Re: Changing voice order...

[Simon Albrecht]

On 03.11.2016 21:42, Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote:
THE VERTICAL ORDER OF NOTES ON THE PAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 
ORDER OF THE VOICES WITHIN THE << // // // >> CONSTRUCT, OR WHAT THE 
VOICE NAMES ARE CALLED


Do you agree with that?  You should, since it is true.


I have to second David here. Look at this example:

\version "2.19.49"
<<
  { c' c'' c' }
  \\
  { e' e' e' }
>>

Even though most of the notes are lower, the first voice is still the 
first voice, as becomes clear from stem directions and note column 
displacement. You constantly confuse ‘order of notes’ with ‘order of 
voices’.


Best, Simon

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Urs Liska]

David,


Am 04.11.2016 um 00:45 schrieb Flaming Hakama by Elaine:
> due to the confusion between the intention of
> vertical-order-in-the-staff and what the << // // // >> construct
> actually does (there is no relationship),

Actually I *do* think you are misunderstanding some things here, and I
conclude this from your first post in this thread:

Am 03.11.2016 um 18:11 schrieb Flaming Hakama by Elaine:
> Top to bottom on the staff has ONLY to do with the relative pitches. 
> For example, whenever an Alto part goes lower than the Soprano in an
> SATB arrangment, then the staff order (during that voice crossing)
> from top to bottom is ASTB, not SATB.   

What this suggests is that you're mixing up is the idea of top-to-bottom
*voices* versus an idea of (local) top-to-bottom *notes*. When we talk
about multiple voices in a staff these voices *do* of course have a
top-to-bottom order of the voices (as a whole), in the case of vocal
music usually SATB. If we're talking about, say, multiple voices in a
piano staff (e.g. three voices in the right hand staff) the ordering is
somewhat arbitrary, but still there is a top-to-bottom order of the voices.
Each voice then has a set of properties governing directions and
(optional) indentation, grouped by LilyPond's \voiceXXX commands. In
strict polyphony these properties don't change with voice crossings,
quite the contrary, they are required to identify the continuity of
crossed voices.

You are right in saying that << // // // >> does not correspond to a
top-to-bottom voicing - but that is more or less what this thread was
starting with originally. This construct assigns the voice properties in
an order that does *not* correspond to the top-to-bottom order of
voices, and the question was if there's a way to harmonize automatic
voice assignment with what users usually expect.

Of course it can be argued whether a change is necessary, and if so what
would be the best option to not confuse new and seasoned users. But I
think the basic assumption of the original post in the thread was correct.

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

> >> > THE VERTICAL ORDER OF NOTES ON THE PAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
> ORDER
> >> OF
> >> > THE VOICES WITHIN THE << // // // >> CONSTRUCT, OR WHAT THE VOICE
> NAMES
> >> ARE
> >> > CALLED
> >> >
> >> > Do you agree with that?  You should, since it is true.
> >>
> >> No, I don't agree with it.
> >
> >
> > Then you are being obstinate.
> >
> > A statement of fact, and you don't agree with it.
>
> It's _only_ statements of fact that one can sensibly agree or disagree
> with, so that's not particularly egregious.
>

Since you are clearly a bright fellow, I must conclude that you are
intentionally acting like a jerk.

Why?

In what context are facts something that can be sensibly disagreed with?



> > What are we to do with such childish behavior?
> >
> >> If you cannot distinguish "high correlation
> >> though not 100%" from "no correlation", I don't see a point in
> >> continuing.
>
> There you have your answer to "what to do with such childish behavior".
>

If you think you can silence me, you will have no luck.

I'm trying to help the adoption of Lilypond to a broader audience by
suggesting useful conventions.

The real answer to my question of what to do when confronted with childish
behavior is that I am making my arguments to everyone on the list.  If my
suggestions make sense, this will convince others, and they will in turn
convince you.


I'm perfectly fine if no one else supports my suggestion and it is dropped.


However, I felt obligated to point out why the topic is difficult, and that
is due to the confusion between the intention of
vertical-order-in-the-staff and what the << // // // >> construct actually
does (there is no relationship), and to suggest alternates that clarify the
usage.

Until this confusion is cleared up, we will have such problems.

That is something that will not go away through willful ignorance.



Sincerely,

David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com

self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:

> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:35 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>
>> Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:
>>
>> > I'm not sure if this is a language problem, or an attitude problem.
>> > Because it seems like you are coming to the opposite interpretation of
>> what
>> > I say, despite me being very detailed in my explanation.
>> >
>> >
>> > Let's start with the main point:
>> >
>> > THE VERTICAL ORDER OF NOTES ON THE PAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORDER
>> OF
>> > THE VOICES WITHIN THE << // // // >> CONSTRUCT, OR WHAT THE VOICE NAMES
>> ARE
>> > CALLED
>> >
>> > Do you agree with that?  You should, since it is true.
>>
>> No, I don't agree with it.
>
>
> Then you are being obstinate.
>
> A statement of fact, and you don't agree with it.

It's _only_ statements of fact that one can sensibly agree or disagree
with, so that's not particularly egregious.

> What are we to do with such childish behavior?
>
>
>
>> If you cannot distinguish "high correlation
>> though not 100%" from "no correlation", I don't see a point in
>> continuing.

There you have your answer to "what to do with such childish behavior".

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:35 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:

> Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:
>
> > I'm not sure if this is a language problem, or an attitude problem.
> > Because it seems like you are coming to the opposite interpretation of
> what
> > I say, despite me being very detailed in my explanation.
> >
> >
> > Let's start with the main point:
> >
> > THE VERTICAL ORDER OF NOTES ON THE PAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORDER
> OF
> > THE VOICES WITHIN THE << // // // >> CONSTRUCT, OR WHAT THE VOICE NAMES
> ARE
> > CALLED
> >
> > Do you agree with that?  You should, since it is true.
>
> No, I don't agree with it.


Then you are being obstinate.

A statement of fact, and you don't agree with it.

What are we to do with such childish behavior?



> If you cannot distinguish "high correlation
> though not 100%" from "no correlation", I don't see a point in
> continuing.


The definition of << // // // >> behaves the same way 100% of the time.

Let's name the voices to reflect what it does with them:  set the default
stem direction and indentation.
Not vertical voice order on the staff.

By trying to name voices of << // // // >> by vertical voice order on the
staff, we introduce confusion, since that isn't what << // // // >> does.



> The reason the various shifts and stem directions are
> assigned in the manner and order they are is because this tends to
> minimize collisions for the _customary_ note order within voice
> stacking.  It's not arbitrary at all, so "nothing to do with" just is
> plain wrong.
>

Except that there seems to be a vast disagreement about what this order is
or should be, and this tends to maximize confusion.

My statement was about the relationship between voices in << // // // >>
and their vertical position on the page, which is that there isn't any.
And it is still true, despite the fact that you don't enjoy the
implications.


I understand that we are trying to make the syntax as close to typical
usage as possible.

However, you don't seem to understand that choosing a naming convention
that implies one thing, yet does another, is not a good user interface.

Even if the convention is 90% right, that makes working the remaining 10%
of cases almost as much of a chore as carrying on a conversation with you.


We can get it 100% right, so why not do it?


Cheers,

David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:

> I'm not sure if this is a language problem, or an attitude problem.
> Because it seems like you are coming to the opposite interpretation of what
> I say, despite me being very detailed in my explanation.
>
>
> Let's start with the main point:
>
> THE VERTICAL ORDER OF NOTES ON THE PAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORDER OF
> THE VOICES WITHIN THE << // // // >> CONSTRUCT, OR WHAT THE VOICE NAMES ARE
> CALLED
>
> Do you agree with that?  You should, since it is true.

No, I don't agree with it.  If you cannot distinguish "high correlation
though not 100%" from "no correlation", I don't see a point in
continuing.  The reason the various shifts and stem directions are
assigned in the manner and order they are is because this tends to
minimize collisions for the _customary_ note order within voice
stacking.  It's not arbitrary at all, so "nothing to do with" just is
plain wrong.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

I'm not sure if this is a language problem, or an attitude problem.
Because it seems like you are coming to the opposite interpretation of what
I say, despite me being very detailed in my explanation.


Let's start with the main point:

THE VERTICAL ORDER OF NOTES ON THE PAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORDER OF
THE VOICES WITHIN THE << // // // >> CONSTRUCT, OR WHAT THE VOICE NAMES ARE
CALLED

Do you agree with that?  You should, since it is true.



If so, let's go on the the consequence of this:

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO NAME IMPLICIT VOICES WITHIN << // // // >> BASED
ON THE VERTICAL ORDER ON WHICH THEY APPEAR ON THE PAGE, SINCE THEIR
VERTICAL ORDER IS NOT FIXED.


Any objections so far?



On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:21 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:

> Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:
>
> > On Nov 3, 2016 12:55 PM, "David Kastrup"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:
> >>
> >> > I wanted to jump in here because in this discussion, a lot of people
> > have
> >> > said or implied things like (paraphrasing) "top to bottom in << // //
> > // >>
> >> > should correspond top to bottom in the score", and suggesting naming
> >> > conventions based on this.
> >> >
> >> > These thoughts, while well-intentioned, are bad since they are
> > misleading
> >> > for this important reason:
> >> >
> >> >  !!! Top to bottom on the staff has precisely nothing to do with
> any
> >> > conventions of << // // // >> !!!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Top to bottom on the staff has ONLY to do with the relative pitches.
> > For
> >> > example, whenever an Alto part goes lower than the Soprano in an SATB
> >> > arrangment, then the staff order (during that voice crossing) from top
> > to
> >> > bottom is ASTB, not SATB.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't get your point.  Stem direction and displacements do not
> >> change for voice crossings: that's the sole way to actually recognize
> >> them.
> >
> > Maybe you should read the whole of my post.
> >
> > I think we agree that the vertical order of voices/notes has nothing
> > to do with their stem direction and indentation.
>
> No, we don't agree on that.  The order of voices is not always the same
> as the order of notes, and the order of voices has a whole lot to do
> with their stem direction and indentation: the order of voices does not
> change with voice crossings, and neither does their individual markup.
>

> Which is why any set of names that imply order (like one, two, etc.)
> > are bad choices for the voice names.
>
> I like the numeric identifiers in some of the proposals a bit better
> than the written names since they seem to suggest more of a _property_
> rather than an _identity_ of a voice markup.  That makes it less awkward
> to me in some manner that the numbers for the down-pointing voices are
> assigned from bottom to top.
>


David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:

> On Nov 3, 2016 12:55 PM, "David Kastrup"  wrote:
>>
>> Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:
>>
>> > I wanted to jump in here because in this discussion, a lot of people
> have
>> > said or implied things like (paraphrasing) "top to bottom in << // //
> // >>
>> > should correspond top to bottom in the score", and suggesting naming
>> > conventions based on this.
>> >
>> > These thoughts, while well-intentioned, are bad since they are
> misleading
>> > for this important reason:
>> >
>> >  !!! Top to bottom on the staff has precisely nothing to do with any
>> > conventions of << // // // >> !!!
>> >
>> >
>> > Top to bottom on the staff has ONLY to do with the relative pitches.
> For
>> > example, whenever an Alto part goes lower than the Soprano in an SATB
>> > arrangment, then the staff order (during that voice crossing) from top
> to
>> > bottom is ASTB, not SATB.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't get your point.  Stem direction and displacements do not
>> change for voice crossings: that's the sole way to actually recognize
>> them.
>
> Maybe you should read the whole of my post.
>
> I think we agree that the vertical order of voices/notes has nothing
> to do with their stem direction and indentation.

No, we don't agree on that.  The order of voices is not always the same
as the order of notes, and the order of voices has a whole lot to do
with their stem direction and indentation: the order of voices does not
change with voice crossings, and neither does their individual markup.

> Which is why any set of names that imply order (like one, two, etc.)
> are bad choices for the voice names.

I like the numeric identifiers in some of the proposals a bit better
than the written names since they seem to suggest more of a _property_
rather than an _identity_ of a voice markup.  That makes it less awkward
to me in some manner that the numbers for the down-pointing voices are
assigned from bottom to top.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

On Nov 3, 2016 12:55 PM, "David Kastrup"  wrote:
>
> Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:
>
> > I wanted to jump in here because in this discussion, a lot of people
have
> > said or implied things like (paraphrasing) "top to bottom in << // //
// >>
> > should correspond top to bottom in the score", and suggesting naming
> > conventions based on this.
> >
> > These thoughts, while well-intentioned, are bad since they are
misleading
> > for this important reason:
> >
> >  !!! Top to bottom on the staff has precisely nothing to do with any
> > conventions of << // // // >> !!!
> >
> >
> > Top to bottom on the staff has ONLY to do with the relative pitches.
For
> > example, whenever an Alto part goes lower than the Soprano in an SATB
> > arrangment, then the staff order (during that voice crossing) from top
to
> > bottom is ASTB, not SATB.
>
> Sorry, I don't get your point.  Stem direction and displacements do not
> change for voice crossings: that's the sole way to actually recognize
> them.
>
> --
> David Kastrup

Maybe you should read the whole of my post.

