Re: Changing voice order...

[Vaughan McAlley]

On 28 October 2016 at 11:25, Mark Stephen Mrotek  wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> I respect your right to disagree.
> Yet,1, 2, 3 stem up, 2, 4, 6 stem down? Not, as they say, rocket science.
>
> Mark
>

Actually 1, 3, 5 stem up.

So not rocket science, but tricky to remember :-)

Vaughan

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Augmentation dot positioning

[Werner LEMBERG]

> Fortunately, it was much easier than I feared it might be.
> 
> Here's a revised version.

Now all examples look fine.  Halleluja :-)


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Augmentation dot positioning

[Carl Sorensen]

On 10/27/16 1:49 PM, "Carl Sorensen"  wrote:
>>
>>Mhmm, 22b, and 24b are not correct IMHO: The lowest dot should be
>>above the ledger line, not below.  Or am I missing something?
>
>Oh, yes.  I missed those being low on my low-resolution monitor.
>
>Back to the drawing board on that part of the algorithmŠ


Fortunately, it was much easier than I feared it might be.

Here's a revised version.

Thanks,

Carl



dots[3].pdf
Description: dots[3].pdf
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: Changing voice order...

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

Michael,

I respect your right to disagree.
Yet,1, 2, 3 stem up, 2, 4, 6 stem down? Not, as they say, rocket science.

Mark

-Original Message-
From: Michael Gerdau [mailto:m...@qata.de] 
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 4:59 PM
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Cc: Mark Stephen Mrotek ; 'David Kastrup'

Subject: Re: Changing voice order...

> If " Generally users don't know the proper order of voice arranging 
> commands" would that not be the fault of those who do not read the manual?

I disagree.

The problem is not so much in reading the manual and doing it right but in
remembering things after not having used them for some time.

Like many others I'm good at remembering things when I see the underlying
structure/pattern and the more convoluted such patterns are, the more likely
I am to misremember things.

Automatic voice numbering IMO clearly is one of these easily misremembered
things.

Therefor I almost never use it because I can't get it working as I expect it
without reading it up in the manual. However explicit voices I can use
correctly w/o having to read it up regularly.

In that very aspect I agree with David that the current implementation is
broken and should be fixed.

Of course that's just my opinion and I'm happy to continue using explicit
voices if the implicit version remains unchanged.

Kind regards,
Michael
-- 
 Michael Gerdau   email: m...@qata.de
 GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[Michael Gerdau]

> If " Generally users don't know the proper order of voice arranging
> commands" would that not be the fault of those who do not read the manual?

I disagree.

The problem is not so much in reading the manual and doing it right
but in remembering things after not having used them for some time.

Like many others I'm good at remembering things when I see the
underlying structure/pattern and the more convoluted such patterns
are, the more likely I am to misremember things.

Automatic voice numbering IMO clearly is one of these easily
misremembered things.

Therefor I almost never use it because I can't get it working as I
expect it without reading it up in the manual. However explicit voices
I can use correctly w/o having to read it up regularly.

In that very aspect I agree with David that the current implementation
is broken and should be fixed.

Of course that's just my opinion and I'm happy to continue using
explicit voices if the implicit version remains unchanged.

Kind regards,
Michael
-- 
 Michael Gerdau   email: m...@qata.de
 GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[Thomas Morley]

2016-10-27 13:40 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>
> This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
>
> If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
>
> 1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
>
> while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
> bottom, assignments should be more like
>
> 1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...
>
> namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.  Now I am
> sort of afraid that changing this is likely to end pretty disruptive to
> existing scores.  Even though I don't know how many really use the
> original ordering unchanged as well as intentionally.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> David Kastrup


I remember the time I was a lilypond-starter, I was pretty confused
about the order...

I'd vote for doing it better even if it breaks previous user codes.
Ofcourse we should document all thoroughly and ofcourse there will be
some complaints on the list, which needs to be adressed.
We did things like that before, I remember the change with the bar-lines ...

my 2 cents,
  Harm

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[Dan Eble]

On Oct 27, 2016, at 09:54 , David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> << \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceThree ...
>   \context Voice = "2" \with \voiceOne ...
>   \context Voice = "3" \with \voiceTwo ...
>   \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceFour ...

