why should input like "c3" yield an error if it's otherwise very consistend with the syntax and definitely unambiguous? (And the dots also don't pose problems in a mathematical sense, as it's clearly defined, that one dot prolonges the note by a half of it's value, two dots by a half and a quarter and so on.) On the contrary side, it may lead to all the issues outlined by many of you already, like Lilypond having to define a standard grouping - which probably doesn't align with the grouping of 8th beams - or guess the grouping, and define functions to change it, and so on. Also it almost certainly would introduce new problems users might run into. A practical point of view that also might be considered is the one of contemporary music. Just one example, because I happend to perform the piece, is the opera "Powder her face" by Thomas Adès, that uses e.g. 5/6 time signature (mostly for singular bars, with a lot of time signature changes!) - which looks very odd at beginning. But: once you're through the thought process it's far easier to read than writing "5/4" and adding the relation that "the new quarter note equals a quarter triplet of the bar before" and vice versa after a single bar of music. Things like these should be easy in Lilypond, considering it's sheer flexibility and hackability. And if I were a composer writing in 5/6, i would probably be happy if I could just write "c2 d6 e6 |". Christian Am Fr., 26. März 2021 um 18:22 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup : > Kevin Barry writes: > > > I think the convenience of this feature does not justify the added > > complexity. > > It's mostly the conceptual vagueness that is the problem here. There > are no actual note values corresponding graphically to the input in an > unambiguous manner, so LilyPond would need to do the equivalent of a > MIDI-to-notation converter in picking a visual representation (and there > are even things like composers disagreeing about whether septuplets are > 7 in the space of 4 or 7 in the space of 8). > > Does 12 mean sextuplets or triplets? What is the meaning of 12.. ? > It's just far too muddy domain to make a major part of the syntax. > > -- > David Kastrup > >
Re: changing rhythmic representation to align 8ths with 4ths
Hi Bart, Lukas!
Wow! I was just about to write, that with all the black magic people on
this list do with scheme, doing the rhythm translation manually shouldn't
be necessary, and before I click send you do it in one command. :D Didn't
even knew the \shiftDurations-command, guess I should study the reference a
little bit.
Just to add it for documentary reasons: What you try to achieve is in fact
polymetric notation, even if it doesn't look as fancy as 3/4 against 9/8,
which ironically is well documented in the same link you already found -
just a little bit further down.
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/displaying-rhythms#polymetric-notation
All the best
Christian
Am Di., 23. März 2021 um 11:04 Uhr schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser :
>
> > But in fact, I think one does not need to shift the Timing_translator
> > to the staff context at all: It should suffice to use \scaleDurations
> > and a manual tweak of the displayed time signature for one staff.
>
> That was easier than I had expected:
>
> \version "2.23.0"
>
> musicOneSizeFitsAll = \relative c'
> {
>\time 4/8
>c'8 d16 c b8 c \tuplet 3/2 { d8 f e } d4( c2)
> }
>
> \score {
><<
> \new Staff {
>\set Staff.timeSignatureFraction = 4/4
>\scaleDurations 1/2
>\shiftDurations -1 0
>\musicOneSizeFitsAll
> }
> \new Staff \musicOneSizeFitsAll
>>>
> }
>
> Lukas
>
>
>
Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 220, Issue 40
I used a similar workflower earlier, but without Frescobaldi. I coded a small script years ago that would convert MIDI-input to keystrokes, but at some point I lost track of maintaining it (didn't do much with Lilypond for a time then). But I remember using the pitch up/down buttons on my Korg nanoKey for switching between sharps and flats. (I also did a second pass for durations then.) If anyone's interested I can try and look whether I find it somewhere, but what I can read here, Frescobaldis system should be more sophisticated and as I was using Xorg to emulate the keystrokes it's probably Linux-only. All the best Christian Kieren MacMillan schrieb am So., 14. März 2021, 19:24: > Hi Peter, > > > How do you manage enharmonics? Is the black key between C and D a C > sharp or D flat? Unless the music is completely tonal, I'd have thought you > spent more time adjusting the accidentals than simply inputting the music > from the computer keyboard. But I may be wrong. Certainly in the song I was > transcribing both accidentals are used in profusion. > > Most songs I transcribe are heavily tonal, and the accidentals tend to be > consistent enough that Frescobaldi’s input setting (use the key signature > whenever possible, favour sharps or favour flats when outside the k.s.) > keeps outliers in the <5% range (and often literally zero!). Where I do > have to adjust, I do it in the second/proofreading pass, and that change is > very quick to implement. > > That being said, I’ve also used my workflow on Second Viennese School > transcriptions, and while obviously slower than tonal music it’s still > impressively fast to crank out that kind of note-code. > > > how does it manage durations? > > I just “plunk” each note out one by one, with no particular care about > durations; in the “second half” of the input process, I pass through and > add durations. My workflow is more finessed than that — e.g. if I come up > to a large run of 16th notes, I’ll stop the playing process to add a “16” > after the first one — but I do find that multi-tasking slows me down, so I > tend to just play all the notes through in a single pass (using the MIDI > keyboard, ignoring durations), then add durations (using the computer > keyboard/numberpad) as a second pass. I can usually “code” the pitch > portion of an entire vocal line of a standard (~3') musical theatre song in > less than 30s; “running string lines” can be played at maximum speed (n.b. > my undergrad degree was in piano performance), so I can get dozens or > hundreds of notes from a string part into pitch-code form in less than a > minute; etc. > > There is a “QuickKeys” plug-in somewhere that lets you trigger durations > with one hand (on the keypad) while playing in the notes using the other > hand (on the MIDI keyboard)… but my current workflow is so fast that any > potential speed gain (and it isn’t immediately obvious to me there would be > one!) is countered by the learning/coordination curve I’d have to climb. > > > And can one input a piano piece (as opposed to a single voice)? Two > hands, lots of splitting into separate voices. > > 1. Chords are wicked fast, obviously: just play all the notes (it doesn’t > even have to be "exactly together"!), and Frescobaldi does the right thing. > > 2. The way my code is formatted, every voice has its own variable — so I > just play each voice into the right variable, and combine them later in the > score block. > > Naturally, every tune is different in terms of the challenges to get the > data-entry done. But now that I’ve found this “MIDI -> pitch code, then add > durations” workflow, I’m kicking my 12-year-ago-self that it took me so > long to get on board with Frescobaldi+MIDI. > > Hope that helps! > Kieren. > > > Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his) > ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info > ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info > > >
Re: Strange behaviour of chord names?