I think we agree that the vertical order of voices/notes has nothing to do
with their  stem direction and indentation.

Which is why any set of names that imply order (like one, two, etc.) are
bad choices for the voice names.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:

> I wanted to jump in here because in this discussion, a lot of people have
> said or implied things like (paraphrasing) "top to bottom in << // // // >>
> should correspond top to bottom in the score", and suggesting naming
> conventions based on this.
>
> These thoughts, while well-intentioned, are bad since they are misleading
> for this important reason:
>
>  !!! Top to bottom on the staff has precisely nothing to do with any
> conventions of << // // // >> !!!
>
>
> Top to bottom on the staff has ONLY to do with the relative pitches.  For
> example, whenever an Alto part goes lower than the Soprano in an SATB
> arrangment, then the staff order (during that voice crossing) from top to
> bottom is ASTB, not SATB.

Sorry, I don't get your point.  Stem direction and displacements do not
change for voice crossings: that's the sole way to actually recognize
them.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[tisimst]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Abraham Lee <tisimst.lilyp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:00 AM, David Kastrup [via Lilypond] <
> ml-node+s1069038n196051...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
>
>> Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]
>> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node=196051=0>> writes:
>>
>> >> So
>> >> \voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour
>> >> becomes
>> >> \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo
>> >
>> > I would make \voiceUp and \voiceDown be the same as \voiceUpOne and
>> > \voiceUpTwo, respectively, so that we can write
>> >
>> >   \voiceUpOne \voiceDownOne \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo
>>
>> Here is another variant that's a bit bold:
>>
>> \voice^1 \voice_1 \voice^2 \voice_2
>>
>> This will syntactically take a fingering event as input.  However, this
>> does not work as
>>
>> \voices 1,2,-2,-1 << \\ ... \\ >>
>>
>> does.  I am not totally sure whether \voices ^1^2_1_2 << \\ ... \\ >>
>> might not be parseable (as a single post-event) but it won't mix with
>> symbolic names for voice contexts.  So while it is a cute replacement
>> for \voiceOne ... and is expressive concerning its direction, I am not
>> sure it's a winner.
>>
>
> I like this idea. Here's another thought to throw into the mix, ...
>

By the way (and I believe there may have been some discussion about this
previously, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now), why do we use
\oneVoice instead of \voiceNeutral like we do with \tieNeutral,
\tupletNeutral, etc. "\oneVoice" certainly stands out a little more
(visually), but it's sure not consistent with the other commands of this
nature. Just saying...

--
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Changing-voice-order-tp195757p196066.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...

[tisimst]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:00 AM, David Kastrup [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n196051...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]
> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node=196051=0>> writes:
>
> >> So
> >> \voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour
> >> becomes
> >> \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo
> >
> > I would make \voiceUp and \voiceDown be the same as \voiceUpOne and
> > \voiceUpTwo, respectively, so that we can write
> >
> >   \voiceUpOne \voiceDownOne \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo
>
> Here is another variant that's a bit bold:
>
> \voice^1 \voice_1 \voice^2 \voice_2
>
> This will syntactically take a fingering event as input.  However, this
> does not work as
>
> \voices 1,2,-2,-1 << \\ ... \\ >>
>
> does.  I am not totally sure whether \voices ^1^2_1_2 << \\ ... \\ >>
> might not be parseable (as a single post-event) but it won't mix with
> symbolic names for voice contexts.  So while it is a cute replacement
> for \voiceOne ... and is expressive concerning its direction, I am not
> sure it's a winner.
>

I like this idea. Here's another thought to throw into the mix, more of an
enhancement idea for the current way voices are stacked. What about
something like this:



\version "2.19.36"

% This command takes an integer and derives the stem direction from its
% sign and then calculates the currently expected zero-based voice index
% so that 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. represent the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th up-stem voices
% respectively and -1, -2, -3, etc. represent the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down-
% stem voices, respectively.
% The integer also represents the voice's relative column priority for being
% shifted away from the principal column (i.e., larger numbers get pushed
% farther out). Positive integer voices get shifted right, negative integer
% voices get shifted left.
voice = #(define-music-function (nbr) (number?)
  (let* ((dir (/ (abs nbr) nbr))
 (idx (+ (* 2 dir (- nbr dir)) (/ (- 1 dir) 2)))
 )
(format #t "Voice input: ~a, direction: ~a, index: ~a" nbr dir
idx)(newline)
(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set idx) 'Voice)))

% and now an example
\new Staff <<
  { \voice 1 c''4 c'' c'' c'' }  % what we know as \voiceOne, so no
difference here
  \\
  { \voice 5 a'2. g'4 }  % what we would call \voiceNine, if there was such
a thing
  \\
  { \voice -11 g'2 b' } % what we would call \voiceTwentyTwo, but seriously
folks...
>>



This doesn't really change the above discussion about implicit voicing and
how they should stack, but it does make it a little easier to create any
number of explicit directional voices. I guess I'm too used to the current
way of stacking. Pardon the noise if this doesn't contribute constructively
to the discussion. It was just a thought I had yesterday that I finally got
around to implementing.

Best,
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Changing-voice-order-tp195757p196058.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...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-11-03 16:32, David Wright wrote:

On Tue 01 Nov 2016 at 15:36:56 (-), Phil Holmes wrote:

I'm concerned by this.  I don't believe I have ever used more than 2
voices in choral music: typically the sops/tenors get voice one, and
the alto/basses get voice two.  If any of these is doubled (e.g.
sop1 and sop2) then they are shown as chorded notes, still in their
normal voice.  If it gets more complex than this, then current vocal
music almost always resorts to a stave per vocal group.  It looks to
me like the proposal would end up with voiceTwo having upstems.  I
am very much against that.  It would mean I would have to update a
lot of music to make it usable.  I don't use concert-ly 'cos I find
it a pain on Windows.

Who uses four voices on one stave in vocal setting?


Well, I thought, if anyone does, it'll be the Novello Book of Carols.
It's all so over-compressed. But I could only come up with what's
technically three, I suppose. (I only looked for fun.)


I have few four-voices-per-staff examples, but almost all could be 
written as chords. With chords, I know quite a few that go to four or 
even more vocal notes notated on a single staff. I guess simply because 
vocal music has to have lyrics assigned to it (well, exceptional 
contemporary pieces aside), and you only have so many options to put 
them (above and below the staff). If rhythms (and, hence, lyrics) 
diverge noticeably, I've always seen split staves.


One exceptional example are the final measures of Jan Sandström's "Det 
är en ros utsprungen", where the soprano splits up from two to four 
voices. The rhythms are coherent, and the notes are wholes, so 
everything looks like chords; still, it's notated as four voices because 
the legato slurs indicate which section is broken up, and which voice 
goes to which note in the next chord. No lyrics there, by the way, only 
humming.



Cheers,
Alexander

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Wright]

On Tue 01 Nov 2016 at 15:36:56 (-), Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org>
> To: "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk>
> Cc: <lilypond-user@gnu.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
> 
> 
> 
> >There are by now two components to my proposal: fading out \voiceOne
> >... \voiceFour since they _never_ correspond to voices 1/2/3/4 in a
> >four-voiced context but to voices 1/4/2/3.  And changing the meaning of
> ><< \\ \\ \\ >>.
> 
> 
> I'm concerned by this.  I don't believe I have ever used more than 2
> voices in choral music: typically the sops/tenors get voice one, and
> the alto/basses get voice two.  If any of these is doubled (e.g.
> sop1 and sop2) then they are shown as chorded notes, still in their
> normal voice.  If it gets more complex than this, then current vocal
> music almost always resorts to a stave per vocal group.  It looks to
> me like the proposal would end up with voiceTwo having upstems.  I
> am very much against that.  It would mean I would have to update a
> lot of music to make it usable.  I don't use concert-ly 'cos I find
> it a pain on Windows.
> 
> Who uses four voices on one stave in vocal setting?

Well, I thought, if anyone does, it'll be the Novello Book of Carols.
It's all so over-compressed. But I could only come up with what's
technically three, I suppose. (I only looked for fun.)

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Wright]

On Tue 01 Nov 2016 at 21:18:31 (+0100), David Kastrup wrote:
> David Wright  writes:
> 
> > ¹ why not \voiceTop \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceBottom ? Well, you could
> > end up with \voiceUp having stems pointing down,
> 
> Uh no?  \voiceUp will always have stems pointing up, and \voiceDown will
> have them pointing down.  \inner (or whatever you want to use instead)
> just increases the horizontal-shift value and does nothing else.

Yes, I didn't mean that LP would change it's behaviour. It's just that
sometimes you have to override the stems to make them point the
"wrong" way. So the printed copy might have stems pointing up in a
section of a part that you happen to know is called with \voiceDown.

Finding an example is not easy as I try to avoid setting keyboard
music. Looking at real printed scores, on a tiny, trivial scale
(one note), the tied d'' would (in a future version) be \voiceDown,
but the stem is overridden to Up. I would find thinking of these
three parts as Top Low Bottom easier than Top Up Bottom, were this
example on a much larger scale. It's setting these "weaving" parts
that I hate.

Top/High/Low/Bottom only carry "altitude" information, whereas
Up/Down can have other relevant meanings overloaded onto them.
That's all I meant.

> The whole point of the renaming exercise was that the voice type
> commands retain a fixed and predictable meaning.  It's only the << \\ \\
> ... >> construct which becomes smarter.

Cheers,
David.
___
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:

>> So
>> \voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour
>> becomes
>> \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo
>
> I would make \voiceUp and \voiceDown be the same as \voiceUpOne and
> \voiceUpTwo, respectively, so that we can write
>
>   \voiceUpOne \voiceDownOne \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo

Here is another variant that's a bit bold:

\voice^1 \voice_1 \voice^2 \voice_2

This will syntactically take a fingering event as input.  However, this
does not work as

\voices 1,2,-2,-1 << \\ ... \\ >>

does.  I am not totally sure whether \voices ^1^2_1_2 << \\ ... \\ >>
might not be parseable (as a single post-event) but it won't mix with
symbolic names for voice contexts.  So while it is a cute replacement
for \voiceOne ... and is expressive concerning its direction, I am not
sure it's a winner.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Werner LEMBERG]

> So
> \voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour
> becomes
> \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo

I would make \voiceUp and \voiceDown be the same as \voiceUpOne and
\voiceUpTwo, respectively, so that we can write

  \voiceUpOne \voiceDownOne \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo


 Werner

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

> Hi David (et al.),
>
>> Personally, I'd prefer a different number assignment:
>> 
>> \implicitVoices 1,-1
>> \implicitVoices 1,2,-1
>> \implicitVoices 1,2,-2,-1
>> \implicitVoices 1,2,3,-2,-1
>> 
>> Stem direction is recognizable from the sign (0 would be \oneVoice), and
>> apart from the sign, increasing numbers go down one voice.
>
> I like that a lot!
>
>> Not sure that this ship hasn't sailed though.
>
> Has any ship ever truly sailed on the ‘Pond?  ;)

So
\voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour
becomes
\voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo
or
\voice1 \voice-1 \voice2 \voice-2

The strictly numeric ones are probably somewhat less likely to make
people think that \voiceDown would be above \voiceDownTwo .  The
magnitude of the number corresponds quite directly with horizontal-shift
(after subtracting 1).  That's sort of a helpful cue when you are trying
to copy some graphical arrangement of voices.

The numbers may be less contentious than \inner\inner .  Also this makes
it easier to provide an equivalent \voiceStyle (as \inner\voiceStyleUp
would need a completely different behavior for \inner than
\inner\voiceUp ).

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David (et al.),

> Personally, I'd prefer a different number assignment:
> 
> \implicitVoices 1,-1
> \implicitVoices 1,2,-1
> \implicitVoices 1,2,-2,-1
> \implicitVoices 1,2,3,-2,-1
> 
> Stem direction is recognizable from the sign (0 would be \oneVoice), and
> apart from the sign, increasing numbers go down one voice.

I like that a lot!

> Not sure that this ship hasn't sailed though.

Has any ship ever truly sailed on the ‘Pond?  ;)

Thanks,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
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:

>> I was thrilled and excited by your proposal.  Having had some
>> leisure time this afternoon (although without net-access) I played
>> around with it.  I've taken it as a local command, though.
>> 
>> The result is a wrapper around simultaneous music, with and without
>> "\\".  You can input straight away from top to bottom voice.  The
>> voiceXxx-settings and context-ids are done automatically, but
>> respect user-settings.
>> 
>> The engraver to annotate info is in as well, could be deleted
>> ofcourse.
>> 
>> It's not tested beyond the given examples, but following this route
>> would make the input much more logical and because it's a wrapper we
>> would warrant backward compatibility, no need to change anything
>> else...
>
> Very nice, thanks!  It seems that a local solution is straightforward
> to handle.  But what about a global option?  It seems to me that this
> is what we are actually searching.