I’m not sure whether this thread has progressed beyond the need to mention this 
(forgive me if it has), but this is repulsive.  I mean that in as friendly a 
way as possible.

Regards,
— 
Dan


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: 2nd ending time signature strangeness when using Devnull

[Thomas Morley]

2016-10-27 19:06 GMT+02:00 holl...@hollandhopson.com
:
> I just ran into a problem that seems to be related to Devnull. The second 
> ending time signature reverts to 3/4 time. If I comment out the Devnull line 
> then the time signatures are as expected. Am I using Devnull in the wrong 
> way? Is this a bug?
> Thanks,
> Holland
>
> \version "2.19.30"
>
> global = {
>   \numericTimeSignature
>   \time 4/4
> }
>
> music = \relative c' {
>   \repeat volta 2 {
> c1
>   }
>
>   \alternative {
> {
>   \time 3/4
>   d4 d4 d4 |
>   \time 4/4
>   c1 |
> }
> {
>   %this should be a 4/4 bar, but is treated as 3/4 when Devnull is active
>   d4 d4 d4 d4 |
>   c1 |
> }
>   }
> }
>
> %use \music variable to define metric structure, rehearsal marks, etc. for 
> all voices
> global = {
>   <<
> \global %include previously defined global stuff
>
> % comment out the next line and the time signature problem goes away
> \new Devnull \music
>   >>
> }
>
> \score {
>   \new Staff {
> <<
>   \global
>   \music
> >>
>   }
> }



Hi,

it has nothing to do with DevNull or the like, even this boiled down
example comes out wrongly and with bar check failures:

\version "2.19.49"

music =
  \repeat volta 2 {
c1
  }
  \alternative {
{
  \time 3/4
  d2. |
  \time 4/4
  c1 |
}
{ d1 | }
  }

<<
  \relative c'' \music
  \relative c' \music
>>

The culprit is the new `alternativeRestores'-context-property.
The default is:
alternativeRestores = #'(measurePosition measureLength lastChord)

measureLength is the problem. You can (once) unset
`alternativeRestores' or delete measureLength from the list.
Leading to:

music =
  \repeat volta 2 {
%\set Score.alternativeRestores = #'(measurePosition lastChord)
\unset Score.alternativeRestores
c1
  }
  \alternative {
{
  \time 3/4
  d2. |
  \time 4/4
  c1 |
}
{ d1 | }
  }

<<
  \relative c'' \music
  \relative c' \music
>>

Apart from Changes it's not yet documented, please write a bugreport
requesting documentation, maybe we should rethink the default-settings
as well.

HTH,
  Harm

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: Changing voice order...

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

David,

If " Generally users don't know the proper order of voice arranging
commands" would that not be the fault of those who do not read the manual?
Those who have created Lilypond have my sincere respect. Lilypond is totally
beyond my ken (FORTRAN was my Master's requirement for a foreign language!).
As I mentioned, I can follow directions, and I assume that other uses can do
likewise.
I cannot conceive of the rationality of changing anything because some are
too busy to read the manual.
A specific "thank you" to you for your diligence in maintaining Lilypond.

Mark

-Original Message-
From: David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 3:13 PM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek 
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...

"Mark Stephen Mrotek"  writes:

> David,
>
> "If it ain't broke"

Well, in this case, I consider it broken.  Generally users don't know the
proper order of voice arranging commands and of << ... \\ ... \\ . >>.

While I probably don't count as a frequent enough user, even I got the order
wrong in this discussion (telling Werner that it was inner-first).
That's a rather bad sign.

Now _you_ have actually built a creative workflow around LilyPond's current
order and thus gave it more sense than it inherently has.  And if we change
its behavior, you'll very likely get a command for invoking the current one.
We sort of owe you at least that much.  But at the same time I think we owe
newcomers a default behavior which makes it easier for them to get things
right without creating their own workflow around them.