Ah, that explains it. Thank you very much, Aaron!
Am Sa., 13. März 2021 um 16:02 Uhr schrieb Aaron Hill <
lilyp...@hillvisions.com>:
> On 2021-03-13 6:11 am, Christian Masser wrote:
> > [...]
> > mySoloChordsA = \chords {
> > c1 f g c
> > }
> > [...]
>
> I think you want \chordmode, not \chords, when defining the variables.
>
> \chords { ... } is shorthand for \new ChordNames \chordmode { ... } if I
> recall.
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>
Strange behaviour of chord names?
Hey all!
Just had a curious case concerning chord names. Typesetting a small jazz
piece and - as always - wanted to keep my file tidy, so I put the chords
for the solo-section in a variable as they are the same for every solo. But
somehow Lilypond seems to make a difference, if one inserts the rests/skips
directly to the chords or not. Has anyone of you an idea why Lilypond
prints the chords below the staff in the first example and above the staff
in the other one? I did a quick search but couldn't find an explanation
that convinced me.
All the best,
Christian
\version "2.22.0"
mySoloChordsA = \chords {
c1 f g c
}
mySoloChordsB = \chords {
s1*4
c1 f g c
}
<<
\new ChordNames {
s1*4
\mySoloChordsA
}
\new Staff \relative {
c'1 f g c, c f g c,
}
>>
<<
\new ChordNames {
\mySoloChordsB
}
\new Staff \relative {
c'1 f g c, c f g c,
}
>>
Re: Nested transposition
Hi Peter!
It seems that \transpose treats the block of notes following it as absolute
notes. If you adapt that line to explicit relative notation it probably
yields the result you're aspiring.
\version "2.22.0"
\language "english"
{
\transpose c a,
\relative {
c'4 d e f g a b c
\transpose cs df
\relative {cs' ds es fs gs as bs cs}
}
}
All the best,
Christian
Am Fr., 12. März 2021 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye :
> I am trying to engrave a transposed song. It's written without key
> signature but is very tonal. It starts in C and ends in C#. I want to
> transpose it down a minor third. The part in C is fine, but the part in C#
> ends up as A## and there are far too many double-sharps for it to be
> performable.
>
> I found the 'minimal accidental' snippet but that looks as if it messes up
> the tonality - a mixture of A sharp and B flat.
>
> I tried the code below, which get the note names right but the octaves go
> completely wrong. Is this a bug? It would be a useful feature if it could
> be corrected.
>
> \version "2.22.0"
>
> \language "english"
>
> {
> \transpose c a,
> \relative {
> c'4 d e f g a b c
> \transpose as bf
> {cs, ds es fs gs as bs cs}
>
> }
> }
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
> mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
> www.ptoye.com
>
Re: Problems adding voice with rests
If you excuse the second double post in one thread - I really should think
before writing - this solution seems even better. It's a little fizzle work
to get the \voice commands right, but it works and is far easier to read
than my previous solution. Plus, it allows good continuation of the two
voices. Be aware that the voices change position - so "up" becomes the
second voice and vice versa.
up = \relative c {
b4.( ~ b8 c e b4. ~ b4 b,8 |
\voiceTwo
2. ~ 4. c4\rest b8 |
}
down = \relative c, {
e2. ~ \voiceOne e4._~ 4 s8 |
f'4.\rest f8\rest
\partCombineApart
c( e b4. ~ 4 b,8) |
}
\score {
\new Staff {
\time 12/8
\clef "bass"
\partCombine \up \down
}
}
All the best
Christian
Am Mo., 15. Feb. 2021 um 18:18 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye :
> Kieran, Christian,
>
> There's something we all missed: the tie on the final bass note. Here's
> the full bar/measure attached. This give as a bit of t problem as the
> two-voice writing goes on for some time with lots of slurs & ties. So
> putting the E octave in the top voice means that I can't then use that
> voice for the higher voice until the slurs stop. Is there an elegant way ff
> doing this?
>
> Please don't ask me why the final note of the 2nd bar is double-stemmed -
> I didn't write this :)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Peter
> mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
> www.ptoye.com
>
> -
> Monday, February 15, 2021, 4:59:00 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Hi Peter,
>
> >> Thanks very much - I don't quite see how this solves the rest problem,
> or does LilyPond always align dots vertically regardless of the horizontal
> position of the note?
>
> > That’s a preference — the default is to align dots.
>
> >> I find Christian's solution a bit more elegant as it uses only 2 voices.
>
> > Agreed! I prefer it, too. =)
>
> >> I'd forgotten about \undo - I've not used LP for several months. I
> still find it a bit odd that there's \unHideNotes but not \UnHide :)
>
> > \undo is a generally-applicable function.