The original idea was a global replacement.  Easy enough to do.  A nice
syntax for that may be slightly trickier, but one can just accumulate,
like

\implicitVoices 1,2
\implicitVoices 1,3,2
\implicitVoices 1,3,4,2
\implicitVoices 1,3,5,4,2

Personally, I'd prefer a different number assignment:

\implicitVoices 1,-1
\implicitVoices 1,2,-1
\implicitVoices 1,2,-2,-1
\implicitVoices 1,2,3,-2,-1

Stem direction is recognizable from the sign (0 would be \oneVoice), and
apart from the sign, increasing numbers go down one voice.

Not sure that this ship hasn't sailed though.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I was thrilled and excited by your proposal.  Having had some
> leisure time this afternoon (although without net-access) I played
> around with it.  I've taken it as a local command, though.
> 
> The result is a wrapper around simultaneous music, with and without
> "\\".  You can input straight away from top to bottom voice.  The
> voiceXxx-settings and context-ids are done automatically, but
> respect user-settings.
> 
> The engraver to annotate info is in as well, could be deleted
> ofcourse.
> 
> It's not tested beyond the given examples, but following this route
> would make the input much more logical and because it's a wrapper we
> would warrant backward compatibility, no need to change anything
> else...

Very nice, thanks!  It seems that a local solution is straightforward
to handle.  But what about a global option?  It seems to me that this
is what we are actually searching.


Werner

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[tisimst]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Thomas Morley-2 [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n196021...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> 2016-11-02 13:04 GMT+01:00 Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]
> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node=196021=0>>:
>
> >>>   \voiceOrder { 1, 3, 5, 7, 6, 4, 2 }
> >>>   << c'''2 \\ g'' \\ e'' \\ c'' \\ g' \\ e' \\ c' >>
> >>
> >> More like \voices 1,3,5,7,6,4,2 << ... >> if we want to keep in
> >> current syntax.  This is assuming a one-shot command taking the <<
> >> >> construct as its last argument.
> >
> > Hmm, my original idea was a global command, something similar to
> > setting up beam divisions for various meters – having a command to
> > locally override that would be certainly useful.
> >
> >>> Note that this is an idea without considering whether it can be
> >>> implemented at all.
> >>
> >> With a bit of massage it seems to work.
> >
> > Good to hear!
> >
> >
> > Werner
> Werner,
>
> I was thrilled and excited by your proposal.
> Having had some leisure time this afternoon (although without
> net-access) I played around with it.
> I've taken it as a local command, though.
>
> The result is a wrapper around simultaneous music, with and without "\\".
> You can input straight away from top to bottom voice.
> The voiceXxx-settings and context-ids are done automatically, but
> respect user-settings.
>
> The engraver to annotate info is in as well, could be deleted ofcourse.
>
> It's not tested beyond the given examples, but following this route
> would make the input much more logical and because it's a wrapper we
> would warrant backward compatibility, no need to change anything
> else...
>
> Opinions?
>

Thanks, Harm! That is seriously cool. Now to do some real-world tests to
understand the implications... I really need to get better at Scheme
programming. There is so much I'd like to do.

--
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Changing-voice-order-tp195757p196024.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...

[Thomas Morley]

2016-11-02 13:04 GMT+01:00 Werner LEMBERG :
>>>   \voiceOrder { 1, 3, 5, 7, 6, 4, 2 }
>>>   << c'''2 \\ g'' \\ e'' \\ c'' \\ g' \\ e' \\ c' >>
>>
>> More like \voices 1,3,5,7,6,4,2 << ... >> if we want to keep in
>> current syntax.  This is assuming a one-shot command taking the <<
>> >> construct as its last argument.
>
> Hmm, my original idea was a global command, something similar to
> setting up beam divisions for various meters – having a command to
> locally override that would be certainly useful.
>
>>> Note that this is an idea without considering whether it can be
>>> implemented at all.
>>
>> With a bit of massage it seems to work.
>
> Good to hear!
>
>
> Werner

Werner,

I was thrilled and excited by your proposal.
Having had some leisure time this afternoon (although without
net-access) I played around with it.
I've taken it as a local command, though.

The result is a wrapper around simultaneous music, with and without "\\".
You can input straight away from top to bottom voice.
The voiceXxx-settings and context-ids are done automatically, but
respect user-settings.

The engraver to annotate info is in as well, could be deleted ofcourse.

It's not tested beyond the given examples, but following this route
would make the input much more logical and because it's a wrapper we
would warrant backward compatibility, no need to change anything
else...

Opinions?


Cheers,
  Harm


atest-46.ly
Description: application/download


atest-46.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[tisimst]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 7:49 AM, David Kastrup [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n195993...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> > By the way, the top position with 369 double backslashes is this piece:
> > https://github.com/MutopiaProject/MutopiaProject/
> blob/master/ftp/BachJS/BWV830/BWV-830/BWV-830-lys/BWV-830.ly
>
> This particular one is... horrific.
>

Wow. Amen to that.


> One thing that is obvious that \relative pitch is a real mess to keep
> track of in this kind of highest/lowest/high/low scheme.  It works quite
> more natural in high-to-low stackings.
>

Like I said before, I personally have no qualms with the format of the
current << \\ \\ \\ ... >> syntax. I use it in piano scores all the time,
but never when working with associated lyrics because I understand the what
the syntax does under the covers. You use it enough and it's not so
confusing any more.

That being said, I really like the idea of changing the order of voices so
they can be input from high-to-low and the common use of \relative mode
would suggest that is an improvement over the current form.

I'd also like to re-iterate the need to have this vertical hierarchy apply
to the rests in those respective voices so that the "inner" voices' rests
get pushed inwards as well, or at least towards the vertical position of
where their notes are. I realize this is likely no small undertaking and I
can make due without it. Maybe one day I can even get into the details
myself and implement it myself. Who knows...

Best,
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Changing-voice-order-tp195757p196004.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...

[Mats Bengtsson]

On 2016-11-02 14:56, Noeck wrote:

Am 02.11.2016 um 14:48 schrieb David Kastrup:

>This particular one is... horrific.

In most of the cases the author should just have used chords instead of
voices.
My guess that the intention was to stay as close to Bach's manuscripts 
as possible.
I have used similar tricks to imitate the composers layout for "chords" 
with separate stems per note, when typesetting other baroque music. The 
stem order can indeed provide hints on how the composers wanted the 
chords to be broken, which is lost if you use standard modern 
typesetting practice chords. A famous example of a modern edition trying 
to imitate the original manuscript in this respect is late Werner 
Icking's typesetting of Bach's Violin Sonatas and Partitas (though done 
using MusiXTeX, not LilyPond), see 
http://imslp.org/wiki/6_Violin_Sonatas_and_Partitas,_BWV_1001-1006_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian), 
bottom of the page.


I clearly support the proposal to change of the voice order to a more 
logical top to bottom structure, even though it would break some of my 
LilyPond code.


/Mats

--
=
Mats Bengtsson, Prof.
Signal Processing
School of Electrical Engineering
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
SE-100 44  STOCKHOLM
Sweden
Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 
Email: mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se
WWW: https://www.kth.se/profile/matben/
=


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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Noeck]

Am 02.11.2016 um 15:03 schrieb David Kastrup:
> I have no issue with following the Urtext (assuming that this is what
> the author did).  

Ah ok, that's possible. The copy I found does have chords in those places.

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Noeck  writes:

> Am 02.11.2016 um 14:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> This particular one is... horrific.
>
> In most of the cases the author should just have used chords instead of
> voices.

I have no issue with following the Urtext (assuming that this is what
the author did).  But the way this has been mapped to <<\\>> is awkward.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Noeck]

Am 02.11.2016 um 14:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
> This particular one is... horrific.

In most of the cases the author should just have used chords instead of
voices.

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Noeck  writes:

> A bit more of Mutopia statistics:
>
> 4157 .ly files on Mutopia don't use << \\ >>
> 1130 .ly files on Mutopia do
>  307 of the latter have only one \\, so the can't be affected by a change
> The other 823 possible could be affected but most of them use only two
> voices in one construct but several such constructs.
>
> By the way, the top position with 369 double backslashes is this piece:
> https://github.com/MutopiaProject/MutopiaProject/blob/master/ftp/BachJS/BWV830/BWV-830/BWV-830-lys/BWV-830.ly

This particular one is... horrific.

upper = \relative e
{
  \clef treble 
  \key e \minor
  \time 2/2

  \ntbo #16.5 \times 4/7 { \bc e16[ g b e] \tc \su g[ b e] } g8. g16 << { g 4 
fs } \\
{ a,2   
 } \\
{ c 2   
 } >> | % 1

  \sn
  \ntbo #15.5 \times 4/7 { \bc ds,,16[ fs a c] \tc ds[ fs g] } a8. a16 << { a  
4 g} \\ 
  { 
  } \\
  { fs 
4 e _\mordent  } \\ 
  { 
  } \\
  { 
ds!4 s} >> | % 2


Let's take a look what conventions are employed here in the first two
<<\\>> things.  First the voices left empty (ugh) strongly suggest that
the person entering the code is aware of the up/down pattern of input.
Also the code suggest that the person is more acquainted with LilyPond's
abilities than good for the readability of their code.  Let's take a
look at the pitches (relative mode):

<< { g 4 fs } \\
   { a,2} \\
   { c 2} >> | % 1

top, bottom, middle: correct

<< { a  4 g} \\
   {   } \\
   { fs 4 e _\mordent  } \\ 
   {   } \\
   { ds!4 s} >> | % 2

Ugh what?  All of the non-empty ones are stemup.  Order:

top, middle, bottom: within the stemup stacking correct but what an
awful input.  And why everything stemup?

Let's take the next two examples:

<< { g16. \beams #2 #3 fs32 \beams #3 #3 e fs g16 cs,4 \prall } \\
   { cs,2 } \\
   { \shortStem #4.5 a'2  } \\
   {  } \\
   { e2   } >> | % 5

Order: top, bottom, high, --none--, low

One thing that is obvious that \relative pitch is a real mess to keep
track of in this kind of highest/lowest/high/low scheme.  It works quite
more natural in high-to-low stackings.

<< { fs16. \beams #2 #3 e32 \beams #3 #3 d e fs16 b,4 \prall } \\
   { d,2 } \\
   { \shortStem #5 g2} >> | % 6

Correct as far as I can see.

So this most exuberant example does not get anything wrong as far as a
first glance would suggest.  It's also ugly as hell.

At any rate, the \relative problem means that a convert-ly rule actually
reordering things would be a really, really complex feat.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Noeck]

A bit more of Mutopia statistics:

4157 .ly files on Mutopia don't use << \\ >>
1130 .ly files on Mutopia do
 307 of the latter have only one \\, so the can't be affected by a change
The other 823 possible could be affected but most of them use only two
voices in one construct but several such constructs.

By the way, the top position with 369 double backslashes is this piece:
https://github.com/MutopiaProject/MutopiaProject/blob/master/ftp/BachJS/BWV830/BWV-830/BWV-830-lys/BWV-830.ly

Here is the full statistics:

#\\ #files
0   4157
1   307
2   178
3   87
4   72
5   54
6   51
7   30
8   40
9   29
10  28
11  14
12  19
13  14
14  21
15  4
16  17
17  10
18  8
19  8
20  12
21  12
22  4
23  3
24  4
25  10
26  7
27  5
28  4
29  5
30  1
31  5
32  3
33  3
34  2
35  3
36  6
37  2
38  1
39  1
40  2
41  1
42  1
45  1
46  1
47  5
48  1
49  1
50  1
52  2
53  2
54  3
55  1
56  1
57  1
61  1
62  3
70  1
72  1
76  1
88  1
93  1
96  1
103 1
107 1
114 1
116 1
119 1
121 1
140 1
151 1
153 1
171 1
218 1
369 1
Sum 5287

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Kobel  writes:

> According to comment #10 on
> https://code.google.com/archive/p/lilypond/issues/4097 my example
> needs a \lyricsto Staff = "sop" instead of just \lyricsto "sop".
> (Though I don't quite get the explanation since the latter works for
> Voice contexts; but I guess that's again a semantic sugar-default for
> \lyricsto?)

Context names are no complete address but always require the context
type, usually defaulting to "Bottom".  Here possibly to "Voice".  Don't
remember.

> Anyway, I will have a look again with the advent of 2.19.50; not
> compiling staging right now.  Thanks!

Sure.  This is mostly a dormant feature since it cannot yet deal well
with melismata.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-11-02 12:43, David Kastrup wrote:

David Kastrup  writes:


Alexander Kobel  writes:


On 2016-11-02 12:01, David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Kobel  writes:

[...]