--
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[Urs Liska]

Am 27. Oktober 2016 15:16:01 GMT-07:00, schrieb Noeck :
>
>
>Am 27.10.2016 um 23:38 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it
>should have been from the start.
>
>:)
>
>
>One more voice from someone who was part of the silent majority:
>
>I do not use the << · \\ · >> construct, only explicit \voiceOne etc.
>so
>I would not be affected.
>I like your suggestion to enter the voices from top to bottom. But I am
>not sure if it is worth the backwards-incompatible change, slightly
>tending towards accepting your proposal.

I would second Carl's opinion: don't hesitate fixing something only because 
we're used to having it wrong. Which is actually perfectly in line with David's 
attitude as stated above.

Urs

>
>Best,
>Joram
>
>___
>lilypond-user mailing list
>lilypond-user@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[Noeck]

Am 27.10.2016 um 23:38 schrieb David Kastrup:
> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should have 
> been from the start.

:)


One more voice from someone who was part of the silent majority:

I do not use the << · \\ · >> construct, only explicit \voiceOne etc. so
I would not be affected.
I like your suggestion to enter the voices from top to bottom. But I am
not sure if it is worth the backwards-incompatible change, slightly
tending towards accepting your proposal.

Best,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

"Mark Stephen Mrotek"  writes:

> David,
>
> "If it ain't broke"

Well, in this case, I consider it broken.  Generally users don't know
the proper order of voice arranging commands and of
<< ... \\ ... \\ . >>.

While I probably don't count as a frequent enough user, even I got the
order wrong in this discussion (telling Werner that it was inner-first).
That's a rather bad sign.

Now _you_ have actually built a creative workflow around LilyPond's
current order and thus gave it more sense than it inherently has.  And
if we change its behavior, you'll very likely get a command for invoking
the current one.  We sort of owe you at least that much.  But at the
same time I think we owe newcomers a default behavior which makes it
easier for them to get things right without creating their own workflow
around them.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: Changing voice order...

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

David,

"If it ain't broke"

Mark

-Original Message-
From: David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:39 PM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek 
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...

"Mark Stephen Mrotek"  writes:

> David,
>
> Yes, in that order - usually only three voice.
> This usually in "chord" that have a moving internal voice.
> Lilypond, as you stated, adjust the note columns and stem suitably.
> The only constant is change. The manual has been clearly written in 
> the past.
> I can follow directions. Let the majority rule.

The majority tends to be silent.

While I certainly am particularly prone to not-invented-here syndrome, I do
have to rethink also decisions about user interface of my own even when the
first choices were not merely due to technical expedience (also known as
laziness) but done in good faith.

I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
have been from the start.

--
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

"Mark Stephen Mrotek"  writes:

> David,
>
> Yes, in that order - usually only three voice.
> This usually in "chord" that have a moving internal voice.
> Lilypond, as you stated, adjust the note columns and stem suitably.
> The only constant is change. The manual has been clearly written in the
> past.
> I can follow directions. Let the majority rule.

The majority tends to be silent.

While I certainly am particularly prone to not-invented-here syndrome,
I do have to rethink also decisions about user interface of my own even
when the first choices were not merely due to technical expedience (also
known as laziness) but done in good faith.

I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
have been from the start.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Augmentation dot positioning

[Carl Sorensen]

On 10/27/16 1:21 PM, "werner.lemb...@gmx.de on behalf of Werner LEMBERG"
 wrote:

>
>> Anyway, I've run through all the tests, and I think that the default
>> algorithm works exactly according to the Powell algorithm, as I
>> understand it.
>
>Mhmm, 22b, and 24b are not correct IMHO: The lowest dot should be
>above the ledger line, not below.  Or am I missing something?

Oh, yes.  I missed those being low on my low-resolution monitor.

Back to the drawing board on that part of the algorithmŠ

Thanks,

Carl


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: Changing voice order...

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

David,

Yes, in that order - usually only three voice.
This usually in "chord" that have a moving internal voice.
Lilypond, as you stated, adjust the note columns and stem suitably.
The only constant is change. The manual has been clearly written in the
past.
I can follow directions. Let the majority rule.