> > \unHideNotes is syntactic sugar for use in a single situation.
>
> > Best,
> > Kieren.
> >
>
> > Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
> > ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> > ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
>
>
Re: Problems adding voice with rests
Dear Peter,
I fear, this one was easy to miss, given the screenshot you sent us. ;)
It looks like you can put the part we had till now into a lowerVoice
variable, with the newly introduced upper voice into another and then
partCombine does a pretty good job. I don't know if this is a dirty hack to
feed partCombine already polyphonic music, but the result looks decent to
me - at least for now.
The doubled stem at the last note might hint that it is a note used in both
voices - therefore I would assume it splits again on the next beat?
upperPart = \relative {
\voiceOne
s1. |
s4. s8
\partCombineApart
c( e b4. ~ 4 b,8) |
}
lowerPart = {
{ <<
\relative {
b,4.~( 8 c e 4. 4 b,8 |
\stemDown 2. ~ \stemDown 4. c4\rest b8 |
}
\\
\relative
{
e,2.~ \hide Stem 4.~ 4 \revert Voice.Stem.transparent s8 |
f'4.\rest f8\rest
}
>>
}
}
\score {
\new Staff {
\time 12/8
\clef "bass"
<<
\partCombine \upperPart \lowerPart
>>
}
}
All the best
Christian
Am Mo., 15. Feb. 2021 um 18:18 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye :
> Kieran, Christian,
>
> There's something we all missed: the tie on the final bass note. Here's
> the full bar/measure attached. This give as a bit of t problem as the
> two-voice writing goes on for some time with lots of slurs & ties. So
> putting the E octave in the top voice means that I can't then use that
> voice for the higher voice until the slurs stop. Is there an elegant way ff
> doing this?
>
> Please don't ask me why the final note of the 2nd bar is double-stemmed -
> I didn't write this :)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Peter
> mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
> www.ptoye.com
>
> -
> Monday, February 15, 2021, 4:59:00 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Hi Peter,
>
> >> Thanks very much - I don't quite see how this solves the rest problem,
> or does LilyPond always align dots vertically regardless of the horizontal
> position of the note?
>
> > That’s a preference — the default is to align dots.
>
> >> I find Christian's solution a bit more elegant as it uses only 2 voices.
>
> > Agreed! I prefer it, too. =)
>
> >> I'd forgotten about \undo - I've not used LP for several months. I
> still find it a bit odd that there's \unHideNotes but not \UnHide :)
>
> > \undo is a generally-applicable function.
> > \unHideNotes is syntactic sugar for use in a single situation.
>
> > Best,
> > Kieren.
> >
>
> > Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
> > ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> > ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
>
>
Re: Problems adding voice with rests
Edit: I forgot the \hide Stem command , but it also works with
e,2.~ \hide Stem 4.~ 4 \revert Voice.Stem.transparent s8 |
instead of
e,2.~ 4.~ 4 s8 |
All the best
Christian
Am Mo., 15. Feb. 2021 um 16:56 Uhr schrieb Christian Masser <
christian.mas...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Peter!
>
> It seems that the invisible e you add for the ending of the bow is drawn
> as a note facing the left side (you can unhide it) which explains the
> right-shift of the e2.
> If you rearrange it to:
> <<
> \relative {
> b,4.~( 8 c e 4. 4 b,8 |
> 2. s2.
> }
> \\
> \relative
> {
> e,2.~ 4.~ 4 s8 |
> f'4.\rest
> }
> >>
> this interestingly also seems to solve the other problem.
>
> All the best
> Christian
>
> Am Mo., 15. Feb. 2021 um 16:28 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye >:
>
>> I'm trying to set this piece of slightly strange voice writing (see
>> attachment).
>>
>> It obviously needs three voices: one for the lower line (voice 2), one
>> for the upper line (voice 1) and a third for the rest at the end.
>>
>> The closest I've got is below, but this has two problems with the final
>> beat:
>>
>> 1 - The bass octave is shifted right.
>> 2 - The rest and its dot are separated.
>>
>> Playing about with \shiftOff and changing or omitting \VoiceOne have no
>> effect. Obviously I'm doing something stupid but can't work out what it is.
>>
>> Incidentally, neither the Learning nor Notation manuals say how to cancel
>> a \hide instruction. I'm a bit surprised to find that there isn't an
>> \unhide command!
>>
>> \version "2.19.83"
>>
>> \language "english"
>>
>> {
>> \time 12/8
>> \clef "bass"
>> <<
>>
>> \relative {
>> b,4.~( 8 c e 4. 4 b,8 |
>> <<
>> \hideNotes e4.)
>> \new Voice {
>> \voiceOne
>> \absolute f4.\rest
>> }
>> >>
>> }
>> \\
>> \relative
>> {
>> e,2.~ \hide Stem 4.~ 4 \revert Voice.Stem.transparent s8 |
>> 2. s2.
>> }
>> >>
>> }
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter
>> mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
>> www.ptoye.com
>>
>
Re: Problems adding voice with rests
Hi Peter!
It seems that the invisible e you add for the ending of the bow is drawn as
a note facing the left side (you can unhide it) which explains the
right-shift of the e2.
If you rearrange it to:
<<
\relative {
b,4.~( 8 c e 4. 4 b,8 |
2. s2.
}
\\
\relative
{
e,2.~ 4.~ 4 s8 |
f'4.\rest
}
>>
this interestingly also seems to solve the other problem.
All the best
Christian
Am Mo., 15. Feb. 2021 um 16:28 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye :
> I'm trying to set this piece of slightly strange voice writing (see
> attachment).