Ugh.  Maybe it's just \addlyrics then?  Or wait:




Uh, what?!?

lilypond /tmp/alex.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.19.50
Processing `/tmp/alex.ly'
Parsing.../usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.50/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:294:12:
In procedure ly:music-property in expression (ly:music-property
music (quote elements)):
/usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.50/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:294:12:
Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting Prob): "sop"

Uh, this looks like the parser actually knows how to deal with the
syntax as such but it royally messes up doing something useful with the
parsed results.

Well, it has been nice talking about this.  Let's continue this
discussion in a week or so.


Sure. ;-)


This syntax was added in

commit df3457d85ebfa4bc347a4569241227449f84b901
Author: David Kastrup 
Date:   Tue Sep 9 11:14:34 2014 +0200

Allow \addlyrics to work with arbitrary contexts


No mention of \lyricsto, no mention of the issue number in the commit
message, obviously no regtest for the \lyricsto part of the syntax
change.

Wish there were somebody else to rant at.


Fixed in staging.  Still no documentation and no regtest, and obviously
it was sort of a secret anyway since nobody complained about it not
working.  I probably postponed until the "melisma translator" project
was done in order to make this really useful.  And it's still stuck
somewhere in the middle.


According to comment #10 on 
https://code.google.com/archive/p/lilypond/issues/4097 my example needs 
a \lyricsto Staff = "sop" instead of just \lyricsto "sop".  (Though I 
don't quite get the explanation since the latter works for Voice 
contexts; but I guess that's again a semantic sugar-default for \lyricsto?)


Anyway, I will have a look again with the advent of 2.19.50; not 
compiling staging right now.  Thanks!



Alexander

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Werner LEMBERG]

>>   \voiceOrder { 1, 3, 5, 7, 6, 4, 2 }
>>   << c'''2 \\ g'' \\ e'' \\ c'' \\ g' \\ e' \\ c' >>
>
> More like \voices 1,3,5,7,6,4,2 << ... >> if we want to keep in
> current syntax.  This is assuming a one-shot command taking the <<
> >> construct as its last argument.

Hmm, my original idea was a global command, something similar to
setting up beam divisions for various meters – having a command to
locally override that would be certainly useful.

>> Note that this is an idea without considering whether it can be
>> implemented at all.
>
> With a bit of massage it seems to work.

Good to hear!


Werner
___
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:

> Alexander Kobel  writes:
>
>> On 2016-11-02 12:01, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Alexander Kobel  writes:
[...]
>>> Ugh.  Maybe it's just \addlyrics then?  Or wait:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, what?!?
>>>
>>> lilypond /tmp/alex.ly
>>> GNU LilyPond 2.19.50
>>> Processing `/tmp/alex.ly'
>>> Parsing.../usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.50/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:294:12:
>>> In procedure ly:music-property in expression (ly:music-property
>>> music (quote elements)):
>>> /usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.50/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:294:12:
>>> Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting Prob): "sop"
>>>
>>> Uh, this looks like the parser actually knows how to deal with the
>>> syntax as such but it royally messes up doing something useful with the
>>> parsed results.
>>>
>>> Well, it has been nice talking about this.  Let's continue this
>>> discussion in a week or so.
>>
>> Sure. ;-)
>
> This syntax was added in
>
> commit df3457d85ebfa4bc347a4569241227449f84b901
> Author: David Kastrup 
> Date:   Tue Sep 9 11:14:34 2014 +0200
>
> Allow \addlyrics to work with arbitrary contexts
>
>
> No mention of \lyricsto, no mention of the issue number in the commit
> message, obviously no regtest for the \lyricsto part of the syntax
> change.
>
> Wish there were somebody else to rant at.

Fixed in staging.  Still no documentation and no regtest, and obviously
it was sort of a secret anyway since nobody complained about it not
working.  I probably postponed until the "melisma translator" project
was done in order to make this really useful.  And it's still stuck
somewhere in the middle.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes"  writes:

> That's three voices, not four.
>
> Also - I was specifying vocal settings because a lot of the early
> discussion centred about how it's difficult to use the << \\ >> syntax
> with vocal scores, which generally are spoken about as being SATB and
> therefore there was an expectation that << S \\ A \\ T \\ B >> would
> be the natural order, which it isn't.  I've never seen any score ever
> with the four vocal lines on one staff, so whether that ordering works
> or not seems irrelevant.

It's not uncommon for me to put four-part harmony as S/A/T in the treble
staff and B in the bass staff when "arranging" for accordion.  Not
saying that this is a typical application.  For doing piano extracts, it
might be.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Phil Holmes]

That's three voices, not four.

Also - I was specifying vocal settings because a lot of the early discussion 
centred about how it's difficult to use the << \\ >> syntax with vocal scores, 
which generally are spoken about as being SATB and therefore there was an 
expectation that << S \\ A \\ T \\ B >> would be the natural order, which it 
isn't.  I've never seen any score ever with the four vocal lines on one staff, 
so whether that ordering works or not seems irrelevant.

--
Phil Holmes


  - Original Message - 
  From: Kieren MacMillan 
  To: Phil Holmes 
  Cc: David Kastrup ; Trevor Daniels ; Lilypond-User Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 12:30 AM
  Subject: Re: Changing voice order...


  Hi Phil,


Who uses four voices on one stave in vocal setting?



  Why would this functionality be limited to vocal setting? Here is a 
screenshot of a three-voice section in my Chaconne for unaccompanied violin:



  There are many uses for multiple [musical] voices that don’t involve "vocal 
setting”.


  Cheers,
  Kieren.
  

  Kieren MacMillan, composer
  ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
  ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Kobel  writes:

> On 2016-11-02 12:01, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Kobel  writes:
>>>[...]
>> Ugh.  Maybe it's just \addlyrics then?  Or wait:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Uh, what?!?
>>
>> lilypond /tmp/alex.ly
>> GNU LilyPond 2.19.50
>> Processing `/tmp/alex.ly'
>> Parsing.../usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.50/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:294:12:
>> In procedure ly:music-property in expression (ly:music-property
>> music (quote elements)):
>> /usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.50/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:294:12:
>> Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting Prob): "sop"
>>
>> Uh, this looks like the parser actually knows how to deal with the
>> syntax as such but it royally messes up doing something useful with the
>> parsed results.
>>
>> Well, it has been nice talking about this.  Let's continue this
>> discussion in a week or so.
>
> Sure. ;-)

This syntax was added in

commit df3457d85ebfa4bc347a4569241227449f84b901
Author: David Kastrup 
Date:   Tue Sep 9 11:14:34 2014 +0200

Allow \addlyrics to work with arbitrary contexts


No mention of \lyricsto, no mention of the issue number in the commit
message, obviously no regtest for the \lyricsto part of the syntax
change.

Wish there were somebody else to rant at.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-11-02 12:01, David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Kobel  writes:

[...]

Ugh.  Maybe it's just \addlyrics then?  Or wait:




Uh, what?!?

lilypond /tmp/alex.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.19.50
Processing `/tmp/alex.ly'
Parsing.../usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.50/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:294:12:
 In procedure ly:music-property in expression (ly:music-property music (quote 
elements)):
/usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.50/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:294:12: Wrong type 
argument in position 1 (expecting Prob): "sop"

Uh, this looks like the parser actually knows how to deal with the
syntax as such but it royally messes up doing something useful with the
parsed results.

Well, it has been nice talking about this.  Let's continue this
discussion in a week or so.


Sure. ;-)


Cheers,
Alexander

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Kobel  writes:

> On 2016-11-02 11:35, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Kobel  writes:
>>
>>> On 2016-11-02 11:20, David Kastrup wrote:
 Alexander Kobel  writes:

> I mostly set vocal music - typically clean SATB with exactly four
> voices on either two or four staves, but sometimes a voice splits to
> two or three in between.  In that case, I'll almost always have a
> four-staves situation.  This screams for << \\ >> or << \\ \\ >>.
>
> However, I attach lyrics to the voices, and that's why I give them
> sensible names - namely, "sop" (or "soprano"), "alt", etc.  The
> implicit voice naming with << \\ >> means that I have to split my
> lyrics to separate context, or I'll have to rename the voices inside
> << \\ >>.

 No, it just means that your lyrics have to follow the staff rather than
 a single voice unless your lyrics split as well.

 Can't find the issue number where this was made to work.  Still has
 problems with overlapping melismata if I remember correctly, so maybe
 that's why it's not advertised prominently.
>>>
>>> Hum.  You mean if I name the staff instead of the voices, I can create
>>> lyrics that follow all voices that are active on this staff?
>>> Doesn't seem to work, but I might not have the right syntax.
>>
>> It's a 2.19 thing.
>
> Post-2.19.49?  Because that's what I tested with (without knowing what
> syntax might be required, though):
>
> \version "2.19.49"
> sop = \relative c'' {
>   c4 c c c
>   << { c c } \\ { g4. g8 } >> c4 c
> }
> \score {
>   <<
> \new Staff = "sop" \sop
> \new Lyrics \lyricsto "sop" { a b c d e f g h }
>   >>
> }
>
> test.ly:9:17: warning: cannot find Voice `sop'
>
> \new Lyrics
> \lyricsto "sop" { a b c d e f g h }

Ugh.  Maybe it's just \addlyrics then?  Or wait:

\version "2.19.49"
sop = \relative c'' {
  c4 c c c
  << { c c } \\ { g4. g8 } >> c4 c
}
\score {
  <<
\new Staff = "sop" \sop
\new Lyrics \lyricsto Staff = "sop" { a b c d e f g h }
  >>
}

Uh, what?!?

lilypond /tmp/alex.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.19.50
Processing `/tmp/alex.ly'
Parsing.../usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.50/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:294:12:
 In procedure ly:music-property in expression (ly:music-property music (quote 
elements)):
/usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.50/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:294:12: Wrong 
type argument in position 1 (expecting Prob): "sop"

Uh, this looks like the parser actually knows how to deal with the
syntax as such but it royally messes up doing something useful with the
parsed results.

Well, it has been nice talking about this.  Let's continue this
discussion in a week or so.

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-11-02 11:35, David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Kobel  writes:


On 2016-11-02 11:20, David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Kobel  writes:


I mostly set vocal music - typically clean SATB with exactly four
voices on either two or four staves, but sometimes a voice splits to
two or three in between.  In that case, I'll almost always have a
four-staves situation.  This screams for << \\ >> or << \\ \\ >>.

However, I attach lyrics to the voices, and that's why I give them
sensible names - namely, "sop" (or "soprano"), "alt", etc.  The
implicit voice naming with << \\ >> means that I have to split my
lyrics to separate context, or I'll have to rename the voices inside
<< \\ >>.


No, it just means that your lyrics have to follow the staff rather than
a single voice unless your lyrics split as well.

Can't find the issue number where this was made to work.  Still has
problems with overlapping melismata if I remember correctly, so maybe
that's why it's not advertised prominently.


Hum.  You mean if I name the staff instead of the voices, I can create
lyrics that follow all voices that are active on this staff?
Doesn't seem to work, but I might not have the right syntax.


It's a 2.19 thing.


Post-2.19.49?  Because that's what I tested with (without knowing what 
syntax might be required, though):


\version "2.19.49"
sop = \relative c'' {
  c4 c c c
  << { c c } \\ { g4. g8 } >> c4 c
}
\score {
  <<
\new Staff = "sop" \sop
\new Lyrics \lyricsto "sop" { a b c d e f g h }
  >>
}

test.ly:9:17: warning: cannot find Voice `sop'

\new Lyrics
\lyricsto "sop" { a b c d e f g h }


By the way, your reply to Werner shows pretty much what I actually
would consider useful: :-)


[...]
The problem I see right away with that is that it is useful.  How is
that a problem?

<<
  \new Voice = "soprano" {
 ...
 \voices 1,soprano << ... \\ ... >>
 ...
  }
  \lyricsto "soprano" { ... }




Lo and behold, we have a solution for an old problem.
[...]


That one can actually be done sort-of right away.  It would likely
cement the "2"/\voiceTwo/2nd item relation however.  Which is sort of
the opposite of the proposal I started this discussion with.


I see, and totally agree.  It's just something to keep in mind.


Cheers,
Alexander

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Kobel  writes:

> On 2016-11-02 11:20, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Kobel  writes:
>>
>>> I mostly set vocal music - typically clean SATB with exactly four
>>> voices on either two or four staves, but sometimes a voice splits to
>>> two or three in between.  In that case, I'll almost always have a
>>> four-staves situation.  This screams for << \\ >> or << \\ \\ >>.
>>>
>>> However, I attach lyrics to the voices, and that's why I give them
>>> sensible names - namely, "sop" (or "soprano"), "alt", etc.  The
>>> implicit voice naming with << \\ >> means that I have to split my
>>> lyrics to separate context, or I'll have to rename the voices inside
>>> << \\ >>.
>>
>> No, it just means that your lyrics have to follow the staff rather than
>> a single voice unless your lyrics split as well.
>>
>> Can't find the issue number where this was made to work.  Still has
>> problems with overlapping melismata if I remember correctly, so maybe
>> that's why it's not advertised prominently.
>
> Hum.  You mean if I name the staff instead of the voices, I can create
> lyrics that follow all voices that are active on this staff?
> Doesn't seem to work, but I might not have the right syntax.