Mark

-Original Message-
From: David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 11:52 AM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek 
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...

"Mark Stephen Mrotek"  writes:

> David,
>
> Since starting Lilypond I have become accustomed to the order 
> presented in the manual (2.18.2) that states:
> Voice 1: highest
> Voice 2: lowest
> Voice 3: second highest
> Voice 4: second lowest
> Voice 5: third highest
> Voice 6: third lowest.
>
> This arrangement is useful for my setting idiosyncratic piano (Chopin, 
> Mendelssohn).

So you enter your material in that order?  Particularly in connection with
<< ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >> ?

If you do, you are representative for users that _will_ be getting headaches
when we change this.  I'm pretty sure that this is worth changing but I have
rather few ideas how we could make the transition less painful.

Maybe some switch/command that will revert to the old order?  Then
convert-ly would provide it when detecting a << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
construct and one would usually strive to edit the source in order to be
able to remove it again.

--
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: Changing voice order...

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

David,

Since starting Lilypond I have become accustomed to the order presented in
the manual (2.18.2) that states:
Voice 1: highest
Voice 2: lowest
Voice 3: second highest
Voice 4: second lowest
Voice 5: third highest
Voice 6: third lowest.

This arrangement is useful for my setting idiosyncratic piano (Chopin,
Mendelssohn).

Thank you for your kind attention.

Mark


-Original Message-
From: lilypond-user
[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of
David Kastrup
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 4:40 AM
To: lilypond-de...@gnu.org; lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Changing voice order...


This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>

If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:

1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...

while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to bottom,
assignments should be more like

1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...

namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.  Now I am sort
of afraid that changing this is likely to end pretty disruptive to existing
scores.  Even though I don't know how many really use the original ordering
unchanged as well as intentionally.

Thoughts?

--
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Augmentation dot positioning

[Werner LEMBERG]

[Note that currently the descriptions are sometimes incorrect in the
 tests.]

> Anyway, I've run through all the tests, and I think that the default
> algorithm works exactly according to the Powell algorithm, as I
> understand it.

Mhmm, 22b, and 24b are not correct IMHO: The lowest dot should be
above the ledger line, not below.  Or am I missing something?

> Please let me know if you find anything that is different from what
> you would like to see, even if it's minor.

Everything else looks fine, thanks!


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Augmentation dot positioning

[tisimst]

On Thursday, October 27, 2016, Carl Sorensen-3 [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n195779...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> OK, I got my preferred algorithm working right as the default positioning
> algorithm now.
>
> The algorithm puts dots for notes in spaces in the same space, and then
> tries to put dots for notes on lines in adjacent spaces, working its way
> out until it finds a space or exceeds chords-dot-limit staff positions.
>
> As expected, with this algorithm there is no difference between
> chord-dots-limit = 1 and chord-dots-limit = 2, because dots for notes on
> spaces never move, and they are the only dots that can have an offset of
> 2.
>
> Anyway, I've run through all the tests, and I think that the default
> algorithm works exactly according to the Powell algorithm, as I understand
> it.
>
> All of the test cases with chord-dots-limit 1 or 2 provide the desired
> output, as far as I can see.
>

Thanks for doing this, Carl! This is great!

I assume it works the same in a polyphonic setting, but I wonder if it
would be helpful to add some of those into the suite of test cases, just to
double-check.

Best,
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Augmentation-dot-positioning-tp194462p195781.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: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

"Mark Stephen Mrotek"  writes:

> David,
>
> Since starting Lilypond I have become accustomed to the order presented in
> the manual (2.18.2) that states:
> Voice 1: highest
> Voice 2: lowest
> Voice 3: second highest
> Voice 4: second lowest
> Voice 5: third highest
> Voice 6: third lowest.
>
> This arrangement is useful for my setting idiosyncratic piano (Chopin,
> Mendelssohn).

So you enter your material in that order?  Particularly in connection
with << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >> ?