>
> It obviously needs three voices: one for the lower line (voice 2), one for
> the upper line (voice 1) and a third for the rest at the end.
>
> The closest I've got is below, but this has two problems with the final
> beat:
>
> 1 - The bass octave is shifted right.
> 2 - The rest and its dot are separated.
>
> Playing about with \shiftOff and changing or omitting \VoiceOne have no
> effect. Obviously I'm doing something stupid but can't work out what it is.
>
> Incidentally, neither the Learning nor Notation manuals say how to cancel
> a \hide instruction. I'm a bit surprised to find that there isn't an
> \unhide command!
>
> \version "2.19.83"
>
> \language "english"
>
> {
> \time 12/8
> \clef "bass"
> <<
>
> \relative {
> b,4.~( 8 c e 4. 4 b,8 |
> <<
> \hideNotes e4.)
> \new Voice {
> \voiceOne
> \absolute f4.\rest
> }
> >>
> }
> \\
> \relative
> {
> e,2.~ \hide Stem 4.~ 4 \revert Voice.Stem.transparent s8 |
> 2. s2.
> }
> >>
> }
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
> mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
> www.ptoye.com
>
Re: Error : Lilypond version 2.19.55 Error invoked
Unfortunately I haven't been able to reproduce the error after reverting back to 2.22.0 (the file that caused the error also grew significantly while using the dev-version), but I will recompile lilypond with debug symbols and if I run into something alike again I will look into it and let you know! All the best Christian Am Fr., 12. Feb. 2021 um 21:03 Uhr schrieb Jean Abou Samra < j...@abou-samra.fr>: > > Le 12/02/2021 à 17:05, Christian Masser a écrit : > > Hi Jean! > > > > I got a similar error two days ago with a pretty basic file, nothing > > fancy at all. (To be precise: changing "des2." to "des2. ~ des" > > produced the error.) > > After switching to the then up-to-date dev-version (from "2.22.0-2" to > > "2.23b30375.2e8c87df0f-1" on arch linux) the error went away. Would > > backtracing it still help you in any way? > > > > All the best > > Christian > > > Hello, > > At any rate, it would be helpful to see the code in question. > Segmentation faults on Linux make bug squashers happy since most of them > (on LilyPond) are running GNU/Linux, so there's at least a slight chance > to reproduce. > > Of course, if you are familiar with the debugger, a backtrace and > whatever information you may get would also help. Be aware that released > binaries (and, I'd bet, your system's package) do not contain debugging > symbols. You'll have to compile LilyPond yourself, see > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/contributor/compiling > > Thank you, > Jean > >
Re: Error : Lilypond version 2.19.55 Error invoked
Hi Jean!
I got a similar error two days ago with a pretty basic file, nothing fancy
at all. (To be precise: changing "des2." to "des2. ~ des" produced the
error.)
After switching to the then up-to-date dev-version (from "2.22.0-2" to
"2.23b30375.2e8c87df0f-1" on arch linux) the error went away. Would
backtracing it still help you in any way?
All the best
Christian
Am Do., 11. Feb. 2021 um 15:07 Uhr schrieb Jean Abou Samra <
j...@abou-samra.fr>:
>
> Le 11/02/2021 à 14:11, Miguel Abrams a écrit :
>
> Dear community:
>
> I am reaching out for assistance in regard to the following error.
>
> Although I regard my knowledge of Lilypond to be primary, I have been a
> more than excited user for over two years now, and have never come across
> an error which I could not 'somehow' work around, at least until now.
>
> The following error was reported and archived in 2009, by another user (JUNE
> 3 2019, (2.19.82).
>
> However, I have been unable to find its resolution in the Archive. The
> error has now happened to my code, and I require some assistance to get by
> it.
>
> _
>
> I am using MAC OS 10.13.6 HIgh Sierra, and Lilypond 2.19.55
> _
> The compile and subsequent engraver output fails, unless I replace a
> 'note' with a rest.
>
> ERROR :
>
> v/Parsing...Interpreting music...[8][16][24][32][40][48][56]ERROR: In
> procedure ly:trampoline:ERROR: Wrong type argument in position 3 (expecting
> Translator): #Exited with
> return code 1
>
>
>
> I provide a clip of the code below where the error is invoked, as shown in
> between
>
> the 2 % % marks. The error seems to point to the 2nd last note the
> 'flagged' measure.
>
> Please note that if I replace that beat with an r8, the compile and
> engraver run successfully.
>
> If I leave a note in that position, the error is invoked.
>
> It appears to me, as noted in this email, that the same error had been
> reported in June 2019.
>
>
>
> Also, I am using in this piece the Add Lyrics functionality.
>
>
>
> %%%
>
> new Staff{ \with { instrumentName = #"Bass" }
>
> {
>
> \clef bass
>
> \set Sta@.midiInstrument = #"acoustic bass"
>
> \stemDown \numericTimeSignature\time 4/4 \key g\minor
>
> \autoBeamOn
>
> %BASS VERSE_A
>
> g,4 d,8 g,4 d,8 c4 |
>
> g,8 d,4 r8 d,8 g,8 g,8 d,8 |
>
> g,8 d,4 c4 d,4 r8 |
>
> d,4 g,4 d,8 g,4 d,8 |
>
> %
>
> c4 g,8 d,4 r8 d,8 g,8 |
>
> %
>
> g,8 d,4 g,8 d,8 c8 g,4 |
>
> r8 d,8 g,4 d,8 g,4 d,8|
>
> c,4 g,8 d,4 r8 c,8 g,8 |
>
> d,8 g,8 g,4 d,4 d,4 |
>
> g,,4. r8 d,8 g,4 c,8 |
>
> g,4 c,8 c4 g,8 d,4 |
>
> d,8 d,4 g,8 d,4 g,4 |
>
> d,4 g,4 g,,4. r8 r8 |
>
> ___
>
> An assistance will be most appreciated.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This is a garbage collection error. The bug is rooted in
> LilyPond's hard core written in C++, so there is not much
> that you can do as a user to fix it. Sorry.