It's a 2.19 thing.

> By the way, your reply to Werner shows pretty much what I actually
> would consider useful: :-)
>
>> [...]
>> The problem I see right away with that is that it is useful.  How is
>> that a problem?
>>
>> <<
>>   \new Voice = "soprano" {
>>  ...
>>  \voices 1,soprano << ... \\ ... >>
>>  ...
>>   }
>>   \lyricsto "soprano" { ... }
>> >>
>>
>> Lo and behold, we have a solution for an old problem.
>> [...]

That one can actually be done sort-of right away.  It would likely
cement the "2"/\voiceTwo/2nd item relation however.  Which is sort of
the opposite of the proposal I started this discussion with.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-11-02 11:20, David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Kobel  writes:


I mostly set vocal music - typically clean SATB with exactly four
voices on either two or four staves, but sometimes a voice splits to
two or three in between.  In that case, I'll almost always have a
four-staves situation.  This screams for << \\ >> or << \\ \\ >>.

However, I attach lyrics to the voices, and that's why I give them
sensible names - namely, "sop" (or "soprano"), "alt", etc.  The
implicit voice naming with << \\ >> means that I have to split my
lyrics to separate context, or I'll have to rename the voices inside
<< \\ >>.


No, it just means that your lyrics have to follow the staff rather than
a single voice unless your lyrics split as well.

Can't find the issue number where this was made to work.  Still has
problems with overlapping melismata if I remember correctly, so maybe
that's why it's not advertised prominently.


Hum.  You mean if I name the staff instead of the voices, I can create 
lyrics that follow all voices that are active on this staff?
Doesn't seem to work, but I might not have the right syntax.  The only 
thing I'm aware of is using an "aligner" NullVoice, as shown in NR 
2.1.2: Polyphony with shared lyrics, but that's kinda clumsy, too.


By the way, your reply to Werner shows pretty much what I actually would 
consider useful: :-)



[...]
The problem I see right away with that is that it is useful.  How is
that a problem?

<<
  \new Voice = "soprano" {
 ...
 \voices 1,soprano << ... \\ ... >>
 ...
  }
  \lyricsto "soprano" { ... }
>>

Lo and behold, we have a solution for an old problem.
[...]



Cheers,
Alexander

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Kobel  writes:

> I mostly set vocal music - typically clean SATB with exactly four
> voices on either two or four staves, but sometimes a voice splits to
> two or three in between.  In that case, I'll almost always have a
> four-staves situation.  This screams for << \\ >> or << \\ \\ >>.
>
> However, I attach lyrics to the voices, and that's why I give them
> sensible names - namely, "sop" (or "soprano"), "alt", etc.  The
> implicit voice naming with << \\ >> means that I have to split my
> lyrics to separate context, or I'll have to rename the voices inside
> << \\ >>.

No, it just means that your lyrics have to follow the staff rather than
a single voice unless your lyrics split as well.

Can't find the issue number where this was made to work.  Still has
problems with overlapping melismata if I remember correctly, so maybe
that's why it's not advertised prominently.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
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:

>> To make it more visible I coded a small snippet annotating some info
>> to NoteHeads in
>> << .. \\ .. \\ ... ... ... >>-constructs.
>> 
>> Output attached.
>
> Thanks!
>
> What about a two-step process: You first set up the order of the
> voices, then you input from top to bottom.
>
> Example:
>
>   % current
>   << c'''2 \\ c' \\ g'' \\ e' \\ e'' \\ g' \\ c''  >>
>
>   % suggested
>   \voiceOrder { 1, 3, 5, 7, 6, 4, 2 }
>   << c'''2 \\ g'' \\ e'' \\ c'' \\ g' \\ e' \\ c' >>
>
> Using such a command would even retain backwards compatibility.

More like \voices 1,3,5,7,6,4,2 << ... >> if we want to keep in current
syntax.  This is assuming a one-shot command taking the << >> construct
as its last argument.

The problem I see right away with that is that it is useful.  How is
that a problem?

<<
  \new Voice = "soprano" {
 ...
 \voices 1,soprano << ... \\ ... >>
 ...
  }
  \lyricsto "soprano" { ... }
>>

Lo and behold, we have a solution for an old problem.  But 1 can imply
\voiceOne as well as \context Voice = "1" while "soprano" cannot
obviously indicate "\voiceTwo".  Maybe it is a feature instead of a bug?
After all, << ... \\ ... >> also does not imply a final \oneVoice for
whatever voice continues so we are better off having to say \voiceTwo
explicitly in the non-temporary voice as well?

Also, names like "soprano1" will be quite awkward:

\voices #'(1 soprano1) << ... >>

Basically, we would want to strongly suggest people to use context names
that LilyPond also likes as symbols.

> Note that this is an idea without considering whether it can be
> implemented at all.

With a bit of massage it seems to work.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-10-28 14:52, David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Kobel  writes:

[...]
Basically you need to only fix those voices not obeying the standard
scheme (usually just one) and the rest will work out.  So I don't really
think that a special syntax is needed.


True. But isn't the point of this shortcut notation that it saves you
the trouble of specifying those directions and voice names on your
own?


Sure, but you talk about a case where one _has_ to specify a direction
and voice name after all because the default does not work.  Admittedly,
yet another shortcut saves you from figuring out what level of \inner
(or whatever) you have to use.


Coincidentally, that's why I hardly ever use it: I tend to get
lost with the automatic assignment


Well, which is why the automatic assignment should be as predictable and
brainless and useful as possible.


After some consideration, I found the reason /why/ I don't like the 
automatic assignment.  It's not that it's unpredictable (at least for 
me; I'm used to the voice order since a long time.  Rather, it's that 
there is automatic assignment going on at all:


I mostly set vocal music - typically clean SATB with exactly four voices 
on either two or four staves, but sometimes a voice splits to two or 
three in between.  In that case, I'll almost always have a four-staves 
situation.  This screams for << \\ >> or << \\ \\ >>.


However, I attach lyrics to the voices, and that's why I give them 
sensible names - namely, "sop" (or "soprano"), "alt", etc.  The implicit 
voice naming with << \\ >> means that I have to split my lyrics to 
separate context, or I'll have to rename the voices inside << \\ >>. 
The output of


sop = \relative c'' {
  c4 c c c
  << { c c } \\ { g4. g8 } >> c4 c
}

\score {
  <<
\new Staff { \new Voice = "sop" \sop }
\new Lyrics \lyricsto "sop" { a b c d e f g h }
  >>
}

is (lyrics-wise) counterintuitive enough that I mostly refrain from 
using the construct at all and resort to my own (simple) helper function 
that creates anonymous voices (above or below) and does not override the 
name of the main voice.
To change my style here, I'd need /at least/ prefixed voice names (that 
is, the voices created in line 3 would be named, e.g., "sop-1" and 
"sop-2"); some way to keep one voice in place and just add another one 
would make it a real boon.


However, this is maybe specific for this use case.  Plus, I cannot see 
an obvious way to add this functionality without cluttering the 
syntactic sugar with tons of parameters that make it no less ugly than 
simple helper functions...



Obviously, that does not have much to do with the order of voices.  It's 
just meant as an explanation that the reason for me not using << \\ >> 
is not the /way/ how automatic assignment works, but rather the /fact/ 
that automatic assignment is done at all.



Cheers,
Alexander

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

"Trevor Daniels"  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:11 PM
>
>>  I want to rename the \voiceXXX constructs
>> as well.  The old ones will be available still but no longer promoted
>> and/or documented prominently, instead using something like \voiceUp,
>> \voiceDown, \inner \voiceUp, \inner \VoiceDown ...  
>
> I definitely object to this.  The meaning and use of the \voicexxx
> predefs is engrained in the habits and memory of many, most?, of the
> long-standing LP users, as well as pretty well all existing code.

So?  "The old ones will be available still".

So do you want

<< a \\ b \\ c \\ d >>

to correspond to

<< \context Voice = "1" { \voiceOne a }
   \context Voice = "2" { \voiceThree a }
   \context Voice = "3" { \voiceFour a }
   \context Voice = "4" { \voiceTwo a }
>>

or to

<< \context Voice = "1" { \voiceOne a }
   \context Voice = "3" { \voiceThree a }
   \context Voice = "4" { \voiceFour a }
   \context Voice = "2" { \voiceTwo a }
>>

?

Either one will be a real joy to explain.  That's why I want the
documented version to make more sense than that.

And even explicit stuff like

<< \new Voice = "sopranoI" \with { \voiceOne } ...
   \new Voice = "sopranoII" \with { \voiceThree } ...
   \new Voice = "alto" \with { \voiceTwo } ...
>>

or

<< \new Voice = "soprano" \with { \voiceOne } ...
   \new Voice = "altoI" \with { \voiceFour } ...
   \new Voice = "altoII" \with { \voiceTwo } ...
>>

just reads awfully and is really embarrassing to show in talk slides.

It also has absolutely no connection to \voiceOneStyle, \voiceTwoStyle,
\voiceThreeStyle ... which you'd more likely apply from top to bottom.

Take a look at our example for voice styles:

Voice styles


Voices may be given distinct colors and shapes, allowing them to be
easily identified:

 <<
   \relative { \voiceOneStyle d''4 c2 b4 }
   \\
   \relative { \voiceTwoStyle e'2 e }
   \\
   \relative { \voiceThreeStyle b2. c4 }
   \\
   \relative { \voiceFourStyle g'2 g }
 >>

[image]

   The ‘\voiceNeutralStyle’ command is used to revert to the standard
presentation.

Order is

<< \voiceOne (1st voice from top) in \voiceOneStyle \\
   \voiceTwo (3rd voice from top) in \voiceTwoStyle \\
   \voiceThree (4th voice from top) in \voiceThreeStyle \\
   \voiceFour (2nd voice from top) in \voiceFourStyle
>>

This became a four-voice example with

commit 213025779c233a52b4b56583926d2fe3335ce06b
Author: Graham Percival 
Date:   Mon Jul 14 19:52:37 2008 -0700

Update from Francisco.

It took me some back and forth to finally come to the conclusion that
this example is indeed as correct as it gets and shows \voiceTwo as
corresponding to \voiceTwoStyle .  But do you want to explain the entry
order to a beginner?

Ah, I see Mark did:

commit a52dc416eb5264c67a8b278207f372ed527a870d
Author: Mark Polesky 
Date:   Fri Sep 24 07:51:09 2010 -0700

Doc: NR 1.5.2: Clarify voice order; \shiftOn etc.


Voice order
...

When entering multiple voices in the input file, use the following
order:

 Voice 1: highest
 Voice 2: lowest
 Voice 3: second highest
 Voice 4: second lowest
 Voice 5: third highest
 Voice 6: third lowest
 etc.

   Though this may seem counterintuitive, it simplifies the automatic
layout process.


"It simplifies the automatic layout process"?  Nope, that's absolutely
not a valid excuse.  Either we can sell this as a great user-level
feature for note entry.  Or not.  The layout process could not care less
about our decision so we should not try hiding behind it.  I am not
suggesting that Mark did this: he probably operated with the "somebody
must have had a reason for this" assumption and made a guess what it
might have been (and, well, it passed review).  If so, he apparently
ruled out "because it is a useful thing to do".

It's a valiant effort.  The Learning Manual also introduces this voice
order early on.  We also have

   The commands ‘\voiceXXXStyle’ are mainly intended for use in
educational documents such as this one.  They modify the color of the
note head, the stem and the beams, and the style of the note head, so
that the voices may be easily distinguished.  Voice one is set to red
diamonds, voice two to blue triangles, voice three to green crossed
circles, and voice four (not used here) to magenta crosses;

already in the LM.

With regard to selling this as a great user-level feature: I can see the
order of << \\ \\ \\ >> make some sense for ad-hoc polyphony where you
use just as many voices as you need for representing the current
harmonic context, and then you'll generally try making do with a top and
bottom voice and, if necessary, fill in stuff in the middle.  I think
that's more or less 

Re: Changing voice order...

[Noeck]

Am 01.11.2016 um 16:36 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> I don't use concert-ly 'cos I find it a pain on Windows.

It's very easy with Frescobaldi, if you don't like the command line:

Tools > Update with convert-ly

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Noeck]

Am 01.11.2016 um 15:42 schrieb David Kastrup:
> How about we check out Mutopia?  It is my guess that a considerable
> number of the uses of << \\ \\ \\ >> construct with three or more voices
> are wrong.

In the Mutopia files there are 15873 double backslashes `\\`:

grep -roh "" ftp  | wc -l

I thought this would match the expression but there are "too many errors":

pcregrep -rM '<<(\n|.)*(\n|.)*>>'

That means, the << · \\ · >> construct is heavily used on Mutopia, but I
could not find out how many of them have more than 2 voices.