If you do, you are representative for users that _will_ be getting
headaches when we change this.  I'm pretty sure that this is worth
changing but I have rather few ideas how we could make the transition
less painful.

Maybe some switch/command that will revert to the old order?  Then
convert-ly would provide it when detecting a << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
construct and one would usually strive to edit the source in order to be
able to remove it again.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Augmentation dot positioning

[Carl Sorensen]

OK, I got my preferred algorithm working right as the default positioning
algorithm now.

The algorithm puts dots for notes in spaces in the same space, and then
tries to put dots for notes on lines in adjacent spaces, working its way
out until it finds a space or exceeds chords-dot-limit staff positions.

As expected, with this algorithm there is no difference between
chord-dots-limit = 1 and chord-dots-limit = 2, because dots for notes on
spaces never move, and they are the only dots that can have an offset of 2.

Anyway, I've run through all the tests, and I think that the default
algorithm works exactly according to the Powell algorithm, as I understand
it.

All of the test cases with chord-dots-limit 1 or 2 provide the desired
output, as far as I can see.

Please let me know if you find anything that is different from what you
would like to see, even if it's minor.

Thanks,

Carl



dots[2].pdf
Description: dots[2].pdf
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

2nd ending time signature strangeness when using Devnull

[holl...@hollandhopson.com]

I just ran into a problem that seems to be related to Devnull. The second 
ending time signature reverts to 3/4 time. If I comment out the Devnull line 
then the time signatures are as expected. Am I using Devnull in the wrong way? 
Is this a bug?
Thanks, 
Holland 

\version "2.19.30"

global = {
  \numericTimeSignature
  \time 4/4
}

music = \relative c' {
  \repeat volta 2 {
c1
  }

  \alternative {
{
  \time 3/4
  d4 d4 d4 |
  \time 4/4
  c1 |
}
{
  %this should be a 4/4 bar, but is treated as 3/4 when Devnull is active
  d4 d4 d4 d4 |
  c1 |
}
  }
}

%use \music variable to define metric structure, rehearsal marks, etc. for all 
voices
global = {
  <<
\global %include previously defined global stuff

% comment out the next line and the time signature problem goes away
\new Devnull \music
  >>
}

\score {
  \new Staff {
<<
  \global
  \music
>>
  }
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG  writes:

>> Werner, that does not even make sense.  [...]
>
> Ok, I completely misunderstood you, sorry.

Well, I wasn't being verbose enough anyway.  The main problem I was
trying to address is \voiceTwo having really no inherent connection to
second voice beyond two voices.  Admittedly, the equivalent of

\context Voice = "4" \with \voiceTwo

is not exactly a tremendous contribution to users not getting confused.
So maybe we need not just a change in semantics of << \\ >> but also a
naming change.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[Werner LEMBERG]

> Werner, that does not even make sense.  [...]

Ok, I completely misunderstood you, sorry.


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

lilyp...@maltemeyn.de writes:

> Am 2016-10-27 13:40, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
>> bottom, assignments should be more like
>>
>> 1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...
>>
>> namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.
>
> Are you sure? I always understood this as 1/3/5/6/4/2, not 5/3/1/2/4/6
> (small numbers for outer voices).
>
>> Thoughts?
>
> In three part polyphony the << ... \\ ... \\ ... >> shortcut makes the
> third (inner voice) a \voiceThree which means upward stems (and other
> automatically set directions). But often one should wants downward
> stems, so one needs \voiceFour. This is unintentional because there
> are no four voices; and the ordering 1/3/5/6/4/2 is very confusing for
> beginners.
>
> Suggestion: change
> << highest \\ lowest \\ second highest \\ second lowest \\ .. >>
> to
> << highest ; second highest ; ... \\ ... ; second lowest ; lowest >>
> This would be a single \\ to separate upward and downward voices and ;
> (or some other symbol) to separate voices of the same kind.
>
> So
> << vI \\ vIII \\ { \voiceFour vII } >>
> would become
> << vI \\ vII ; vIII >>
> (vIII being the lowest voice)

lilypond-learning states:

   This example has just two voices, but the same construct may be used
to encode three or more voices by adding more back-slash separators.

