Re: Shouldn't articulation 'stick' to note-heads?
Am 17.07.2008 um 07:10 schrieb George_: hi guys I was wondering if there were a way to make articulation 'stick' to a notehead, no matter where it is? I use 2.11.49 on XP, and I have a two-part melody, the lower voice is to be played staccato, like so: http://www.nabble.com/file/p18501666/1.jpg Except in the lily output, the staccato dots are (as shown) on the stem side of the note-head. Is there a way to make these articulations go over the notes? Or is this just a bug? Thanks George -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Shouldn%27t-articulation-%27stick%27-to-note-heads--tp18501666p18501666.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.10/Documentation/user/lilypond/Articulations#Articulations shows how to force above or below notehead articulations. As far as I know, that section hasn't been rewritten yet for the 2.11 docs. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Shouldn't articulation 'stick' to note-heads?
Am 17.07.2008 um 07:10 schrieb George_: hi guys I was wondering if there were a way to make articulation 'stick' to a notehead, no matter where it is? I use 2.11.49 on XP, and I have a two-part melody, the lower voice is to be played staccato, like so: http://www.nabble.com/file/p18501666/1.jpg Except in the lily output, the staccato dots are (as shown) on the stem side of the note-head. Is there a way to make these articulations go over the notes? Or is this just a bug? Thanks George -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Shouldn%27t-articulation-%27stick%27-to-note-heads--tp18501666p18501666.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.10/Documentation/user/lilypond/Articulations#Articulations shows how to force above or below notehead articulations. As far as I know, that section hasn't been rewritten yet for the 2.11 docs. Look at that, someone updated that section! Yay! ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.3 Expressive, first draft
Am 17.07.2008 um 00:28 schrieb Graham Percival: I'm happy to announce the first draft of NR 1.3 Expressive! Thanks go to Patrick. Please proofread this carefully; if you find any mistakes, omissions, or anything that's unclear, please post it here! GDP website: http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/ Cheers, - Graham Should I help with the german translation? I haven't read any of the other pre-release documentation, but it looks like the german translation could use another volunteer. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.3 Expressive, first draft
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:38:51 +0200 James E. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should I help with the german translation? I haven't read any of the other pre-release documentation, but it looks like the german translation could use another volunteer. I have nothing to do with the translations, so I'll let somebody else cover that. The important thing in my mind is to finish the English docs. It's no use translating something that'll be completely rewritten in two months. I think it's better in the long run for any translators to completely drop their translation efforts, spend a month carefully proofreading the English docs, and then resume translationing when we have a really good, stable set of docs to work from. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.3 Expressive, first draft
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 15:28 -0700, Graham Percival wrote: I'm happy to announce the first draft of NR 1.3 Expressive! Looks very good, well done. A couple of suggestions: 1.3.1, Dynamics, Vertically aligning dynamics across multiple notes This example doesn't seem to work - it just aligns the tops of the dynamic marks. There is an LSR example which uses #'Y-extent as well as #'staff-padding. http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=387 1.3.1, Dynamics, Hiding the extender line for text dynamics Perhaps the first sentence here Text style dynamic changes (such as cresc. and dim.) are printed with a dashed line showing their extent. should be moved up the page to the point where \crescTextCresc etc are first introduced, and that example could be slightly tweaked so that the extender line is more apparent. (At the moment the default behaviour isn't really shown before it's altered.) 1.3.1, New dynamic marks The first example on this page unfortunately cuts off the top of the 'f'. Cheers, Mark -- Mark Knoop ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.5 Simultaneous, second draft
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:47 -0700, Graham Percival wrote:
I'm happy to announce the second public draft of NR 1.5
Simultaneous notes.
1.5.2 Multiple voices, Single-staff polyphony
Typo: s/avobe/above/
Given the number of emails on this list about slur, tie, etc problems
arising from using the { ... } \\ { ... } polyphony method, would
it perhaps be a good idea to at least include an example of the right
way to do it here?
{ \voiceOne ... } \new Voice { \voiceTwo ... } \oneVoice
I think Graham usually refers to LM 3.2.2 Explicitly instantiating
voices...