Best,
Joram

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Werner LEMBERG]

> To make it more visible I coded a small snippet annotating some info
> to NoteHeads in
> << .. \\ .. \\ ... ... ... >>-constructs.
> 
> Output attached.

Thanks!

What about a two-step process: You first set up the order of the
voices, then you input from top to bottom.

Example:

  % current
  << c'''2 \\ c' \\ g'' \\ e' \\ e'' \\ g' \\ c''  >>

  % suggested
  \voiceOrder { 1, 3, 5, 7, 6, 4, 2 }
  << c'''2 \\ g'' \\ e'' \\ c'' \\ g' \\ e' \\ c' >>

Using such a command would even retain backwards compatibility.

Note that this is an idea without considering whether it can be
implemented at all.


Werner

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Paul]

On 11/01/2016 09:50 PM, Paul wrote:

so I'm not sure how or even whether this kind of thing can be done in 
user space (at least not with existing functions like map-some-music).


Well, here's a start on something, but still not sure how to pull it off 
fully:


\version "2.19.49"

split =
#(define-music-function (directions music) (list? ly:music?)

   (let* ((elts (ly:music-property music 'elements))
  (elts2 (map (lambda (el dir)

(display dir)(newline)
(display el)(newline)

;; do something with each sequential music 
element...

(if (equal? dir 'up)
#{ \voiceOne #el #}
#{ \voiceTwo #el #}))

   elts directions)))

 (make-music 'SequentialMusic 'elements elts2)))


m = { { a4 b } { c'4 d' } { e'4 f' } }

\displayMusic \m

% \new Staff
% \displayMusic
\split up,down,up \m




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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Paul]

Hi Kieren,

On 11/01/2016 08:32 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:


I'm not sure how to write a function that accepts an arbitrary
number of music expressions.

Couldn’t the function “look forward” the number of entries in the udududud list?


I don't think that can work, because the function has to be called (with 
however many arguments it takes) before it has access to its first 
argument, which is the udud list or string.  So a chicken and egg thing.



that seems to call for a "list of music expressions”,
but I'm not sure to what extent that would make the syntax unwieldy.

How does \alternative do it? Can something be learned from that?


So \alternative takes just one argument, a single music expression 
wrapped in {}, with one or more music expressions nested inside.  So 
that approach might work, say with a function that took two arguments:


  \split udd {{...} {...} {...}}

Although, I don't know how \alternative gets the sub-expressions out of 
the top-level one...  and after a brief cursory look at the source code 
it looks like \alternative is handled by the parser (as opposed to being 
just a scheme/music/etc function)...  so I'm not sure how or even 
whether this kind of thing can be done in user space (at least not with 
existing functions like map-some-music).


Cheers,
-Paul



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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Urs,

> I'm not sure how to write a function that accepts an arbitrary
> number of music expressions.

Couldn’t the function “look forward” the number of entries in the udududud list?

> that seems to call for a "list of music expressions”,
> but I'm not sure to what extent that would make the syntax unwieldy.

How does \alternative do it? Can something be learned from that?

Thanks,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Phil,

> Who uses four voices on one stave in vocal setting?

Why would this functionality be limited to vocal setting? Here is a screenshot 
of a three-voice section in my Chaconne for unaccompanied violin:


There are many uses for multiple [musical] voices that don’t involve "vocal 
setting”.

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Urs Liska]

Am 01.11.2016 um 23:40 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi all,
> 
>>   [pseudocode:]
>>   \splitUD { topmusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with DOWN }
>>   \splitUUD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with UP } { bottommusic 
>> \with DOWN }
>>   \splitUDD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with DOWN } { bottommusic 
>> \with DOWN }
>>   etc.
> 
> If I was better with Scheme, I would try to whip up a function that accepted 
> an arbitrary number of musical expressions, with the up/down dictated by the 
> first parameter, e.g.
> 
> \split u,d,u,u,d,d { 1st,up [= top] } { 2nd,down } { 3rd,up } { 4th,up } 
> { 5th,down } { 6th,down [= bottom] }
> 
> Seems like smarter-than-me people could make this (or similar) work, no sweat.

Something like

\split "uduudd"

should be easily parseable. Well, it wouldn't even need the quotation
marks around.

But I'm not sure how to write a function that accepts an arbitrary
number of music expressions. Basically that seems to call for a "list of
music expressions", but I'm not sure to what extent that would make the
syntax unwieldy.

Urs

> 
> Cheers,
> Kieren.
> 
> 
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
> 
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 


-- 
Urs Liska
www.openlilylib.org

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,

>   [pseudocode:]
>   \splitUD { topmusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with DOWN }
>   \splitUUD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with UP } { bottommusic 
> \with DOWN }
>   \splitUDD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with DOWN } { bottommusic 
> \with DOWN }
>   etc.

If I was better with Scheme, I would try to whip up a function that accepted an 
arbitrary number of musical expressions, with the up/down dictated by the first 
parameter, e.g.

\split u,d,u,u,d,d { 1st,up [= top] } { 2nd,down } { 3rd,up } { 4th,up } { 
5th,down } { 6th,down [= bottom] }

Seems like smarter-than-me people could make this (or similar) work, no sweat.

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Trevor Daniels]

David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:11 PM

>  I want to rename the \voiceXXX constructs
> as well.  The old ones will be available still but no longer promoted
> and/or documented prominently, instead using something like \voiceUp,
> \voiceDown, \inner \voiceUp, \inner \VoiceDown ...  

I definitely object to this.  The meaning and use of the \voicexxx
predefs is engrained in the habits and memory of many, most?, of the
long-standing LP users, as well as pretty well all existing code.  
Changing the way the << .. \\ .. >> construct works is one thing, 
one I could perhaps be persuaded to accept, but renaming the \voicexxx 
constructs would be a major change which is far from justified by the
current rather minor issue - one that has hardly, if ever, figured in
user queries, probably because anyone needing more than two voices
would almost certainly code them explicitly, as 1,3,5 .. 6,4,2 - the
way clearly set out in the manuals, with the numbers corresponding to
the rank of the shifts.

"Kieren MacMillan"  wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:52 PM

> Regardless of how the individual functions are ultimately named, 
> might I recommend we add a *lot* of syntactic sugar? I have 
> custom functions called "splitX" (workhorses in my code), which 
> remove the need for me to remember how to code such things:

   [pseudocode:]
   \splitUD { topmusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with DOWN }
   \splitUUD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with 
DOWN }
   \splitUDD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with DOWN } { bottommusic 
\with DOWN }
   etc.

This approach looks much less invasive and quite intuitive.  Worth
exploring further, I think.

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,

A fascinating thread, for a number of reasons…

Regardless of how the individual functions are ultimately named, might I 
recommend we add a *lot* of syntactic sugar? I have custom functions called 
“splitX” (workhorses in my code), which remove the need for me to remember how 
to code such things:

   [pseudocode:]
   \splitUD { topmusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with DOWN }
   \splitUUD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with 
DOWN }
   \splitUDD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with DOWN } { bottommusic 
\with DOWN }
   etc.

One the rest of the syntax settles, it might be nice to have two-, three-, 
four-, five-, and maybe more-voice versions of these functions in the standard 
distro, so that people don’t have to use << \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ >> and so 
forth.

Just a thought,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Thomas Morley]

2016-10-28 1:46 GMT+02:00 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

I'd wish more users would participate in this discussion.

To make it more visible I coded a small snippet annotating some info
to NoteHeads in
<< .. \\ .. \\ ... ... ... >>-constructs.

Output attached.
I attach the coding as well, if someone is interested, though be aware
it's not fully elaborated, just enough for purpose.

HTH,
  Harm


atest-46.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
\version "2.19.49"

%% creates a StringNumber-grob, which then prints info about context/voiceXxx
annotateVoiceInfo =
#(lambda (ctx)
   (make-engraver
 (acknowledgers
   ((note-column-interface engraver grob source-engraver)
 (let ((nhds (ly:grob-array->list (ly:grob-object grob 'note-heads)))
   (stem (ly:grob-object grob 'stem))
   (stem-dir-shift-list
 ;; obviously incomplete..
 '(((1 . 0) "One")
   ((-1 . 0) "Two")
   ((1 . 1) "Three")
   ((-1 . 1) "Four")
   ((1 . 2) "Five")
   ((-1 . 2) "Six")
   ((1 . 3) "Seven")
   ((-1 . 3) "Eight"
   (for-each
 (lambda (nh)
   (let ((new-grob 
   (ly:engraver-make-grob engraver 'StringNumber '(
 (ly:grob-set-parent! new-grob Y nh)
 (ly:grob-set-property! new-grob 'side-axis Y)
 (ly:grob-set-property! new-grob 'direction UP)
 (ly:grob-set-property! new-grob 'X-offset 7)
 (ly:grob-set-property! new-grob 'stencil
   (grob-interpret-markup new-grob
 (markup 
   #:fontsize -3
   #:vcenter
   #:normal-text 
   (format #f 
" This context has the id: \"~a\",  with settings equal to: \\voice~a" 
 (ly:context-id ctx)
 (car
   (assoc-get 
 (cons (ly:grob-property stem 'direction) 
   (ly:grob-property grob 'horizontal-shift))
 stem-dir-shift-list '("-none" . "")
 nhds))


\layout {
  \context {
\Voice
stringNumberOrientations = #'(right)
\consists \annotateVoiceInfo
  }
}

%% needed for third example, see NR
voiceFive = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 4)  'Voice)
voiceSix = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 5)  'Voice)
voiceSeven = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 6)  'Voice)

{
	
  <>^"In the order the Docs advice, iiuc"
  << c'''2 \\ c' \\ g'' \\ e' \\ e'' \\ g' \\ c''  >>
  
  <>^"Ordered as descending pitches"
  << c'''2 \\ g'' \\ e'' \\ c'' \\ g' \\ e' \\ c' >>
  
  <>^"Ordered as descending pitches with custom voiceXxx-settings"
  << 
  	c'''2 
\\ 
{ \voiceThree g'' } 
\\ 
{ \voiceFive e'' }
\\ 
{ \voiceSeven c'' }
\\ 
{ \voiceSix g' }
\\ 
{ \voiceFour e' }
\\ 
{ \voiceTwo c' } 
  >>
}___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

David Wright  writes:

>
>> Now the Voice contexts are still going to be assigned sequentially as
>> "1"/"2", "1"/"2"/"3", "1"/"2"/"3"/"4" (nothing else makes sense really).
>> So in order not to cause confusion by having "1"/"2"/"3"/"4" correspond
>> to "One"/"Three"/"Four"/"Two", I want to rename the \voiceXXX constructs
>> as well.  The old ones will be available still but no longer promoted
>> and/or documented prominently, instead using something like \voiceUp,
>> \voiceDown, \inner \voiceUp, \inner \VoiceDown ...  Those names are
>> still accurate when more than two voices are involved while the relation
>> between name and behavior for \voiceTwo becomes tenuous as soon as more
>> than two voices are involved.
>
> I would hate   \inner \voiceUp   and would suggest
>
> \voiceTop \voiceHigh \voiceLow \voiceBottom instead¹.

Well, the naming is not something I am particularly enamored with.
\inner has the advantage that it stacks, and that you don't need to
remember whether the default pair was \voiceTop/\voiceBottom or
\voiceHigh/\voiceLow.  Both could also be served by a postfix operator
just incrementing horizontal-shift, so you'd have

<< \voiceUp { \voiceUp \nudge } { \voiceUp \nudge \nudge }
   { \voiceDown \nudge \nudge } { \voiceDown \nudge } \voiceDown >>

The postfix addition has the disadvantage that it no longer forms a
single expression together with \voiceUp/\\voiceDown and the advantage
that it is much simpler to write.  Independently the name \nudge has the
disadvantage of describing not where the voice is located with the
respect to the original, but what is to be done to it.  Which is
typesetting knowledge rather than input structure knowledge and requires
the user to have a clue.  Strictly speaking, this holds for
\voiceUp/\voiceDown as well (the naming is more typical in LilyPond for
describing what to do with stems et al rather than where the voices are
located: in that respect \voiceTop/\voiceBottom might be better).

> It is unfortunate that you have to look ahead so much with << \\ \\ \\ >>

It is not "so much", really, if you take a look how LilyPond does it.
It is one postprocessing phase in the music.

> but that comes with the territory. One more tentative suggestion I
> would make, to keep things slightly simpler, is to ban << \\ \\ >>
> so that you have to explicitly put << \\ {} \\ \\ >> or << \\ \\ {} \\ >>
> for three voices, which at least means there are only two structures
> to deal with.

Don't really see the point.  It's straightforward enough, and if you
don't like it, you need not use it.

