Re: [Tex-music] XML 2 PMX experience: The clef should have been "n"

[Don Simons]

Dieter wrote:
>...when I discard
> the beam information, PMX and MusixTex produce 99 % of the beaming as
> desired. Only one beam with a 16th rest in the middle has to be manually
> inserted.

It's true that PMX will not automatically insert a beam across e.g. g1 r g g
. Do you think it should? It does fine with [ g1 r g g ] .

--Don Simons 

---
TeX-music@tug.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to 
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music

Re: [Tex-music] XML 2 PMX experience: The clef should have been "n"

[Dieter]

Hi Luigi,
you are perfectly right with the stem directions. I am still in a phase 
of prototyping where I try to catch as much information as possible from 
the XML Format.


The same is true for beams. For example in the Telemann Flute Fantasy 
every beam is explicitely described in the XML code, whereas when I 
discard the beam information, PMX and MusixTex produce 99 % of the 
beaming as desired. Only one beam with a 16th rest in the middle has to 
be manually inserted.


So whenever my development goes into production it should have options 
to switch stems and beams on or off.


Anyhow I am not very satisfied with the XML code. It is not really 
standardized. Every Software maker has some specialties like  or 
 for a dotted note.
And so there are many IF THEN ELSE statements in my program code. And it 
is not just a logical description of the music, but contains a lot of 
detailed dimensioning, where to put texts etc.

So it looks more like Powerpoint for Music.

Regards,
Dieter

Am 04.12.2014 18:49, schrieb Luigi Cataldi:

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 16:01:49 +0100
Dieter  wrote:


WIth Tenor clef it looks much better.

Regards, DIeter


Dear Dieter,
tenor clef is the right choice, but I think that the problem comes with the 
fact that every note has own stem direction inserted in the code, like, I 
suppose, happens to the xml code. One of the better feature of PMX is that not 
all the specifications of the note are needed for each note. Isn't possible to 
omit in the resulting PMX code the information about the stem direction (l or 
u), or, better, let the choice to the user if include or not this information 
in the resulting PMX code?

The same happens for the octave specification of the note, but in this case the problem, 
I suppose, is bigger, because "if the note is more than a fourth away from the most 
recent note" octave number or +/- is requested. Nevertheless with those two features 
should be possible traspositions.


A sincere compliment for your work.

Luigi




---
TeX-music@tug.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to 
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music

Re: [Tex-music] XML 2 PMX experience: The clef should have been "n"

[Luigi Cataldi]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 16:01:49 +0100
Dieter  wrote:

> WIth Tenor clef it looks much better.
> 
> Regards, DIeter
> 

Dear Dieter,
tenor clef is the right choice, but I think that the problem comes with the 
fact that every note has own stem direction inserted in the code, like, I 
suppose, happens to the xml code. One of the better feature of PMX is that not 
all the specifications of the note are needed for each note. Isn't possible to 
omit in the resulting PMX code the information about the stem direction (l or 
u), or, better, let the choice to the user if include or not this information 
in the resulting PMX code?

The same happens for the octave specification of the note, but in this case the 
problem, I suppose, is bigger, because "if the note is more than a fourth away 
from the most recent note" octave number or +/- is requested. Nevertheless with 
those two features should be possible traspositions.


A sincere compliment for your work.

Luigi

-- 
Luigi Cataldi 
---
TeX-music@tug.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to 
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music

Re: [Tex-music] XML 2 PMX experience: The clef should have been "n"

[Dieter]

WIth Tenor clef it looks much better.

Regards, DIeter

Am 03.12.2014 17:09, schrieb Don Simons:


When you set (npages,nsystems) to (0,20) you are asking PMX to squeeze 
20 bars on average into each system. PMX seemed OK with that but 
MusiXTeX was not. I tried (0,5), and it went through just fine. But it 
looks like it's all an octave too low, and lots of stems are going in 
the wrong direction.


--Don Simons

*From:*TeX-Music [mailto:tex-music-boun...@tug.org] *On Behalf Of *Dieter
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 7:22 AM
*To:* Werner Icking Music Archive
*Subject:* [Tex-music] XML 2 PMX experience

Dear PMXperts,

I found a nice XML file on 
http://imslp.org/index.php?limit=50&ilsearch=xml&user=&title=Special%3AListFiles


PMLP126430-Vivaldi - Sonata Follia 3celli mandozzi.xml.zip 
 
(Datei 
)


The XML contains three parts for the three Violoncelli. "Vivaldi.pmx" 
just contains the first Violoncello.


Apart from few manually corrected errors (such as an undocumented 
meter change before Bar 209)   it has been generated automatically 
with my OBERON program.
I include also the PMX console text. I think I need some Expert help 
to get PMX going on this file.


The PMX stuff before "% Bar 1" has not been generated and is just 
there to make it run.


Regards,
Dieter

  



---
TeX-music@tug.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to 
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music



--

Dr. Dieter Glötzel
Im Rosengarten 27
64367 Mühltal
Tel.: 06151 / 360 82 72

---
TeX-music@tug.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to 
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music