Mark Polesky wrote:
-Eluze wrote:
i'm not sure i would like the dynamics of one voice above
the staff in a polyphonic guitar piece - but you can use
\dynamicUp to do so!
The authorities are unanimous on this point.
Kurt Stone, ch.1, Placement of Dynamics..., p.31:
A. Dynamics
Mark Polesky wrote Sunday, September 19, 2010 2:37 AM
-Eluze wrote:
i'm not sure i would like the dynamics of one voice above
the staff in a polyphonic guitar piece - but you can use
\dynamicUp to do so!
The authorities are unanimous on this point.
Kurt Stone, ch.1, Placement of
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
Mark Polesky wrote Sunday, September 19, 2010 2:37 AM
Gardner Read, ch.14, NOTATIONAL PRACTICES, p.253:
The general rule is, of course, altered should there be
inadequate room because of elements [...] related to the
staff just below, or when
Oh no, not one of these threads...
Trevor Daniels wrote:
We have to be careful to interpret this correctly. None
of these writers were familiar with the use of voice in
the computer engraving sense. By voice these writers
mean parts that are on one staff but are to be played or
sung by
Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com writes:
Are you saying that, in a 2-voice 1-staff setting, it makes
no sense to separate the dynamics when they both voices are
at the same dynamic? Like this:
\relative c'' {
{ c2\p } \\ { a2\p }
}
Okay, I suppose I might be able to agree with
Comment #9 on issue 1043 by Carl.D.Sorensen: Cross-staff beams confuse
skyline calculations
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1043
So what would be a good summary for this bug?
It seems there are two issues, and maybe the bug should be split:
1) The beam created by
Comment #25 on issue 687 by arvidgr: Enhancement: inequal MIDI quantization
of equal durations (swing, rubato)
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=687
I took the liberty of fixing the two TODOs commenting in swingIt (so that
e.g. a 4. would be scaled right) and trying it on
Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:500436.44248...@web83404.mail.sp1.yahoo.com...
voiceOne Dynamics end up in the worst possible place...
- Mark
* * * * * * * * * *
\version 2.13.34
\relative c'' {
% f should go above the staff; but appears
% below the staff,
Mark Polesky wrote Sunday, September 19, 2010 9:23 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
We have to be careful to interpret this correctly. None
of these writers were familiar with the use of voice in
the computer engraving sense. By voice these writers
mean parts that are on one staff but are to be
Hi!
Here lilypond puts dots in betweens noteheads, i need both of them
(all of
them) would be in spaces below noteheads:
\version 2.13.33 % 2.12 does the same
[...]
It looks to me as if this strange behaviour is caused by the
\voiceTwo-command. It also happens with \voiceFour. For now
Updates:
Labels: -Priority-Medium Priority-Postponed
Comment #7 on issue 694 by percival.music.ca: Enhancement: arrowed heads
for microtone accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=694
At some point in GOP, we might assign a new doc person to work on this and
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Labels: fixed_2_13_34
Comment #2 on issue 1241 by percival.music.ca: old .bib files contain
latex-accents
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1241
Second one pushed as 64e20e277b363c54afe92322f51a328bfb78caae
Trevor Daniels wrote:
But a quick look through some of my music shows dynamics
are more commonly placed above the staff, so I wonder why
placing them below is the default? But I don't have any
instrumental parts to hand - where are the dynamics in
these usually placed?
Vocal dynamics are
Updates:
Labels: -Priority-Postponed Priority-Low
Comment #2 on issue 1199 by percival.music.ca: lilypond telnet server
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1199
More important than Postponed.
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
Updates:
Labels: -Priority-Postponed Priority-Low
Comment #1 on issue 965 by percival.music.ca: making a score-following DVD
with lilypond
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=965
This is a valid request, and more important than other Postponed items.
Updates:
Status: Started
Owner: percival.music.ca
Comment #1 on issue 1202 by percival.music.ca: git cl is hidden in CG
9.8.9 ?
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1202
(No comment was entered for this change.)
___
Comment #13 on issue 389 by percival.music.ca: \t - tab in LSR snippets
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=389
ok, I've discovered that the LSR export is perfectly fine; it's just
snippets in D/s/n/ and many of the translate texidoc strings.
I've got an auto-backslash-escape
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Labels: fixed_2_13_34
Comment #14 on issue 389 by percival.music.ca: \t - tab in LSR snippets
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=389
pushed as f8fd9c211e9ab17859841aa9ec98af731ab253c3
___
Comment #10 on issue 1043 by k-ohara5...@oco.net: Cross-staff beams confuse
skyline calculations
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1043
Using Carl's way of categorizing the sub-issues,
(1) could be summarized collision automatic beams near staff changes.
(2) is already in
Mark Polesky wrote Sunday, September 19, 2010 3:54 PM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
But a quick look through some of my music shows dynamics
are more commonly placed above the staff, so I wonder why
placing them below is the default? But I don't have any
instrumental parts to hand - where are the
Comment #8 on issue 694 by joseph.wakeling: Enhancement: arrowed heads for
microtone accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=694
Can you clarify which points you feel are not clear?
My feeling is that it is principally a code issue, not a doc one. Lilypond
simply
Comment #9 on issue 694 by percival.music.ca: Enhancement: arrowed heads
for microtone accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=694
What's not clear...
- there's some patch(s), but it's not clear if it applies to current git,
or is waiting for revision from the
Updates:
Summary: Avoid compilation and run-time deprecation warnings from Guile
V2
Labels: Patch
Comment #2 on issue 1265 by ianhuli...@gmail.com: Avoid compilation and
run-time deprecation warnings from Guile V2
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1265
I
Comment #10 on issue 694 by joseph.wakeling: Enhancement: arrowed heads for
microtone accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=694
Looking at the patches, they don't address the fundamental problem. I
don't know whether they really matter at this stage.
The problem
Comment #3 on issue 1265 by Carl.D.Sorensen: Avoid compilation and run-time
deprecation warnings from Guile V2
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1265
As far as I recall, we already got the go-ahead to remove all of the Guile
1.6 compatibility code.
Thanks,
Carl
25 matches
Mail list logo