> ¹ why not \voiceTop \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceBottom ? Well, you could
> end up with \voiceUp having stems pointing down,

Uh no?  \voiceUp will always have stems pointing up, and \voiceDown will
have them pointing down.  \inner (or whatever you want to use instead)
just increases the horizontal-shift value and does nothing else.

The whole point of the renaming exercise was that the voice type
commands retain a fixed and predictable meaning.  It's only the << \\ \\
... >> construct which becomes smarter.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Wright]

On Tue 01 Nov 2016 at 17:11:30 (+0100), David Kastrup wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes:
> 
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org>
> > To: "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk>
> > Cc: <lilypond-user@gnu.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
> >
> >> There are by now two components to my proposal: fading out \voiceOne
> >> ... \voiceFour since they _never_ correspond to voices 1/2/3/4 in a
> >> four-voiced context but to voices 1/4/2/3.  And changing the meaning of
> >> << \\ \\ \\ >>.
> >
> > I'm concerned by this.  I don't believe I have ever used more than 2
> > voices in choral music: typically the sops/tenors get voice one, and
> > the alto/basses get voice two.  If any of these is doubled (e.g. sop1
> > and sop2) then they are shown as chorded notes, still in their normal
> > voice.  If it gets more complex than this, then current vocal music
> > almost always resorts to a stave per vocal group.  It looks to me like
> > the proposal would end up with voiceTwo having upstems.
> 
> Nope.  What is now called \voiceTwo would be renamed to \voiceDown or
> something of that kind.
> 
> > I am very much against that.  It would mean I would have to update a
> > lot of music to make it usable.  I don't use concert-ly 'cos I find it
> > a pain on Windows.
> >
> > Who uses four voices on one stave in vocal setting?
> 
> Using the current meanings of \voiceOne...\voiceFour, you'd get the
> following assignments:
> 
> << \voiceOne \\ \voiceTwo >>
> << \voiceOne \\ \voiceThree \\ \voiceTwo >>
> << \voiceOne \\ \voiceThree \\ \voiceFour \\ \voiceTwo >>
> 
> So the assignment of the \voiceXXX-like settings depends on the number
> of \\ and you cannot deduce the settings before you actually know how
> many \\ constructs are present.  For two voices, your main use case, the
> behavior will be absolutely identical.
> 
> Now the Voice contexts are still going to be assigned sequentially as
> "1"/"2", "1"/"2"/"3", "1"/"2"/"3"/"4" (nothing else makes sense really).
> So in order not to cause confusion by having "1"/"2"/"3"/"4" correspond
> to "One"/"Three"/"Four"/"Two", I want to rename the \voiceXXX constructs
> as well.  The old ones will be available still but no longer promoted
> and/or documented prominently, instead using something like \voiceUp,
> \voiceDown, \inner \voiceUp, \inner \VoiceDown ...  Those names are
> still accurate when more than two voices are involved while the relation
> between name and behavior for \voiceTwo becomes tenuous as soon as more
> than two voices are involved.

I would hate   \inner \voiceUp   and would suggest

\voiceTop \voiceHigh \voiceLow \voiceBottom instead¹.

It is unfortunate that you have to look ahead so much with << \\ \\ \\ >>
but that comes with the territory. One more tentative suggestion I
would make, to keep things slightly simpler, is to ban << \\ \\ >>
so that you have to explicitly put << \\ {} \\ \\ >> or << \\ \\ {} \\ >>
for three voices, which at least means there are only two structures
to deal with.

¹ why not \voiceTop \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceBottom ? Well, you could
end up with \voiceUp having stems pointing down, which would be confusing;
ie Up/Down are overloaded, whereas Top/High/Low/Bottom only convey their
(unambigous) position in the staff.

Cheers,
David.

___
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:

> "Br. Samuel Springuel"  writes:
>
>> I'd default the flag to the old behavior while the new one is being
>> worked on and then default it to the new behavior once a stable state
>> has been reached.
>
> I don't see that "the new one" will be worked on for any significant
> amount of time.  The change is not involved.  Its implications aren't.

Its implications _are_.  What an awful "typo" to make.

> Without a rather good track record of convert-ly on LilyPond's code
> base, this change is not going to go through.  Most convert-ly rules are
> "robust" in that you can run them multiple times and only the first
> application will cause a change.  Also the syntax without convert-ly run
> tends to be bad, causing errors.
>
> Neither will be the case here, so that is going to end up a bit of a
> support headache for a while.  On the plus side, \\ is rarely used for
> more than two voices, or if it is, the voice settings tend to get
> overridden manually.  In which case a conversion does not need to do
> much.  I think that a convert-ly rule should likely not change the order
> of entered voices but should just add a command for "flipping the flag"
> instead if more than two \\-separated voices are detected without
> explicit voice setting commands.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

"Br. Samuel Springuel"  writes:

> I'm not a heavy user, so take my thoughts with whatever grain of salt
> you want, but this is how I would naively expect these constructs to
> work:
>
> << \\ \\ \\ >>
> The voices would be entered in order from top to bottom.  In this way
> the physical structure of the code would resemble the structure of the
> music I'm entering (thanks to line breaks in the code between the
> voices).
>
> \voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour
> The numbers here are confusing.  They could be a top-down enumeration
> of the voices or a more musical outside to inside pattern.  Further,
> the fact that they don't match up with the 1/2/3/4 numbers of the
> implicit code above is even more confusing.  If we stick with numbers,
> then numbers should match.  However it would probably better if we got
> away from numbers altogether here.  Kieren's suggestion of \voiceUp.1
> and \voiceDown.1 seems somewhat more natural, but the numbers still
> have the potential for confusion.  I do not know how to solve this (if
> it's solvable).

That's why I wanted to use something more akin to directions.

> Finally, as a coder I always favor a phased process for changes to the
> user interface so that people have time to adapt to the change.  A
> flag which can flip between the new and old behavior is definitely in
> order until 3.0.0 comes out.

Yes, something like this will be provided for << \\ \\ \\ >> but there
is nothing that can help with \voiceOne/\voiceTwo/\voiceThree/\voiceFour
since those work without context.  So I'd rather phase out those name
choices for something nicer.

> I'd default the flag to the old behavior while the new one is being
> worked on and then default it to the new behavior once a stable state
> has been reached.

I don't see that "the new one" will be worked on for any significant
amount of time.  The change is not involved.  Its implications aren't.
Without a rather good track record of convert-ly on LilyPond's code
base, this change is not going to go through.  Most convert-ly rules are
"robust" in that you can run them multiple times and only the first
application will cause a change.  Also the syntax without convert-ly run
tends to be bad, causing errors.

Neither will be the case here, so that is going to end up a bit of a
support headache for a while.  On the plus side, \\ is rarely used for
more than two voices, or if it is, the voice settings tend to get
overridden manually.  In which case a conversion does not need to do
much.  I think that a convert-ly rule should likely not change the order
of entered voices but should just add a command for "flipping the flag"
instead if more than two \\-separated voices are detected without
explicit voice setting commands.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes:

> - Original Message - 
> From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org>
> To: "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk>
> Cc: <lilypond-user@gnu.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
>
>
>
>> There are by now two components to my proposal: fading out \voiceOne
>> ... \voiceFour since they _never_ correspond to voices 1/2/3/4 in a
>> four-voiced context but to voices 1/4/2/3.  And changing the meaning of
>> << \\ \\ \\ >>.
>
>
> I'm concerned by this.  I don't believe I have ever used more than 2
> voices in choral music: typically the sops/tenors get voice one, and
> the alto/basses get voice two.  If any of these is doubled (e.g. sop1
> and sop2) then they are shown as chorded notes, still in their normal
> voice.  If it gets more complex than this, then current vocal music
> almost always resorts to a stave per vocal group.  It looks to me like
> the proposal would end up with voiceTwo having upstems.

Nope.  What is now called \voiceTwo would be renamed to \voiceDown or
something of that kind.

> I am very much against that.  It would mean I would have to update a
> lot of music to make it usable.  I don't use concert-ly 'cos I find it
> a pain on Windows.
>
> Who uses four voices on one stave in vocal setting?

Using the current meanings of \voiceOne...\voiceFour, you'd get the
following assignments:

<< \voiceOne \\ \voiceTwo >>
<< \voiceOne \\ \voiceThree \\ \voiceTwo >>
<< \voiceOne \\ \voiceThree \\ \voiceFour \\ \voiceTwo >>

So the assignment of the \voiceXXX-like settings depends on the number
of \\ and you cannot deduce the settings before you actually know how
many \\ constructs are present.  For two voices, your main use case, the
behavior will be absolutely identical.

Now the Voice contexts are still going to be assigned sequentially as
"1"/"2", "1"/"2"/"3", "1"/"2"/"3"/"4" (nothing else makes sense really).
So in order not to cause confusion by having "1"/"2"/"3"/"4" correspond
to "One"/"Three"/"Four"/"Two", I want to rename the \voiceXXX constructs
as well.  The old ones will be available still but no longer promoted
and/or documented prominently, instead using something like \voiceUp,
\voiceDown, \inner \voiceUp, \inner \VoiceDown ...  Those names are
still accurate when more than two voices are involved while the relation
between name and behavior for \voiceTwo becomes tenuous as soon as more
than two voices are involved.

So your objections are to something different than what I propose.
I mean, it could perfectly well be that you still object.  I'd just like
you to object to the actual proposal when you do.  It gives me a better
picture.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org>

To: "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk>
Cc: <lilypond-user@gnu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...




There are by now two components to my proposal: fading out \voiceOne
... \voiceFour since they _never_ correspond to voices 1/2/3/4 in a
four-voiced context but to voices 1/4/2/3.  And changing the meaning of
<< \\ \\ \\ >>.



I'm concerned by this.  I don't believe I have ever used more than 2 voices 
in choral music: typically the sops/tenors get voice one, and the 
alto/basses get voice two.  If any of these is doubled (e.g. sop1 and sop2) 
then they are shown as chorded notes, still in their normal voice.  If it 
gets more complex than this, then current vocal music almost always resorts 
to a stave per vocal group.  It looks to me like the proposal would end up 
with voiceTwo having upstems.  I am very much against that.  It would mean I 
would have to update a lot of music to make it usable.  I don't use 
concert-ly 'cos I find it a pain on Windows.


Who uses four voices on one stave in vocal setting?

--
Phil Holmes 



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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Br. Samuel Springuel]

I'm not a heavy user, so take my thoughts with whatever grain of salt 
you want, but this is how I would naively expect these constructs to work:


<< \\ \\ \\ >>
The voices would be entered in order from top to bottom.  In this way 
the physical structure of the code would resemble the structure of the 
music I'm entering (thanks to line breaks in the code between the voices).


\voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour
The numbers here are confusing.  They could be a top-down enumeration of 
the voices or a more musical outside to inside pattern.  Further, the 
fact that they don't match up with the 1/2/3/4 numbers of the implicit 
code above is even more confusing.  If we stick with numbers, then 
numbers should match.  However it would probably better if we got away 
from numbers altogether here.  Kieren's suggestion of \voiceUp.1 and 
\voiceDown.1 seems somewhat more natural, but the numbers still have the 
potential for confusion.  I do not know how to solve this (if it's 
solvable).


Finally, as a coder I always favor a phased process for changes to the 
user interface so that people have time to adapt to the change.  A flag 
which can flip between the new and old behavior is definitely in order 
until 3.0.0 comes out.  I'd default the flag to the old behavior while 
the new one is being worked on and then default it to the new behavior 
once a stable state has been reached.

--
✝
Br. Samuel, OSB
St. Anselm’s Abbey
Washington, DC
(R. Padraic Springuel)

PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

"Trevor Daniels"  writes:

> Simon Albrecht wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:42 AM
>
>>On 27.10.2016 13:40, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> 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 ...
>>
>> That should rather be
>>
>> 1/2, 1/3/2, 1/3/4/2, 1/3/5/4/2, 1/3/5/6/4/2.

See?  Even I get confused by what we have currently.

>> The current mechanism at least provides consistency between the 
>> \voiceOne, \voiceTwo… command names and the order in << \\ \\ >>. And I 
>> don’t see how strict top-down numbering would be less confusing in 
>> general. Indeed, I think that the current rules make a lot of sense, 
>> once one has gotten the idea.
>
> I agree with Simon.  I don't agree the proposed change would be
> clearer.

There are by now two components to my proposal: fading out \voiceOne
... \voiceFour since they _never_ correspond to voices 1/2/3/4 in a
four-voiced context but to voices 1/4/2/3.  And changing the meaning of
<< \\ \\ \\ >>.

> Definitely not worth the hassle.  Far better would be to concentrate
> on improving the documentation, if it is thought that is not clear
> enough.