   The Voice contexts bear the names ‘"1"’, ‘"2"’, etc.  The first
contexts set the _outer_ voices, the highest voice in context ‘"1"’ and
the lowest voice in context ‘"2"’.  The inner voices go in contexts
‘"3"’ and ‘"4"’.  In each of these contexts, the vertical direction of
slurs, stems, ties, dynamics etc., is set appropriately.

So yes, you are right.  Which also downs my \voiceUp \voiceDown
\voiceUpUp \voiceDownDown proposal and means it rather must be something
like \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpInner \voiceDownInner or maybe
\voiceUp \voiceDown \inner \VoiceUp \inner \voiceDown
\inner \inner \VoiceUp ...

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup  writes:

> Werner LEMBERG  writes:
>
This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>

If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:

1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...

while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
bottom, assignments should be more like

1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...

namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.  Now I
am sort of afraid that changing this is likely to end pretty
disruptive to existing scores.  Even though I don't know how many
really use the original ordering unchanged as well as intentionally.

Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> I just stumbled over this for the first time recently (because I
>>> usually use the othe construct with explicit voices). I found it
>>> disturbing that I can't define the voices from top to bottom but
>>> have to apply a seemingly wrong ordering.
>>
>> I think we must not change the original commands.  However, we could
>> introduce another series of commands that do the numbering from top to
>> bottom.  A possibility would be \voice + roman numeral: \voiceI,
>> \voiceII, \voiceIII, etc.  Or what about \voice.1, \voice.2, ...?
>
> Werner, that does not even make sense.  The reason \voiceOne
> ... \voiceTwo need to be the inner voices is because they have the
> smallest shifts and those need to be in the middle in order to let up-
> and downstem heads not move apart ridiculously far when they are usually
> close in pitch.  There is a reason you have to use \voiceOne/\voiceTwo
> from the middle.

I was wrong on the details, but still: \voiceII would have no way to
know whether or not \voiceIII and \voiceIV also existed, and it would
need to behave entirely differently depending on that.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[Carl Sorensen]

On 10/27/16 6:18 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Urs Liska"
 wrote:

>
>
>Am 27. Oktober 2016 04:40:14 GMT-07:00, schrieb David Kastrup
>:
>>
>>This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
>>
>>If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
>>
>>1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
>>
>>while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
>>bottom, assignments should be more like
>>
>>1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...
>>
>>namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.  Now I am
>>sort of afraid that changing this is likely to end pretty disruptive to
>>existing scores.  Even though I don't know how many really use the
>>original ordering unchanged as well as intentionally.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>
>I just stumbled over this for the first time recently (because I usually
>use the othe construct with explicit voices). I found it disturbing that
>I can't define the voices from top to bottom but have to apply a
>seemingly wrong ordering.

I think that we should do the right thing, and enter voices from top to
bottom when using automatic polyphony.

I think we should make a big deal about the change, and let users know.  I
believe there will be a relatively small number of scores that this will
affect.

But I don't think we should keep doing something wrong just because we
started doing it wrong.

Thanks,

Carl


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG  writes:

>>>This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
>>>
>>>If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
>>>
>>>1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
>>>
>>>while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
>>>bottom, assignments should be more like
>>>
>>>1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...
>>>
>>>namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.  Now I
>>>am sort of afraid that changing this is likely to end pretty
>>>disruptive to existing scores.  Even though I don't know how many
>>>really use the original ordering unchanged as well as intentionally.
>>>
>>>Thoughts?
>> 
>> I just stumbled over this for the first time recently (because I
>> usually use the othe construct with explicit voices). I found it
>> disturbing that I can't define the voices from top to bottom but
>> have to apply a seemingly wrong ordering.
>
> I think we must not change the original commands.  However, we could
> introduce another series of commands that do the numbering from top to
> bottom.  A possibility would be \voice + roman numeral: \voiceI,
> \voiceII, \voiceIII, etc.  Or what about \voice.1, \voice.2, ...?

