Re: Which Linux distro for Lilypond

Hello, > I never tried to compile lilypond with a guile version higher than > 2.0.13, so I can't say anything about it. I (really) recommend you to do so: guile 2.2 is due to be released in a month or two, at the very most. 2.1.5 beta is the latest [1], 2.1.6 will be released in a few days (and

Re: addFingering

Le vendredi 13 janvier 2017, 14:06:23 Gianmaria Lari a écrit : > I have a problem with (the fantastic) addFingering snippet. > > Here it is my simple code. > > \version "2.19.54" > \include "addFingering.ly" > > { > \addFingering {a b a b} #"12" > } > > { > \addFingering {\repeat unfold

Re: addFingering

Gianmaria Lari writes: > I probably figured out the reason of this behavior. The function > "addFingering" is evaluated before evaluating the repeat. So lilypond > evaluate this > > \addFingering {\repeat unfold 2 {a b}} #"12" > > > as > > \repeat unfold 2 {a-1 b-2} >

Re: addFingering

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Gilles THIBAULT wrote: > Le vendredi 13 janvier 2017, 14:06:23 Gianmaria Lari a écrit : >> I have a problem with (the fantastic) addFingering snippet. >> >> Here it is my simple code. >> >> \version "2.19.54" >> \include "addFingering.ly"

Re: Experience with several import filters

I’ve noticed that musicxml2ly ignores delayed turns. Is there a simpler way to achieve that than the snippet at http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/snippets/expressive-marks, shown below? \relative c'' { c2*2/3 ( s2*1/3\turn d4) r << { c4.( d8) } { s4 s\turn } >>

Re: addFingering

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:21 PM, David Nalesnik wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Gilles THIBAULT > wrote: >> Le vendredi 13 janvier 2017, 14:06:23 Gianmaria Lari a écrit : >>> I have a problem with (the fantastic) addFingering snippet.

Re: Faking a time signature

Hello Andrew, Marte and Simon, Thanks for the solutions, sorry I missed that topic in december. Maybe such use of Staff.timeSignatureFraction is worth being mentioned in this context in the LPNR? (Score.measureLength is not as of 2.19.31). JM > Le 13 janv. 2017 à 17:13, Simon Albrecht

Incomplete measure numbering in repeat

Hello folks, In this example (from Gabrieli, faked time signature), is the second alternative's first measure to be numbered 3, or 2? Thanks for your help! JM \version "2.19.44" \relative g' { \set Score.barNumberVisibility = #all-bar-numbers-visible \override

Re: Faking a time signature

Hi Jacques, \set Staff.timeSignatureFraction = #'(2 . 2) \time 4/2 I asked the same question in December, Andrew ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Faking a time signature

Am 13.01.2017 um 14:29 schrieb Menu Jacques: > Hello folks, > > In a Canzon by Gabrieli, we have 4/2 time written as slashed C: > \time sets timeSignatureFraction and measureLength. So you can either use time and set one of these context properties or you set both of them and don’t need

Re: Faking a time signature

Hi Jacques, my first instinct (given my very limited experience with mensural notation or as a music historian) is that this is a transcription error. The historical time signatures of mensural music did not include a symbol for 4/2: there were either three or two semibreves to a bar, and these

Re: addFingering

I probably figured out the reason of this behavior. The function "addFingering" is evaluated before evaluating the repeat. So lilypond evaluate this \addFingering {\repeat unfold 2 {a b}} #"12" as \repeat unfold 2 {a-1 b-2} instead of \addFingering {a b a b} #"12" But why? Is it

Re: Experience with several import filters

Am 14. Januar 2017 06:35:53 GMT+00:00 schrieb Jacques Menu Muzhic : >I’ve noticed that musicxml2ly ignores delayed turns. What does a delayed turn look like in MusicXML and what ist the resulting LilyPond code? -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem

Re: How can I get a repeat symbol in the chord names part of lead sheet?

Hi Rob, Rob Torop wrote > I'm trying to figure out what to use for a chord name to get a "repeat" > (percent) sign over one of the measures. you could also try: % \version "2.18.2" chordNames = \chordmode { \repeat percent 2 {c1}

Re: How can I get a repeat symbol in the chord names part of lead sheet?

Hi Rob, See: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=908 Cheers, Pierre 2017-01-13 4:45 GMT+01:00 Rob Torop : > I'm trying to figure out what to use for a chord name to get a "repeat" > (percent) sign over one of the measures. Below is a complete small > example. I want C over

Re: Midi output with highlighted voices

> On 12 Jan 2017, at 10:58, Jonathan Scholbach wrote: > > Dear Ponders, > > I have a feature wish, and I hope this is the right channel to utter it: > > I typeset choir pieces and in this field it is a big advantage of > LilyPond that producing MIDI files with

addFingering

I have a problem with (the fantastic) addFingering snippet. Here it is my simple code. \version "2.19.54" \include "addFingering.ly" { \addFingering {a b a b} #"12" } { \addFingering {\repeat unfold 2 {a b}} #"12" } I expected that the two generated score would be exactly the same that

Faking a time signature

Hello folks, In a Canzon by Gabrieli, we have 4/2 time written as slashed C: I tried: \once \override Score.TimeSignature.stencil = ##f \numericTimeSignature\time 2/2 | % 1 \numericTimeSignature\time 4/2 | % 1 but this displays no time signature at all since both \time’s occur at the

Re: Faking a time signature

Hi Andrew, The example I needed it for last year was Italian music from about the same period and I was making an edition from the original score, so it may have been fairly common practice at that time. Andrew ___ lilypond-user mailing list

Re: How can I get a repeat symbol in the chord names part of lead sheet?

Thanks very much Pierre! On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:00 AM Pierre Perol-Schneider < pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Rob, > See: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=908 > Cheers, > Pierre > > 2017-01-13 4:45 GMT+01:00 Rob Torop : > > I'm trying to figure out what

Re: Faking a time signature

On 13.01.2017 15:12, N. Andrew Walsh wrote: I'd probably reduce all note-values by half I strongly advise against that. It obscures the historical evolution of notation and thus takes away an important bit of information from the performer. And honestly: it doesn’t make it significantly