>
> What you can do is help understand the problem:
>
> - Does it reproduce with recent versions? LilyPond 2.22
> is a stable version and was released weeks ago. A ton of
> bugs have been fixed since version 2.19.55!
>
> - If not, could you please post your complete code, if
> that is possible regarding copyright, etc.? This way,
> others can try to reproduce it on other machines.
>
> - If not, would you mind sending it to me privately? I
> can confidentially look for unusual code.
>
> - If you do mind: do you have experience with using GDB?
>
>
> Thank you,
> Jean Abou Samra
>
Re: header material too close to staff
Thank you for that cheat sheet! Is this part of the official documentation
or your own work?
All the best
Christian
Noeck schrieb am Mo., 1. Feb. 2021, 23:46:
> Hi David,
>
> you are looking for markup-system-spacing:
>
> \paper {
> markup-system-spacing.basic-distance = #10
> }
>
> Flexible vertical spacing \paper variables:
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/flexible-vertical-spacing-paper-variables
>
> Cheat Sheet:
> https://joramberger.de/files/LilypondSpacing.pdf
>
> Best,
> Joram
>
>
Re: A comment about the documentation
Hi David! Thanks for that find! ...well, if at anytime someone wants to help out and give something back to Lilypond: there are 583 instances of "DOCME" in the result of that script. Looks like an extensive list of "simple" and well packaged tasks if one wants to give a try at participating. All the best Christian Am Fr., 1. Jan. 2021 um 18:19 Uhr schrieb David Nalesnik < david.nales...@gmail.com>: > Hi Peter, > > On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 10:46 AM Peter Toye wrote: > >> Carl, >> > > >> [...] >> > > >> I hate to say it but I think the documentation is failing here, but can't >> see how to mend it easily. To start with, maybe a list of all the publicly >> available functions and their descriptions, but I suspect it would be far >> too long and need constant updating, which is not something that the LP >> documenters like for obvious reasons. Could it be mechanised? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Peter >> > > Here's something which will give you a list of all public Scheme functions > with whatever docstring is available in the source: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user@gnu.org/msg100337.html > > Hope this helps-- > David >
Re: A comment about the documentation
Hi Peter! It seems to be defined here: https://github.com/lilypond/lilypond/blob/master/scm/music-functions.scm#L2036 All the best and a happy new year, Christian Am Fr., 1. Jan. 2021 um 13:29 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye : > It seems that I'm probably going to be doing more engraving after all. > > I have a comment about the documentation. I wanted to add the same > articulation to all notes in a music expression, and found > http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=82 which does exactly what I want. > > I noticed that it uses a function called 'map-some-music' and I can't find > any reference to this in the Extending or Internals manuals. It seems to > have the function of traversing a music expression and doing things to it - > but is there a definition of its function anywhere? It would seem to be > very useful. > > A happy 2021 to all Ponders - may it bring vaccinations, > > Peter > mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com > www.ptoye.com >
Re: More than 16 MIDI instruments
Hi!
I think that depends very much upon what you want to do with the MIDI file.
If it's only for listening purposes to check for wrong notes, then you can
send more instruments (like alle the strings for example) to the same
channel. Disadvantage: they all sound the same and if the same note occurs
two times at the same time the first note that ends cancels both, because
they are one end the same note in one channel.
If you need every single instrument on a separate channel for further work
outside lilypond you could just make two separate books/scores with
different halfs of the instruments and merge them back where you want to
continue working with them. (Kind of like stem export in a DAW.)
All the best
Christian
ebenezer schrieb am Mi., 30. Dez.
2020, 10:40:
> Hi everyone,
> I'm creating my first Lilypond score, an arrangement of A Te O Cara.
> I am using Frescobaldi and used the Score Wiazrd to get started.
> I have now come across a MIDI limitation, a maximum of 16 instruments as I
> understand it.
> I'm assuming I'm not the first to come across this limitation; what is the
> easiest way to accommodate more than 16 instruments within the constraints
> of a score structured this way? ...
>
> \version "2.20.0"
> \language "english"
>
> \header {
> % ...
> }
>
> \paper {
> #(set-paper-size "a3")
> }
>
> \layout {
> % ...
> }
>
> global = {
> \key d \major
> % ...
> }
>
> flute = {
> \global
> % -- measures _0 to _7
> R1. |
> r4. r4. r4. a''4( a''16) a''16 |
> % ...
> }
>
> % ... more voices
>
> flutePart = \new Staff \with {
> instrumentName = "Flute"
> shortInstrumentName = "Fl."
> midiInstrument = "flute"
> } \flute
>
> % ... more staves
>
> \score {
> <<
> \flutePart
> % ... more parts
> >>
> \layout {
> \set Score.currentBarNumber = #0
> }
> \midi { }
> }
>
> If this structure is not conducive to implementing dynamic switching of
> MIDI instruments or whatever is required, I would consider changing it, but
> now rather than when I've completed the score!
>
> Thank you for reading.
>
Re: I ought to have a bar line here...