Mark
--
Mark Knoop
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
GDP: NR 3
NR 3 Input Syntax in GDP has been largely reorganised and several subsections redrafted. Could you please review this for gross errors and omissions before we get down to detailed formatting and wording. The sections which have been substantially modified are: NR 3.1 Input Structure NR 3.3 Working with input files NR 3.5 MIDI output NR 3.2 and NR 3.4 are virtually unchanged, but comments on these too are still welcome. The section name Input syntax now seems a poor match to the contents. Perhaps Other notation might be better? Views on this welcome. As always, see the GDP docs at the GDP website: http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/ Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 3
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:17:31 +0100 Trevor Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NR 3.5 MIDI output I think 3.5.7 is unnecessary. Just add , in any MIDI player which supports pitch bending to the item in 3.5.2. I'm not certain if we need a separate subsubsection for instrument names. Why not merge that with 3.5.3? I'm not certain about the order of .2 and .3. IMO, there's three parts of MIDI: - basic setup (including tempo and instrument name) - what's included in MIDI - special cases (\unfoldRepeats, dynamics) I don't mind having multiple subsections for each item in the above list, but IMO they should still be found next to each other. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.5 Simultaneous, second draft
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:03:07 +0100
Mark Knoop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the number of emails on this list about slur, tie, etc problems
arising from using the { ... } \\ { ... } polyphony method,
would it perhaps be a good idea to at least include an example of the
right way to do it here?
{ \voiceOne ... } \new Voice { \voiceTwo ... } \oneVoice
Is that really the right method? I thought that \\ *was* the
right method... in fact, isn't \\ exactly the same as what you
propose?
I think Graham usually refers to LM 3.2.2 Explicitly instantiating
voices...
We (and by we, I mean I) officially have No Mercy (tm) on
anybody who emails the -user list without reading LM 3. I'm open
to adding a short reminder or warning to NR 1.5 if there's
anything that people often mess up (just like the warning about
key signatures and accidentals in NR 1), but in general we assume
that readers are familiar with the concepts in LM 3.
A few links in the @seealso sections might be appropriate -- I
haven't looked to see how many are there, though. If you think
this would help, please suggest specific things to link to, from
specific subsections.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.5 Simultaneous, second draft
Graham:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:03:07 +0100
Mark Knoop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the number of emails on this list about slur, tie, etc problems
arising from using the { ... } \\ { ... } polyphony method,
would it perhaps be a good idea to at least include an example of the
right way to do it here?
{ \voiceOne ... } \new Voice { \voiceTwo ... } \oneVoice
Is that really the right method? I thought that \\ *was* the
right method... in fact, isn't \\ exactly the same as what you
propose?
...
No,
Ex1: { \A } \\ { \B }
creates TWO new voices, which get you into problems when doing \lyricsto,
where
Ex2: { \voiceOne \a } \new Voice { \voiceTwo \b } \oneVoice
only creates ONE new voice, \a belongs to the same voice as the surronding
music.
Ex1 is a dead end, nice for simple notes, everewhere else you have to do
Ex2.
Regards,
/Karl
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 3
Thanks for the quick response! Graham Percival wrote Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:37 AM On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:17:31 +0100 Trevor Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NR 3.5 MIDI output I think 3.5.7 is unnecessary. Just add , in any MIDI player which supports pitch bending to the item in 3.5.2. I included this because the only mention of microtones in NR 1/NR 2 (AFAICS) is rather buried in Note names in other languages, with no heading to @ref to. Maybe now that we have a section on World music it could be replaced by a @ref to something there, but there's nothing suitable yet. Happy to do as you suggest as soon as there is a suitable section on microtones elsewhere which I could @ref to. I'm not certain if we need a separate subsubsection for instrument names. Why not merge that with 3.5.3? Agreed it is too short to remain on its own, but it doesn't really belong in a section about \midi. Maybe merging it into 3.5.1 would be better? I'm not certain about the order of .2 and .3. IMO, there's three parts of MIDI: - basic setup (including tempo and instrument name) - what's included in MIDI - special cases (\unfoldRepeats, dynamics) OK, I'll swap them over. I agree it would be better. - Graham Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.5 Simultaneous, second draft
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:04:06 +0200 (CEST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Hammar) wrote:
Graham:
{ \voiceOne ... } \new Voice { \voiceTwo ... } \oneVoice
Is that really the right method? I thought that \\ *was* the
right method... in fact, isn't \\ exactly the same as what you
propose?
...
No,
Huh, I had no idea.
Everybody: this is why your proofreading is so important. Some
doc writers have only been using lilypond for five months. I used
lilypond a few years ago, but there's huge swaths of material that I
don't know -- or even worse, material I *think* that I know, but I'm
actually incorrect.
If I'm the only person reviewing material that five-month newbies
are writing, the docs could end up misleading or even completely
incorrect.
Thanks, Mark and Karl. Hopefully Francisco and Trevor will modify
LM 3 / NR 1.5 to clarify/correct this point.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.5 Simultaneous, second draft
Graham Percival wrote Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:25 AM
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:04:06 +0200 (CEST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Hammar) wrote:
Graham:
{ \voiceOne ... } \new Voice { \voiceTwo ... } \oneVoice
Is that really the right method? I thought that \\ *was* the
right method... in fact, isn't \\ exactly the same as what you
propose?
...
No,
Huh, I had no idea.