Werner, that does not even make sense.  The reason \voiceOne
... \voiceTwo need to be the inner voices is because they have the
smallest shifts and those need to be in the middle in order to let up-
and downstem heads not move apart ridiculously far when they are usually
close in pitch.  There is a reason you have to use \voiceOne/\voiceTwo
from the middle.

But that wasn't even the question.  The question was not about the
meaning of \voiceOne ... \voiceFour but about which of those commands to
use where in << \\ \\ \\ >> constructs.  Currently they are applied as
<< \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceOne ...
   \context Voice = "2" \with \voiceTwo ...
   \context Voice = "3" \with \voiceThree ...
   \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceFour ...
>>

and the proposal was to make this

<< \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceThree ...
   \context Voice = "2" \with \voiceOne ...
   \context Voice = "3" \with \voiceTwo ...
   \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceFour ...
>>

(I haven't actually stated that I was going for keeping the names of the
Voice contexts but that appears to make the most sense).

It may be argued that we'd rather want
\voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpUp \voiceDownDown instead of
\voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour
then.  Because of reasons.  I'm sympathetic to proposals along that line
(better names welcome) but we'd still want to keep the current ones as
aliases I should think.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[lilypond]

Am 2016-10-27 13:40, schrieb David Kastrup:

while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
bottom, assignments should be more like

1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...

namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.


Are you sure? I always understood this as 1/3/5/6/4/2, not 5/3/1/2/4/6 
(small numbers for outer voices).



Thoughts?


In three part polyphony the << ... \\ ... \\ ... >> shortcut makes the 
third (inner voice) a \voiceThree which means upward stems (and other 
automatically set directions). But often one should wants downward 
stems, so one needs \voiceFour. This is unintentional because there are 
no four voices; and the ordering 1/3/5/6/4/2 is very confusing for 
beginners.


Suggestion: change
<< highest \\ lowest \\ second highest \\ second lowest \\ .. >>
to
<< highest ; second highest ; ... \\ ... ; second lowest ; lowest >>
This would be a single \\ to separate upward and downward voices and ; 
(or some other symbol) to separate voices of the same kind.


So
<< vI \\ vIII \\ { \voiceFour vII } >>
would become
<< vI \\ vII ; vIII >>
(vIII being the lowest voice)

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[Werner LEMBERG]

>>This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
>>
>>If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
>>
>>1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
>>
>>while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
>>bottom, assignments should be more like
>>
>>1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...
>>
>>namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.  Now I
>>am sort of afraid that changing this is likely to end pretty
>>disruptive to existing scores.  Even though I don't know how many
>>really use the original ordering unchanged as well as intentionally.
>>
>>Thoughts?
> 
> I just stumbled over this for the first time recently (because I
> usually use the othe construct with explicit voices). I found it
> disturbing that I can't define the voices from top to bottom but
> have to apply a seemingly wrong ordering.

I think we must not change the original commands.  However, we could
introduce another series of commands that do the numbering from top to
bottom.  A possibility would be \voice + roman numeral: \voiceI,
\voiceII, \voiceIII, etc.  Or what about \voice.1, \voice.2, ...?


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[Urs Liska]

Am 27. Oktober 2016 04:40:14 GMT-07:00, schrieb David Kastrup :
>
>This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
>
>If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
>
>1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
>
>while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
>bottom, assignments should be more like
>
>1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...
>
>namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.  Now I am
>sort of afraid that changing this is likely to end pretty disruptive to
>existing scores.  Even though I don't know how many really use the
>original ordering unchanged as well as intentionally.
>
>Thoughts?

I just stumbled over this for the first time recently (because I usually use 
the othe construct with explicit voices). I found it disturbing that I can't 
define the voices from top to bottom but have to apply a seemingly wrong 
ordering.

This doesn't help you but I wanted to express some confirmation. 

Urs


-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>

If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:

1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...

while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
bottom, assignments should be more like

1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...

namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.  Now I am
sort of afraid that changing this is likely to end pretty disruptive to
existing scores.  Even though I don't know how many really use the
original ordering unchanged as well as intentionally.

Thoughts?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user