Aaron Hill schrieb am So., 25. Okt. 2020, 04:38
> You have to use a special bar line type when it breaks across a line:
>
>
> \version "2.20.0"
> \paper { indent = 0 line-width = 3\cm ragged-right = ##f }
>
> \markup \bold \typewriter "\".|:-||\""
> { R1 \bar ".|:-||" \break R1 }
>
Out of pure interest: does anyone know why this seems to be "in the wrong
order"? Why does the ". |:" of the second line come in front of the "||"
which - viewed from a musical standpoint - should happen before?
Re: good practices regarding page breaks -- full score and parts
Hi Leszek!
I usually put the layout-Stuff in a separate voice, but I can imagine, this
would be a total mess when dealing with many time signature changes. This
sounds a lot like the "Invisible part" you're speaking of.
music = { c1 c c c c c }
breakVoice = { s1 s \pageBreak }
\score {
\new Staff {<<
\music
\breakVoice
>> }
}
Best regards
Christian
Am Do., 15. Okt. 2020 um 14:20 Uhr schrieb Leszek Wroński :
> Dear Experts,
>
> I would like to compile a full score and parts based on one file
> containing musical definitions. I would like to put pagebreaks in specific
> places in the full score, so that they would not operate when parts are
> compiled. The way I'm doing it now is that I put a \pagebreak in one of the
> parts and use tags. E.g. the oboe part "oboeMusic" may contain
>
> \tag #'fullscoreonly { \pageBreak }
>
> And in the full score the part figures in the score as
> \keepWithTag #'fullscoreonly \oboeMusic
>
> while in the part file the part is compiled as
> \removeWithTag #'fullscoreonly \oboeMusic
>
> I don't really like this solution; it's just not tidy... and I have to
> remember which part I put the page breaks in. Are there any established
> Lilypond practices for doing this? Is it e.g. possible to introduce some
> sort of 'invisible part' on top of the rest which would just be used for
> editorial stuff like this?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Leszek Wronski.
>
Re: Free rhythm in part of a bar
Hi Peter!
I don't know if that's the correct way to do it, but if you use
\scaleDurations on the cadenza material it seems to work out for me:
{
c'4 4 4 4 |
4 4 \scaleDurations 2/5 { 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 } |
}
The '2/5'-part depends of course on the length of the material inside.
All the best
Christian
Am Fr., 12. Juni 2020 um 16:34 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye :
> I need to have part only of a bar notated with free rhythm. Also other
> staves need to be synchronised. I've tried using \cadenzaOn but then I get
> a barcheck problem and the next bar goes odd. I can't see anything about
> this in the snippets or manuals. A minimal example follows.
>
> There seem to be two issues:
>
> 1) How do I get the desired result, which is one bar with the first 2
> crotchets synchronised with the bass, and the rest unsynchronised?
>
> 2) This isn't in the example, but what if I want a free section within a
> bar, but synchronised accompaniment at the beginning and end of the bar
> (e.g. a chord on the final note of a cadenza).
>
> \language "english"
>
> \version "2.19.83"
>
> \score {
>
> <<
>\new Staff {
>\time 4/4
>{
> c'4 4 4 4 |
> 4 4 \cadenzaOn 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 \bar "|" \cadenzaOff
> R1
>}
> }
>
> \new Staff {
> \time 4/4
> \clef "bass"
> {
> c1
> 4 4 r2\fermata |
> }
>
> }
>
> >>
>
> }
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Peter
> mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
> www.ptoye.com
>
Re: horziontal spacing in chants
Hi Pierre,
this is even better! Thank you very, very much! Somehow this snippet had
escaped my research.
All the best
Christian
Am Fr., 8. Mai 2020 um 14:27 Uhr schrieb Pierre Perol-Schneider <
pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Christian,
> See also: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=973
> Cheers,
> Pierre
>
> Le ven. 8 mai 2020 à 14:14, Christian Masser
> a écrit :
>
>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> That was exactly, what I was looking for! As I've only got one chant to
>> transcribe, the time it takes to tweak every single melisma is no problem.
>> :)
>>
>> All the best
>> Christian
>>
>> Am Do., 7. Mai 2020 um 21:39 Uhr schrieb Valentin Villenave <
>> valen...@villenave.net>:
>>
>>> On 5/7/20, Christian Masser wrote:
>>> > I am currently working on my Master thesis and would like to show
>>> parts of
>>> > gregorian chants in modern notation for comparison purposes.
>>>
>>> Greetings, good luck for your thesis!
>>>
>>> > Is it possible to get the note heads even closer together, so that
>>> they are
>>> > kind of glued together? Probably someone did this before but I wasn't
>>> able
>>> > to find it yet.
>>>
>>> Well for once, you could use \omit rather than \hide, since with \hide
>>> the graphical objects still take up horizontal space. Next you can
>>> shrink the NoteHead object’s horizontal extent (rather than the
>>> BarLine), but the results will look quite ugly quite fast,
>>> particularly with regard to the lyrics:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> spiritus = \relative {
>>> \time 1/4
>>> \override Lyrics.LyricText.X-extent = #'(0 . 3)
>>> d'4 \tuplet 3/2 { f8 a g } g a a4 g f8 e
>>> d4 f8 g g8 d f g a g f4 g8 a a4 s
>>> \tuplet 3/2 { g8 f d } e f g a g4
>>> }
>>>
>>> spirLyr = \lyricmode {
>>> Spi -- ri -- _ _ tus _ Do -- mi -- ni _ re -- ple -- _ vit _
>>> or -- _ bem _ ter -- ra -- _ rum, al -- _ _ le -- _ lu
>>> -- _ ia.