Everybody: this is why your proofreading is so important. Some
doc writers have only been using lilypond for five months. I used
lilypond a few years ago, but there's huge swaths of material that I
don't know -- or even worse, material I *think* that I know, but I'm
actually incorrect.
Absolutely! I keep finding my misconceptions have
occasionally crept into the docs. We really do need
the real experts to review this new material.
Thanks, Mark and Karl. Hopefully Francisco and Trevor will modify
LM 3 / NR 1.5 to clarify/correct this point.
Actually LM 3 always has said what Karl has just pointed out :)
Cheers,
- Graham
Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
combined time signature
Just out of curiousity, is there way to do either the clef or the time
signature for real?
\version 2.11.52
{
\override Staff.Clef #'stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
\override Staff.Clef #'text = \markup {\musicglyph #clefs.G
\hspace #-1.7 \musicglyph #clefs.G}
\override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
\override Staff.TimeSignature #'text = \markup { \musicglyph
#timesig.neomensural64 \hspace #-1.0 \lower #1.0 { \musicglyph
#three } }
\time 6/4
R1.
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.5 Simultaneous, second draft
Karl Hammar wrote:
Graham:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:03:07 +0100
Mark Knoop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the number of emails on this list about slur, tie, etc problems
arising from using the { ... } \\ { ... } polyphony method,
would it perhaps be a good idea to at least include an example of the
right way to do it here?
{ \voiceOne ... } \new Voice { \voiceTwo ... } \oneVoice
Is that really the right method? I thought that \\ *was* the
right method... in fact, isn't \\ exactly the same as what you
propose?
...
No,
Why not? I find myself wanting to go into two (or three) voices and back
again very frequently when typesetting percussion parts, and the 'right'
way is far too long-winded - often it would be longer than the music it
encloses. I always use the method given in the second example in NR
2.5.1.3 Percussion Staves, i.e. explicitly instantiating the voices
beforehand and using \\, in combination with skip-of-length. Does this
count as the right way, or is it still the wrong way? As a user, it
would be much easier for me to just be able to tell Lilypond once that
I'm doing drums, and then just put the music in, without using any kind
of method at all.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Changing notes based on fingerings
Le 16 juil. 08 à 16:13, Eric Knapp a écrit :
The next issue in trying to extend Lilypond for my instrument is that
I want to change things in the Note based on the text in the
Fingering. Here's an example, this displayMusic call results in the
make-music call that is after it. I have code working that gives me
the 2 from the FingeringEvent that I got from the very helpful Neil
Puttock. Now I need to be able to retrieve the NoteEvent that is in
the same list.
\displayMusic {a''2-2}
(make-music
'SequentialMusic
'elements
(list (make-music
'EventChord
'elements
(list (make-music
'NoteEvent -- I want to make changes here.
'duration
(ly:make-duration 1 0 1 1)
'pitch
(ly:make-pitch 1 5 0))
(make-music
'FingeringEvent
'digit
2) Based on this.
The NoteEvent part of this expression is the value of the name property.
(ly:music-property music-object 'name) == NoteEvent
If I'm in a function that was delivered a Fingering grob, can I
navigate up to the containing list and then up to the SequentialMusic
object?
Do you mean a FingeringEvent music expression, or a Fingering grob?
Once you have grobs, it's too late for modifying music expressions.
You can navigate down music expressions, but not up. But see below.
Or is this not the direction that will give me a solution? The
other idea I have about this is to override the creation of all music
notes and if there is a Fingering object then rewrite the entire
make-music call. I don't know how to do that, either.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to do, but here is my guess.
Based on an input like: a''2-2
you want to produce something like: [fill in the blank]
The process is the following:
1. \displayMusic a''2-2
as you have done, to be able to recognize how to get the interesting
elements
2. \displayMusic [fill in the blank]
to see how to programmatically build the result
3. write a basic music function that transforms the input to the
desired
result.
If what you're working on is complex, at first implement elementary
transformations. Then, progresseivey merge them in single music function
that does what you aim at.
