Re: parts sharing a staff

Hi Shevek, > Well, it is part of the presentation layer, but the specific decision of how > to combine parts in a particular passage depends on what the music is. If I > decide one to day to change a unison passage to octaves, then the next to > make it solo, and after that to make it dovetail

Re: parts sharing a staff

's purely presentational, but it depends directly on the musical content, so I would find it rather confusing to put the override in a separate part of the code from the notes. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/parts-sharing-a-staff-tp203873p203902.html Se

Re: parts sharing a staff

Hi Shevek, > I just make sure to precede every partcombine instruction with a \tag for the > score it pertains to. I used to use the \tag mechanism a lot, before I discovered the edition-engraver. Now I almost never use them — I find they clutter up my content code. Cheers, Kieren.

Re: parts sharing a staff

Hi Shevek, > as I compose I may add or subtract measures many times. > Having to keep the editorial changes synced with the score Currently that *is* an issue. (Note: I don't compose into Lilypond; I tried it a few times, but found it *way* too frustrating!) Fortunately, the problem will be

Re: parts sharing a staff

this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/parts-sharing-a-staff-tp203873p203899.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: parts sharing a staff

the editorial changes synced with the score would mean I'm in effect defining the music twice, and it would be less readable, because it obscures the musical reason for combining or separating staves. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/parts-sharing-a-staff

Re: parts sharing a staff

Hi Shevek, > Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're using the > edition engraver to do various score layouts, but in each version the staff > distribution will stay the same throughout the piece. My use case is a bit > different, as within the course of a piece I need to be

Re: parts sharing a staff

Hi Shevek, >> I don't mind having to insert the occasional layout-related command — >> I actually prefer the ability to switch between clearly defined behaviors, >> rather than have Lilypond try to guess which to use. > > I like having both options. =) For example, just because we have the

Re: parts sharing a staff

Hi Shevek, > I don't mind having to insert the occasional layout-related command — > I actually prefer the ability to switch between clearly defined behaviors, > rather than have Lilypond try to guess which to use. I like having both options. =) > The biggest problem caused by inserting

Re: parts sharing a staff

On 16 June 2017 at 13:05, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > Perhaps the best plan is for us to start with some *very simple* use cases > — more simple than the choral work I mention above (and which Mark K > "solved") — and discuss how existing Lilypond features do or do

Re: parts sharing a staff

t: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/parts-sharing-a-staff-tp203873p203878.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: parts sharing a staff

Hi Shevek, > I'd be fascinated to have an in depth conversation about shared staves in > Lilypond. I've been giving a fair bit of thought to how I'd like it to work, > at least based on my particular use case. I'd like that, too! I’ve found that the whole situation is fairly simple if the

Re: parts sharing a staff

nstantly, but it's annoying to worry about every time I want to print a fair copy of a draft, e.g. to submit to something. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/parts-sharing-a-staff-tp203873p203876.html Sent from the User mailing

Re: parts sharing a staff

Hi Shevek, > I often run into situations where two parts share a staff some > of the time and have individual staffs the rest of the time. This is quite common. (I have scores where up to 8 different parts will share between 1 and 8 staves, depending on the situation.) > The way I handle it is

parts sharing a staff

k and forth accordingly. How feasible would such a project be? If it is feasible, how could I begin to approach it? -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/parts-sharing-a-staff-tp203873.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user