>>> }
>>> \score {
>>> \new Staff <<
>>> \new Voice = "chant" \spiritus
>>> \new Lyrics = "one" \lyricsto "chant" \spirLyr
>>> >>
>>> \layout {
>>> \context {
>>> \Staff
>>> \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
>>> %\override BarLine.X-extent = #'(-1 . 1)
>>> \omit Stem
>>> \omit Beam
>>> \omit BarLine
>>> \omit TupletNumber
>>> \override NoteHead.X-extent = #'(-0.1 . 0.1)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -- V.
>>> }
>>>
>>
Re: horziontal spacing in chants
Thank you very much!
That was exactly, what I was looking for! As I've only got one chant to
transcribe, the time it takes to tweak every single melisma is no problem.
:)
All the best
Christian
Am Do., 7. Mai 2020 um 21:39 Uhr schrieb Valentin Villenave <
valen...@villenave.net>:
> On 5/7/20, Christian Masser wrote:
> > I am currently working on my Master thesis and would like to show parts
> of
> > gregorian chants in modern notation for comparison purposes.
>
> Greetings, good luck for your thesis!
>
> > Is it possible to get the note heads even closer together, so that they
> are
> > kind of glued together? Probably someone did this before but I wasn't
> able
> > to find it yet.
>
> Well for once, you could use \omit rather than \hide, since with \hide
> the graphical objects still take up horizontal space. Next you can
> shrink the NoteHead object’s horizontal extent (rather than the
> BarLine), but the results will look quite ugly quite fast,
> particularly with regard to the lyrics:
>
>
>
> spiritus = \relative {
> \time 1/4
> \override Lyrics.LyricText.X-extent = #'(0 . 3)
> d'4 \tuplet 3/2 { f8 a g } g a a4 g f8 e
> d4 f8 g g8 d f g a g f4 g8 a a4 s
> \tuplet 3/2 { g8 f d } e f g a g4
> }
>
> spirLyr = \lyricmode {
> Spi -- ri -- _ _ tus _ Do -- mi -- ni _ re -- ple -- _ vit _
> or -- _ bem _ ter -- ra -- _ rum, al -- _ _ le -- _ lu
> -- _ ia.
> }
> \score {
> \new Staff <<
> \new Voice = "chant" \spiritus
> \new Lyrics = "one" \lyricsto "chant" \spirLyr
> >>
> \layout {
> \context {
> \Staff
> \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
> %\override BarLine.X-extent = #'(-1 . 1)
> \omit Stem
> \omit Beam
> \omit BarLine
> \omit TupletNumber
> \override NoteHead.X-extent = #'(-0.1 . 0.1)
> }
> }
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> -- V.
> }
>
horziontal spacing in chants
Hey folks!
I am currently working on my Master thesis and would like to show parts of
gregorian chants in modern notation for comparison purposes.
In the notation reference following example is given.
spiritus = \relative {
\time 1/4
\override Lyrics.LyricText.X-extent = #'(0 . 3)
d'4 \tuplet 3/2 { f8 a g } g a a4 g f8 e
d4 f8 g g8 d f g a g f4 g8 a a4 s
\tuplet 3/2 { g8 f d } e f g a g4
}
spirLyr = \lyricmode {
Spi -- ri -- _ _ tus _ Do -- mi -- ni _ re -- ple -- _ vit _
or -- _ bem _ ter -- ra -- _ rum, al -- _ _ le -- _ lu
-- _ ia.
}
\score {
\new Staff <<
\new Voice = "chant" \spiritus
\new Lyrics = "one" \lyricsto "chant" \spirLyr
>>
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
\override BarLine.X-extent = #'(-1 . 1)
\hide Stem
\hide Beam
\hide BarLine
\hide TupletNumber
}
}
}
Is it possible to get the note heads even closer together, so that they are
kind of glued together? Probably someone did this before but I wasn't able
to find it yet.
All the best
Christian Masser
Re: Remote Ensemble Playing
Yep, I fully second that. It's by definition not "playing" together, mostly because of the total lack of spontaneity. But on the other hand, with a few - or to be more honest: a hell of - adjustments to the MIDI tempos in advance, you can in fact account for a great deal in terms of at least agogics. You can then proceed with sending everyone the recording, if you want, letting them make their own adjustments and re-recording. This way you can get a decent piece of music out of it, instead of using the musicans only as MIDI instruments. (This is kind of the very slow way of a good orchestral rehearsal: Everyone brings an idea of his part according to the conducter and at the same time listens to the other ideas and adjusts individually to it.) But to be honest, and having done both: you need a different subset of skills for this than you'll need in daily orchestral playing. The fewest musicians playing in orchestras do studio recordings where they get to play to click regularly. Christian Urs Liska schrieb am Mi., 1. Apr. 2020, 11:43: > Am Mittwoch, den 01.04.2020, 11:33 +0200 schrieb Christian Masser: > > Hi! > > I think whether it's easier with only click or with click+MIDI purely > depends on the player's own stability in terms of intonation and rhythm. > (And in terms of MIDI accompaniment you have to pay special attention to > the tuning of the MIDI instrument.) > > Having done a few of this recordings myself I found that for chorales or > hymn tunes it's easier having a MIDI track because of the many small > corrections you have to make in tuning depending on the harmony you're in > while on the other hand it's mostly easier for rhythmically difficult > pieces to just play along the click. > > But this is all probably very subjective to my own musical approach. > > > One issue is that in 99% of classical music (with the exception of many > contemporary music ensemble pieces and maybe the Bolero) musicians do *not* > go along with a strict click track. Therefore usually a video of a > conductor will musically be more adequate. Of course having many musicians > perform against that video without hearing others will usually not result > in really synchronized playing. > > One possibility might be having one instrument play along with the > conductor video, then have the next musician play along that video while > listening to the first recording and so on. That might work out to produce > a decent recording (with unreasonable amounts of technical trickery), but I > have to second Ralf in saying this is not really playing together. "Making > music together" (but not at the same time) might capture the idea better ... > > Urs > > > > All