nicolas
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Changing notes based on fingerings
Hello, Nicolas. On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Nicolas Sceaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you mean a FingeringEvent music expression, or a Fingering grob? Once you have grobs, it's too late for modifying music expressions. You can navigate down music expressions, but not up. But see below. I think I would like the music expression. I didn't know that once I had a grob it was too late. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to do, but here is my guess. Based on an input like: a''2-2 you want to produce something like: [fill in the blank] I would like to start with: a''2-2 And produce: a''2 with customized NoteHeads and Stems based on the -2 fingering. I want to produce a note with a custom notehead and suppress the fingering numbers. The notation I'm trying to code indicates fingerings with notehead shapes, not fingering numbers or letters. But, I would like users to still be able to indicate fingerings with the normal lilypond notation like a-2. The process is the following: 1. \displayMusic a''2-2 as you have done, to be able to recognize how to get the interesting elements 2. \displayMusic [fill in the blank] to see how to programmatically build the result 3. write a basic music function that transforms the input to the desired result. If what you're working on is complex, at first implement elementary transformations. Then, progresseivey merge them in single music function that does what you aim at. I am using this approach with good results. I know the music expression I want to create. I just need to be able to catch music expressions so that I can get the fingering number that the user entered. Then I can create the correct note based on the fingering. With code like this: \override Fingering #'stencil = #custom-fingerings %-- a function I can intercept any music expression that has a fingering. But, I receive the Fingering grob in the function. How do I intercept all music expressions before they are grobs so that I can make them myself? If this is documented then I'm just missing it and would love to be enlightened. nicolas Thanks, Nicolas, this is very helpful and educational. -Eric ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Changing notes based on fingerings
Le 17 juil. 08 à 16:16, Eric Knapp a écrit :
I am using this approach with good results. I know the music
expression I want to create. I just need to be able to catch music
expressions so that I can get the fingering number that the user
entered. Then I can create the correct note based on the fingering.
With code like this:
\override Fingering #'stencil = #custom-fingerings %-- a function
But this comes too late.
I would do the following: write a music function which, when
encountering
a ChordEvent containing a NoteEvent and a FingeringEvent, makes to
appropriate changes.
\stickify { a''4-2 }
==
\tweak #'style #'triangle a'' 4
This can be done the following way (note that this won't work properly
with chords -- that would require some easy modifications):
#(define (stickify-music music)
(if (eqv? (ly:music-property music 'name) 'EventChord)
(let ((note #f)
(fingering #f)
(other-elements (list)))
(for-each (lambda (elt)
(cond ((eqv? (ly:music-property elt 'name)
'NoteEvent)
(set! note elt))
((eqv? (ly:music-property elt 'name)
'FingeringEvent)
(set! fingering elt))
(else
(set! other-elements
(cons elt other-elements)
(ly:music-property music 'elements))
(if (and note fingering)
(begin
;; change the note head
(set! (ly:music-property note 'tweaks)
(cons (cons 'style
(case (ly:music-property fingering
'digit)
((1) 'triangle)
((2) 'xcircle)
((3) 'cross)
(else 'default)))
(ly:music-property note 'tweaks)))
;; remove the fingering
(set! (ly:music-property music 'elements)
(cons note other-elements))
music)
stickify =
#(define-music-function (parser location music) (ly:music?)
(music-map stickify-music music))
\stickify { c'-1 d'-2 e'-3 f' }
nicolas
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.3 Expressive, first draft
Hi Mark, On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Mark Knoop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks very good, well done. Thanks! 1.3.1, Dynamics, Vertically aligning dynamics across multiple notes This example doesn't seem to work - it just aligns the tops of the dynamic marks. There is an LSR example which uses #'Y-extent as well as #'staff-padding. http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=387 Okay, seems like a better example. I will use it instead. 1.3.1, Dynamics, Hiding the extender line for text dynamics Perhaps the first sentence here Text style dynamic changes (such as cresc. and dim.) are printed with a dashed line showing their extent. should be moved up the page to the point where \crescTextCresc etc are first introduced, and that example could be slightly tweaked so that the extender line is more apparent. (At the moment the default behaviour isn't really shown before it's altered.) I will definitely move the sentence, but this example is revealing a problem with the extender line itself. The behavior of the extender line has changed since 2.10 (IMO, for the worse), so I'll report this as a bug. 1.3.1, New dynamic marks The first example on this page unfortunately cuts off the top of the 'f'. This is a known issue: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=268 Thanks for your input, -Patrick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Cannot move an accent articulation
Hi all.
I have some problems with the snippet below.
First of all, there is a collision in the first bar between the tie and the
articulation (but I can easily solve it).
In the second bar, the tie starts at the end of the previous notehead and
finishes at the beginning of the following notehead, whereas elsewhere it
starts and finishes about in the middle of the noteheads.
In the fourth bar, the augmentation dot for the d is a little bit lower than it
should be (in my opinion).
Finally (and here I need your help), I would like to move the accent
articulation in the second last bar close to the c notehead (as in the fourth
last bar), but \override Script #'Y-offset does not seem to work.
Best regards,
Marco
\version 2.11.52
{\time 6/8 \relative c'' {
% tie and articulation collision
f4.- ~ f4.
% strange position for the tie
e4.- ~ e4.
d4.- ~ d4.
{c'4. ~ c4.}\\
{
% strange position for the augmentation dot
d,4. ~ d4.}
g,,4.
\override Script #'Y-offset = #-4.5
c4.- ~
c2.
g4.(
% cannot move the accent articulation
\override Script #'Y-offset = #-4.5
c4.- ~
c2.)