the best > Christian > > PS: Sorry Gianmaria, I accidentally answered to you directly without > posting to the list. > > > Gianmaria Lari schrieb am Mi., 1. Apr. 2020, > 11:13: > > Ciao Urs! > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 09:05, Urs Liska wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, den 01.04.2020, 08:51 +0200 schrieb Gianmaria Lari: > > Off topic but very interesting :) > > Does anyone have any idea how these people is able to do things like these? > > https://youtu.be/Sj4pE_bgRQI > https://youtu.be/3eXT60rbBVk > > > I think the Rotterdam Philharmonic information says it all: Most of the > solutions that pop up so far are not "playing together" but playing > separately to a preproduced "click track", whether this is an actual click > track or a video recording of the conductor. Then every musician plays > their part and someone does the digital post production. > > > Could be a "click track" a "neutral" recording maybe a midi file > temporized according a conductor? So that each player can play "with" the > music? > > I'm asking this because, of course the orchestral musician are > professional, but to play an instrument part without the other instrumental > parts and only following a metronome (or a video of the conductor) doesn't > look easy. > > Does anyone know if this (temporized midi file) is something that people > do? Or they really only watch a click track (a video with the score and the > beating metronome)? > > Thanks, g. > P.S. Hope my english is understandable. > >
Re: Remote Ensemble Playing
Hi! I think whether it's easier with only click or with click+MIDI purely depends on the player's own stability in terms of intonation and rhythm. (And in terms of MIDI accompaniment you have to pay special attention to the tuning of the MIDI instrument.) Having done a few of this recordings myself I found that for chorales or hymn tunes it's easier having a MIDI track because of the many small corrections you have to make in tuning depending on the harmony you're in while on the other hand it's mostly easier for rhythmically difficult pieces to just play along the click. But this is all probably very subjective to my own musical approach. All the best Christian PS: Sorry Gianmaria, I accidentally answered to you directly without posting to the list. Gianmaria Lari schrieb am Mi., 1. Apr. 2020, 11:13: > Ciao Urs! > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 09:05, Urs Liska wrote: > >> Am Mittwoch, den 01.04.2020, 08:51 +0200 schrieb Gianmaria Lari: >> >> Off topic but very interesting :) >> >> Does anyone have any idea how these people is able to do things like >> these? >> >> https://youtu.be/Sj4pE_bgRQI >> https://youtu.be/3eXT60rbBVk >> >> >> I think the Rotterdam Philharmonic information says it all: Most of the >> solutions that pop up so far are not "playing together" but playing >> separately to a preproduced "click track", whether this is an actual click >> track or a video recording of the conductor. Then every musician plays >> their part and someone does the digital post production. >> > > Could be a "click track" a "neutral" recording maybe a midi file > temporized according a conductor? So that each player can play "with" the > music? > > I'm asking this because, of course the orchestral musician are > professional, but to play an instrument part without the other instrumental > parts and only following a metronome (or a video of the conductor) doesn't > look easy. > > Does anyone know if this (temporized midi file) is something that people > do? Or they really only watch a click track (a video with the score and the > beating metronome)? > > Thanks, g. > P.S. Hope my english is understandable. >
Re: Blackend ligatures in mensural notation
Just found another way: \once \override NoteHead.style = #'blackpetrucci g\breve*3/4 This colors the note even in flexa-style ligatures. Though it is still a workaround it's at least compatible with clef changes. Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 21:21 Uhr schrieb : > Christian: > > I was wondering if it is possible to blacken single notes in ligatures in > > white mensural notation - having the meaning of shorten the note length > to > > 3/4 of its value. I need this for an incipit in the following example: > > Here is an old example: > http://aspodata.se/noter/victoria/o_quam_gloriosum/motet/all.pdf > http://aspodata.se/git/musik/TomasLuisdeVictoria/o_quam_gloriosum/motet/ > > See page 7, mid second system, bassus, at "agnum", in the pdf. > Line 61-63 in a.ly > > Hopefully there is better ways to do it today. > > Regards, > /Karl Hammar > > >
Re: Blackend ligatures in mensural notation
Thank you, Karl! I kind of like this workaround... feels a little bit like good old handwriting. Best regards Christian Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 21:21 Uhr schrieb : > Christian: > > I was wondering if it is possible to blacken single notes in ligatures in > > white mensural notation - having the meaning of shorten the note length > to > > 3/4 of its value. I need this for an incipit in the following example: > > Here is an old example: > http://aspodata.se/noter/victoria/o_quam_gloriosum/motet/all.pdf > http://aspodata.se/git/musik/TomasLuisdeVictoria/o_quam_gloriosum/motet/ > > See page 7, mid second system, bassus, at "agnum", in the pdf. > Line 61-63 in a.ly > > Hopefully there is better ways to do it today. > > Regards, > /Karl Hammar > > >
Blackend ligatures in mensural notation
Hey folks!
I was wondering if it is possible to blacken single notes in ligatures in
white mensural notation - having the meaning of shorten the note length to
3/4 of its value. I need this for an incipit in the following example:
The g at the end of the ligature should be filled black, meaning as much as
stated in the second example.
\version "2.18.2"
\new MensuralVoice \relative c' {
\time 2/2
\[ e1 f g\breve a \] g4 f
}
\new Voice \relative c' {
\time 2/2
\hide Staff.BarLine
\[ e1 f g\breve a1. \] g4 f
}
Best regards
Christian