}}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.3 Expressive, first draft
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:42 -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Mark Knoop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1.3.1, New dynamic marks
The first example on this page unfortunately cuts off the top of the
'f'.
This is a known issue:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=268
Yes, I know, just thought that in this case, since the new dynamic
mark is the point of the example, it might be worth changing the
example to work around the bug. e.g.:
\relative c' {
d e4 d e2_\moltoF
d e4
}
--
Mark Knoop
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.3 Expressive, first draft
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Mark Knoop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:42 -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Mark Knoop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1.3.1, New dynamic marks
The first example on this page unfortunately cuts off the top of the
'f'.
This is a known issue:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=268
Yes, I know, just thought that in this case, since the new dynamic
mark is the point of the example, it might be worth changing the
example to work around the bug. e.g.:
\relative c' {
d e4 d e2_\moltoF
d e4
}
Oh, I see. Good idea! I will change it.
Thanks,
Patrick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Cannot move an accent articulation
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Marco Caliari [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all.
I have some problems with the snippet below.
First of all, there is a collision in the first bar between the tie and the
articulation (but I can easily solve it).
In the second bar, the tie starts at the end of the previous notehead and
finishes at the beginning of the following notehead, whereas elsewhere it
starts and finishes about in the middle of the noteheads.
In the fourth bar, the augmentation dot for the d is a little bit lower than
it
should be (in my opinion).
Finally (and here I need your help), I would like to move the accent
articulation in the second last bar close to the c notehead (as in the fourth
last bar), but \override Script #'Y-offset does not seem to work.
Hi Marco,
The first three problems look like bugs to me. I don't know if they
have been reported yet or not. Valentin, do you know?
The last issue can be solved by modifying the 'avoid-slur property. I
found this on the script-interface page (from the Script grob page).
Here is the modified code:
\version 2.11.52
{\time 6/8 \relative c'' {
% tie and articulation collision
f4.- ~ f4.
% strange position for the tie
e4.- ~ e4.
d4.- ~ d4.
{c'4. ~ c4.}\\
{
% strange position for the augmentation dot
d,4. ~ d4.}
g,,4.
c4.- ~
c2.
g4.(
% tweak to move the accent close to note head
\override Script #'avoid-slur = #'inside
c4.- ~
c2.)
}}
HTH,
-Patrick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Cannot move an accent articulation
Am 17.07.2008 um 18:54 schrieb Marco Caliari: Hi all. Finally (and here I need your help), I would like to move the accent articulation in the second last bar close to the c notehead (as in the fourth last bar), but \override Script #'Y-offset does not seem to work. You need to set the avoid-slur property of the Script. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Cannot move an accent articulation
2008/7/17 Patrick McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The first three problems look like bugs to me. I don't know if they
have been reported yet or not. Valentin, do you know?
The collision has been reported.
The dot positioning isn't a bug; it's standard typesetting practice.
Consider the ambiguity which would arise in the following snippet,
were the dot not to be shifted:
\relative c'' {
\mergeDifferentlyDottedOn
{
g4 g2.
}
\\
{
g8. f16 e2.
}
}
Regards,
Neil
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
question about lyrics changing via \set associatedVoice
I'm trying to engrave a 4-part vocal piece that has a single line of
lyrics that is associated with one of the voices at a time. I've chosen
to use the Hymn-snippet.ly (see attachment) as the base for this job
though it had 4 stanzas so I did a bit of simple adaptation to make it
more suited to my needs.
The problem I'm facing now is that the melody to which the single line
of lyrics is associated begins in the alto voice and then later it moves
into the tenor voice. I've tried inserting the command \set
associatedVoice = #three one syllable before the point where the
voice association needs to change to tenor but what happens is simply
that the lyrics stop happening altogether (at that point). My thinking
is that at the point in the lyrics block where the \set
associatedVoice construct was used, the voice named three hasn't been
seen yet . in other words an order-related problem. Unfortunately,
I don't have a good enough understanding of the scoping and ordering
rules underlying Lilypond that I can find a solution.
Any help on this is greatly appreciated!I've attached the \layout
block that I'm using, hoping to clarify the setup in use. Note that
there is nothing fancy happening in the lyrics contained in the variable
verse. The content of verse is something like
verse = \lyricmode { The words are here etc. etc. \set associatedVoice
= #three and then the words for the tenor continue here. }
Any guidance or suggestions for fixing the setup so that the voice
association can move between alto (set in the top staff) and tenor (set
in the bottom staff) would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks ...
Steven Butner
\header {
title = Hymn Template
subtitle =
tagline =
poet =
composer =
}
#(set-global-staff-size 20)
\include english.ly
upperOne =
\relative a'{
\time 4/4
\voiceOne
a4 b c d a b c d \break
}
upperTwo =
\relative a'{
\voiceTwo
d,4 e f g d e f g
}
lowerOne =
\relative a {
\time 4/4
\voiceOne
a4 b c d a b c d
}
lowerTwo =
\relative c {
\voiceTwo
d4 e f g d e f g
}
firstverse = \lyricmode {
La la la la la la la la
}
secondverse = \lyricmode {
Do do do do do do do do
}
thirdverse = \lyricmode {
Re re re re re re re re
}
fourthverse = \lyricmode {
}
refrain = \lyricmode { so so so so so
}
\score{
\context StaffGroup
\context Staff = upper
\clef treble
\context Voice = one \upperOne
\context Voice = two \upperTwo
\lyricsto one \new Lyrics {
\set stanza = 1.
\firstverse
}
\lyricsto one \new Lyrics {
\set stanza = 2.
\secondverse
}
\lyricsto one \new Lyrics {
\set stanza = 3.
\thirdverse
}
\context Staff = lower
\clef bass
\context Voice = one \lowerOne
\context Voice = two \lowerTwo
\layout {
\context{\Lyrics
minimumVerticalExtent = #'(-0.5 . 3)
}
\context{\StaffGroup
\remove Span_bar_engraver
}
\context{\Staff
minimumVerticalExtent = #'(-3 . 3)
autoBeaming = ##t
\unset melismaBusyProperties
}
\context{\Score
barNumberVisibility = #all-invisible
}
}
\midi { }
}
\paper {
linewidth = 6\in
indent = 0
pagenumber = no
}
\score{
\context StaffGroup
\context Staff = upper
\clef treble
\context Voice = one \upperOne
\context Voice = two \upperTwo
\lyricsto two \new
Still confused about context vs. new
I see many examples with \context, or \new used in the same place. I've
read LM 3.1.1 for example which tells me that if I don't create
explicitly a \new Staff or \new Voice, they will be created
automatically, and goes on to refer to that as the implicit creation of
contexts. I often see examples that refer to contexts, via something
like \context ChoirStaff, or \context Staff, that have not been
explicitly created. Can I assume that they are implicitly created?
Something like this recent example off the list:
\version 2.11
\score {
\context ChoirStaff
\context Staff
\context Voice = voice \relative c'' { \voiceOne\repeat
unfold 200 { e2 }
\new Voice \relative c'' { \voiceTwo \repeat unfold 200 { c }}
\context Lyrics \lyricsto voice { \repeat unfold 200 { la } }
\new Staff \relative c
\new Voice { \clef bass \voiceOne \repeat unfold 200 {
f } }
\new Voice { \voiceTwo \repeat unfold 200 { a, } }
\layout { }
}
Why does it use \context ChoirStaff instead of \new Choirstaff? Same
for Staff? Same for Lyrics. If I change the \context to \new it works
identically (I think). Does it? If not what's the difference? How do
I know when to do which? If I replace all the \new with \context, the
music changes. If I replace all the \context with \new it works fine. Why?
Is there a difference between:
\score {
\new ChoirStaff
\new Staff{
\new Voice
}
\new Staff{
\new Voice
}
and
\score {
\new ChoirStaff
\new Staff{
\new Voice
}
\new Staff{
\context Voice
}
}
Are these referring to implicit always pre-existing contexts, so that
changing the \context to \new just takes up more memory for nothing and
the implicit ones are still there?
In LM 3.4.4 it implies without stating that changing a property of a
Staff happens within the context of the current staff. i.e. setting
instrumentName for a staff only affects that staff and goes on to say
that if you don't specify Staff, then it will affect the default
context, voice. I had to try it to see if \set Staff.instrumentName =
#Alto would work--that was a nice clue, wish the text would have
spelled that out. It seems as if the writers know this well, it's part
of their /context/ grin; and they don't spell out things that now, to
them are obvious.
Farther in LM 3.4.4. they begin using commands to change note heads
without mentioning contexts at all. Am I to assume, that they affect a
default context? Which is that? The last thing I read was to be
careful because the default was Voice. So am I changing a Voice
property here when I don't specify context?
I'm sure it's all clear if you already know it, but for me, it's quite
fuzzy.
Patrick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.5 Simultaneous, second draft
Daniel:
Karl Hammar wrote:
Graham:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:03:07 +0100
Mark Knoop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the number of emails on this list about slur, tie, etc problems
arising from using the { ... } \\ { ... } polyphony method,
would it perhaps be a good idea to at least include an example of the
right way to do it here?
{ \voiceOne ... } \new Voice { \voiceTwo ... } \oneVoice
Is that really the right method? I thought that \\ *was* the
right method... in fact, isn't \\ exactly the same as what you
propose?
...
No,
Why not? I find myself wanting to go into two (or three) voices and back
again very frequently when typesetting percussion parts, and the 'right'
way is far too long-winded - often it would be longer than the music it
encloses. I always use the method given in the second example in NR
2.5.1.3 Percussion Staves, i.e. explicitly instantiating the voices
beforehand and using \\, in combination with skip-of-length. Does this
That is strange, why do you need to do the \new DrumVoice-lines in
drummode? Example of 2.5.1.3:
\new DrumStaff
\new DrumVoice = 1 { s1 *2 }
\new DrumVoice = 2 { s1 *2 }
\drummode {
bd4 sn4 bd4 sn4
{ \repeat unfold 16 hh16 }
\\
{ bd4 sn4 bd4 sn4 }
}
in normal mode they is not needed:
\version 2.11.52
\new Staff
\relative g' {
f4 c' f, c'
{ \repeat unfold 16 e16 }
\\
{ f,4 c'4 f,4 c'4 }
}
This looks about the same.
count as the right way, or is it still the wrong way? As a user, it
would be much easier for me to just be able to tell Lilypond once that
I'm doing drums, and then just put the music in, without using any kind
of method at all.
Ok, what happens if you replace the bd4 sn4 etc. with the snares from
last example of 2.5.1.2 ? By doing it this way, a tie is missing:
\version 2.11.52
\new DrumStaff
\new DrumVoice = 1 { s1 *2 }
\new DrumVoice = 2 { s1 *2 }
\drummode {
sn16 sn8 sn16 sn8 sn8:32~ sn8 sn8 sn4:32~ |
{ \repeat unfold 16 hh16 }
\\
{ sn4 sn8 sn16 sn16 sn4 r4 }
}
Regards
/Karl
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: solved: Staff spacing problem with piano centered dynamics
Hi Jim, 2008/7/17 jimmy2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I still wish I knew how to force staves of a particular system to be closer. I tried various commands which seemed like they should work, but with no effect. Have a look at the headword for NR 1.8 `Text' (http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/user/lilypond/Text.html#Text). The second system has a forced distance of 12 staff spaces using \overrideProperty Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn #'line-break-system-details. Section 4.5.3 `Explicit staff and system positioning' (http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/user/lilypond/Explicit-staff-and-system-positioning.html#Explicit-staff-and-system-positioning) shows you how to tweak the spacing between staves. Regards, Neil ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: question about lyrics changing via \set associatedVoice
Steven:
...
into the tenor voice. I've tried inserting the command \set
associatedVoice = #three one syllable before the point where the
voice association needs to change to tenor but what happens is simply
that the lyrics stop happening altogether (at that point). My thinking
...
\score{
\context StaffGroup
\context Staff = upper
\clef treble
\context Voice = one \upperOne
\context Voice = two \upperTwo
\lyricsto two \new Lyrics {
%% \set stanza = 1.
\verse
}
\context Staff = lower
\clef bass
\context Voice = one \lowerOne
\context Voice = two \lowerTwo
}
...
Where is the voice three?
Maybe you meant:
\context Staff = lower
\clef bass
\context Voice = three \lowerOne
\context Voice = four \lowerTwo
But then the problem is that the \lyricsto comes before the
\context Voice = tree.
To solve that problem use the technique from
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.10/Documentation/user/lilypond/Vocal-ensembles#Vocal-ensembles
I.e. place a \new Lyrics = vocals { s1 } where you want to have the
text, and move the lyricsto to the end.
Regards,
/Karl
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.5 Simultaneous, second draft
2008/7/17 Karl Hammar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ex1: { \A } \\ { \B }
creates TWO new voices, which get you into problems when doing \lyricsto,
where
Ex2: { \voiceOne \a } \new Voice { \voiceTwo \b } \oneVoice
only creates ONE new voice, \a belongs to the same voice as the surronding
music.
Ex1 is a dead end, nice for simple notes, everewhere else you have to do
Ex2.
Before summarizing, I have a question: Ex1 creates 2 new voices; Ex2
clearly creates 1 new voice, and they are \voiceOne and \voiceTwo.
What voice numbers are the two new voices in Ex1? What voice numbers
are a and b in {\a}{\b} ? (call it Ex0)
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
http://www.paconet.org
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: solved: Staff spacing problem with piano centered dynamics
2008/7/17 Jim Cline [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Neil, thanks for the info! I had plowed through section 4.5.3 previously, but the explicit example you mentioned looks like it will be more helpful--Jim Unfortunately, that section is undermined by the formatting of the examples, since every system should appear as six bars wide; I can't blame you if you found it slightly confusing. :) Just a word of warning: if you're using the centred dynamics template, the dynamics spanner is like an invisible stave, so it must be included in the list of offsets in #'line-break-system-details. Regards, Neil ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Still confused about context vs. new
Am 17.07.2008 um 22:35 schrieb Patrick Horgan: I see many examples with \context, or \new used in the same place. I've read LM 3.1.1 for example which tells me that if I don't create explicitly a \new Staff or \new Voice, they will be created automatically, and goes on to refer to that as the implicit creation of contexts. I often see examples that refer to contexts, via something like \context ChoirStaff, or \context Staff, that have not been explicitly created. Can I assume that they are implicitly created? Something like this recent example off the list: See this thread. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-06/msg7.html It took me a long time to understand it as well. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
glissandi and line breaks
dear list,
i'm trying to resolve a tricky passage involving double stop glissandi
spanning several measures. i found a solution involving three different
voices. the difficult part is that due to music spacing, i need a line
break in middle of the glissando. this works well with parallel
glissandi (top staff in the attached example), but it doesn't look so
good with divergent glissandi (lower staff). it seems the glissando
line has no memory where it was before the line break. is there a way
to improve this? should i consider this a sort of bug? here's my
(dirty) code (a very simplified example of the real musical situation):
\version 2.11.50
global = {
\time 4/4
}
ViolinI = \new Voice \with {
\remove Forbid_line_break_engraver
} {
\time 4/4
\relative c' {
% c 1
c'8 c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c c
{
\stemDown
g=''' a,4
% c 2
\override NoteHead #'transparent = ##t d, d d d \break
% c 3
d \revert NoteHead #'transparent d c'4
}
\new Voice \with {
\remove Forbid_line_break_engraver }
{
\override Stem #'stencil = ##f
\override NoteHead #'transparent = ##t
\override Glissando #'breakable = ##t
g='''4*6\glissando c,4
}
\new Voice \with {
\remove Forbid_line_break_engraver }
{
\override Stem #'stencil = ##f
\override NoteHead #'transparent = ##t
\override Glissando #'breakable = ##t
a=''4*6\glissando d,4
}
c8 c c c
c8 c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c c c c
}
}
ViolinII = \new Voice \with {
\remove Forbid_line_break_engraver
} {
\time 4/4
\relative c' {
% c 1
c'8 c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c
{
\stemDown
g='''8 \once \override NoteHead #'transparent = ##t d, g='''8
% c 2
\override NoteHead #'transparent = ##t d,4 d d d
% c 3
d \revert NoteHead #'transparent d c'4
}
\new Voice \with {
\remove Forbid_line_break_engraver }
{
\override Stem #'stencil = ##f
\override NoteHead #'transparent = ##t
\override Glissando #'breakable = ##t
g='''8*13\glissando d,4
}
\new Voice \with {
\remove Forbid_line_break_engraver }
{
s4
\override Stem #'stencil = ##f
\override NoteHead #'transparent = ##t
\override Glissando #'breakable = ##t
g='''8*11\glissando c,4
}
c,8 c c c
c8 c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c c c c
c8 c c c c c c c
}
}
\score {
\new StaffGroup
\new Staff = violin1 { \global \ViolinI }
\new Staff = violin2 { \global \ViolinII }
\layout { }
}
attachment: gliss.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \repeat with upbeat (partial) and alternatives
E.Weehaeli writes:
it is only after a long search that I found an easy way to repeat a part of a
melody
- with an upbeat
- ending before the end of a measure
- having different durations in the alternatives
- without producing warnings in the log
\version 2.11.49
{
\repeat volta 2 { \partial 8 c'8 | c'2.}
\alternative {{ f'8 } { \partial 4 f'4 | }}
d'1 |
}
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but this trick is not
generally useful. \partial moves the timing counter backwards, which effectively
combines the last measure of the first alternative with the
first measure of the second alternative, forming one longer-than-usual
measure that is split visually by a repeat sign.
From your example, it doesn't seem like a big deal, but change your
f to fis and see what happens. The sharp sign will be missing from
the second alternative. Another thing you can do is turn on bar numbers
and add enough measures to the example to make lilypond print one. You
will see that the first alternative is not counted as a measure.
Try using the following \measure function instead of \partial 4 in
your example. It should be used in the same place, at the beginning of
the second alternative, otherwise it will cause problems if you ever
unfold the repeat.
% End a measure prematurely. For example, when an alternate ending
% ends in a partial measure.
measure =
#(define-music-function
(parser location) ()
(let ((m (make-music 'ApplyContext)))
(define (do-it context)
(let* ((measurePos (ly:context-property context 'measurePosition))
(measureLen (ly:context-property context 'measureLength)))
(if (and (ly:moment? ZERO-MOMENT measurePos)
(ly:moment? measurePos measureLen))
(ly:context-set-property! context 'measurePosition measureLen
(set! (ly:music-property m 'procedure) do-it)
(context-spec-music m 'Timing)))
If there are any scheme gurus in the audience, I don't mind criticism.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