I think that most work should be accomplished without having to consult
the documentation: vaguely remembering << \\ \\ \\ >> should be enough
to use it again since for a lot of non-trivial tasks there is already
enough documentation that you'll need to consult.  The more stuff works
just like you seem to remember it, the better.  The documentation is no
excuse for a confusing interface.  I'm going to do a LilyPond talk this
weekend: stuff like that is really embarrassing to show and explain.  It
turns people off and establishes the impression that LilyPond is obscure
software for specialists.  I want people to have a great return of value
from reading the documentation: learn about something, and be able to
use it with confidence.

How about we check out Mutopia?  It is my guess that a considerable
number of the uses of << \\ \\ \\ >> construct with three or more voices
are wrong.  Simply because I have a hard time getting it right myself.

We want our users to be successful musicians, not successful manual
students.  Of course they are related and that relation is a justified
cause of pride to the people maintaining the manuals, but we still
should take care that when in doubt we are putting the horse before the
cart.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Trevor Daniels]

Simon Albrecht wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:42 AM

>On 27.10.2016 13:40, David Kastrup wrote:
>> 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 ...
>
> That should rather be
>
> 1/2, 1/3/2, 1/3/4/2, 1/3/5/4/2, 1/3/5/6/4/2.
>
> VoiceOne is almost the topmost, and the innermost get the highest numbering.
  always?

>> 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?
>
> The current mechanism at least provides consistency between the 
> \voiceOne, \voiceTwo… command names and the order in << \\ \\ >>. And I 
> don’t see how strict top-down numbering would be less confusing in 
> general. Indeed, I think that the current rules make a lot of sense, 
> once one has gotten the idea.

I agree with Simon.  I don't agree the proposed change would be clearer.

> And as you said: this is a hugely disruptive change. How could backward 
> compatibility be achieved? Maybe using something like
>
> #(use-oldstyle-voice-numbering)
>
> on top level at the beginning of the file.
> IMO it’s definitely not worth the enormous hassle.

Definitely not worth the hassle.  Far better would be to concentrate
on improving the documentation, if it is thought that is not clear
enough.

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Simon Albrecht]

Now I’ve read up the whole thread, I might add some clarification on my 
thoughts.


On 01.11.2016 11:42, Simon Albrecht wrote:
The current mechanism at least provides consistency between the 
\voiceOne, \voiceTwo… command names and the order in << \\ \\ >>. And 
I don’t see how strict top-down numbering would be less confusing in 
general. Indeed, I think that the current rules make a lot of sense, 
once one has gotten the idea.


Perhaps some ASCII art is a nice way of advertising the current logic:

X
  \   X
   \ / \   X
\   /   \ / X
 \ / X
  X

To my mind this makes a lot of sense. Another way to frame this virtue 
of the current way:


<< …voiceOne… \\ …voiceTwo >>
<< …voiceOne… \\ …voiceTwo… \\ …voiceThree… >>
<< …voiceOne… \\ …voiceTwo… \\ …voiceThree… \\ …voiceFour… >>

Adding more voices doesn’t turn everything else up. The progression from 
a two voice layout to a six voice layout is pretty logical, whereas with 
the new proposal of top-bottom-numbering something like this would be 
going back and forth in a way that is at least no better than the 
current snaky alternating between top and bottom.


One would almost never use something like
<< \sopranoI \\ \altoII \\ \sopranoII \\ \altoI >>
anyway – there would be lyrics involved and it very quickly becomes 
necessary to use two staves. For piano music however the alternating 
layout now used is quite sensible. Also, users already have the freedom 
to do things like


<<
  \new Voice { \voiceOne \sopranoI }
  \new Voice { \voiceThree \sopranoII }
  \new Voice { \voiceFour \altoI }
  \new Voice { \voiceTwo \altoII }
>>

There is great versatility available, and many possibilities to adapt to 
different situations.


And as you said: this is a hugely disruptive change. How could 
backward compatibility be achieved? Maybe using something like


#(use-oldstyle-voice-numbering)

on top level at the beginning of the file.
IMO it’s definitely not worth the enormous hassle.

Best, Simon

___
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: Changing voice order...

[Simon Albrecht]

On 27.10.2016 13:40, David Kastrup wrote:

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 ...


That should rather be

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

VoiceOne is almost the topmost, and the innermost get the highest numbering.


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?


The current mechanism at least provides consistency between the 
\voiceOne, \voiceTwo… command names and the order in << \\ \\ >>. And I 
don’t see how strict top-down numbering would be less confusing in 
general. Indeed, I think that the current rules make a lot of sense, 
once one has gotten the idea.


And as you said: this is a hugely disruptive change. How could backward 
compatibility be achieved? Maybe using something like


#(use-oldstyle-voice-numbering)

on top level at the beginning of the file.
IMO it’s definitely not worth the enormous hassle.

Best, Simon

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Dan Eble  writes:

> On Oct 28, 2016, at 05:01 , David Kastrup  wrote:
>> 
>> Well, there is still the question of what 1/2/3 should _mean_.
>> Currently they are connected with \voiceOne, \voiceTwo,
>> \voiceThree... and the meaning of those is "topmost", "lowest", "below
>> topmost" ...
>> 
>> I find this both disturbing and hard to remember and so for me the
>> question is what the most satisfactory way to change that would be in
>> the long term.
>
> Maybe let << \sopOne \\ \alto \\ \sopTwo >> work as it works and add a
> function to reorder?
>
> e.g.  \highToLow << \sopOne \\ \sopTwo \\ \alto >>

The default should be brainless and easy to remember.  It's the more
special cases that should require specific invocation and/or option
setting.  It's likely going to end up more as a per-parser setting than
a music function, to simplify conversion.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Dan Eble]

On Oct 28, 2016, at 05:01 , David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Well, there is still the question of what 1/2/3 should _mean_.
> Currently they are connected with \voiceOne, \voiceTwo,
> \voiceThree... and the meaning of those is "topmost", "lowest", "below
> topmost" ...
> 
> I find this both disturbing and hard to remember and so for me the
> question is what the most satisfactory way to change that would be in
> the long term.

Maybe let << \sopOne \\ \alto \\ \sopTwo >> work as it works and add a function 
to reorder?

e.g.\highToLow << \sopOne \\ \sopTwo \\ \alto >>
— 
Dan


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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Dan Eble]

On Oct 28, 2016, at 03:51 , David Kastrup  wrote:
> At any rate, does that mean that you are fine with
> 
> << \sopranoI \\ \alto \\ \sopranoII >>
> 
> and
> 
> << \sopranoI \\ \altoII \\ \sopranoII \\ \altoI >>
> 
> because that is what we currently have?

Until I read this thread, I didn’t know that more than two voices were 
supported, so it hasn’t inconvenienced me; however, it does seem 
counterintuitive when you write them that way.
— 
Dan


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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Robert Schmaus]

Am 28/10/16 um 11:01 schrieb David Kastrup:

Robert Schmaus  writes:


Hi everyone,

I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it now.

But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the
code_ to match the vertical arrangement of the _engraved_ notes (and
isn't that also, what Lilypond is all about? You specify the input in
a well-structured way, let lily care about the engraving) I'd find any
input sequence other than 1/2/3/... counterintuitive.


Well, there is still the question of what 1/2/3 should _mean_.
Currently they are connected with \voiceOne, \voiceTwo,
\voiceThree... and the meaning of those is "topmost", "lowest", "below
topmost" ...


I see.

First thing, I mean of course implicit "1" corresponds to explicit 
\voiceOne, "2" to \voiceTwo

But I take it, that this wasn't controversial, though ...

Regarding the meaning of \voiceOne, ...Two, etc, I don't think there 
should be any change. Introducing alternative voice ordering commands - 
such as \secondFromBottom - fine by me, just please don't throw out the 
old ones. They're fine ... they're maybe convention but it's not a big 
deal remembering what they imply. I find them rather intuitive, to be 
honest - it's the most likely sequence I would use to arrange voices in 
a single staff.


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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Urs Liska]

Am 28. Oktober 2016 10:52:08 GMT-07:00, schrieb tisimst 
<tisimst.lilyp...@gmail.com>:
>I just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion here.
>
>I tend to engrave piano music more often than not and I don't mind the
>current syntax. The only thing that I'd rather like seeing improved is
>the
>nesting of the voices rests.
>
>Rests tend to get pushed out of the center and away from the staves,
>when
>we usually think of the notes in those voices being pushed toward the
>center of the staves. I wish the rests followed a similar philosophy,
>at
>least following the contour of their respective voice.
>
>Just a thought.


This is a discussion we already had when Daniel Spreadbury discussed Dorico's 
take on this, namely following the voices.

I would love to see this as well, and having rests default to the center of the 
staff even in \voiceOne so there's no extra work when there's nothing in the 
other voice (s).

Urs


>
>--
>Abraham
>
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Changing-voice-order-tp195757p195827.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

-- 
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...

[tisimst]

I just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion here.

I tend to engrave piano music more often than not and I don't mind the
current syntax. The only thing that I'd rather like seeing improved is the
nesting of the voices rests.

Rests tend to get pushed out of the center and away from the staves, when
we usually think of the notes in those voices being pushed toward the
center of the staves. I wish the rests followed a similar philosophy, at
least following the contour of their respective voice.

Just a thought.

--
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Changing-voice-order-tp195757p195827.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...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-10-28 14:52, David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Kobel  writes:


What about \voiceUp and \voiceDown? Where the former are
counted from top to bottom, and the latter from bottom to top?


I prefer it if a LilyPond source is readable without explanations.  That
makes it much easier to learn by example and feel confident about it.
It also makes stuff like Frescobaldi document templates work better.  If
the template appears to make sense, people are more comfortable using it
(and remembering and reproducing it) rather than when there are
strangenesses in it.


+1.


And using numbers that run top to bottom for one
half and bottom to top for the other just are again the kind of
weirdness I wanted to avoid with a different scheme in the first place.


Granted.


So the current \voice becomes \voice ?
Or \FromTop and \FromBottom?


Somewhat better.  But I consider it somewhat inelegant if \twoFromBottom
is for bassoon I and \oneFromBottom for bassoon II.


Ordinal: \secondFromBottom, \firstFromBottom. Even a little bit better 
IMHO. But still not the holy grail, I agree.
I cannot see a better solution right now; but I'm open to pleasant 
surprises...



So does

<< topmost \\ 2nd from top
   \\ { \inner \inner \voiceDown topmost stem-down }
   \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down




Basically you need to only fix those voices not obeying the standard
scheme (usually just one) and the rest will work out.  So I don't really
think that a special syntax is needed.


True. But isn't the point of this shortcut notation that it saves you
the trouble of specifying those directions and voice names on your
own?


Sure, but you talk about a case where one _has_ to specify a direction
and voice name after all because the default does not work.  Admittedly,
yet another shortcut saves you from figuring out what level of \inner
(or whatever) you have to use.


Indeed. By the way: what is intuitive also depends a lot on what music 
you engrave. If you have two-part violin/bassoon/whatever parts, that's 
mostly obvious. In particular, the voices tend to exist over an extended 
range.
If you are talking about, e.g., piano music, it's not at all uncommon 
that voices vanish during the piece or pop up at random moments, or 
voices cross each other, and suddenly the meaning of what's 1st/2nd/3rd 
(or inner, middle and outer) voice as well as the preferred style 
(up/down) changes.
I guess that cannot easily be solved within the regime of that syntax. 
But maybe the construct should not try to optimize for such "hard" 
cases; that could be calling for trouble.


Anyway, the \\\ was a shot in the dark: without any idea about how this 
could be implemented (no idea there at all), and also without thinking 
of the long-term implications. Which leads to your last point...



Coincidentally, that's why I hardly ever use it: I tend to get
lost with the automatic assignment


Well, which is why the automatic assignment should be as predictable and
brainless and useful as possible.

I think that the proposal in its current form is significantly better
than what we started with.  But obviously we don't want to have such
shakeups occur more often than absolutely necessary, so we should not
just get something that's better what we started with but also not worse
than anything else we can think of at the moment.


+1.


Cheers,
Alexander

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Kobel  writes:

> What about \voiceUp and \voiceDown? Where the former are
> counted from top to bottom, and the latter from bottom to top?

I prefer it if a LilyPond source is readable without explanations.  That
makes it much easier to learn by example and feel confident about it.
It also makes stuff like Frescobaldi document templates work better.  If
the template appears to make sense, people are more comfortable using it
(and remembering and reproducing it) rather than when there are
strangenesses in it.  And using numbers that run top to bottom for one
half and bottom to top for the other just are again the kind of
weirdness I wanted to avoid with a different scheme in the first place.

> So the current \voice becomes \voice ?
> Or \FromTop and \FromBottom?

Somewhat better.  But I consider it somewhat inelegant if \twoFromBottom
is for bassoon I and \oneFromBottom for bassoon II.

That gets soon into the realm of "repulsive" that Dan called a mismatch
of voice numbers and style numbers.

>> So does
>>
>> << topmost \\ 2nd from top
>>\\ { \inner \inner \voiceDown topmost stem-down }
>>\\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down

>>
>> Basically you need to only fix those voices not obeying the standard
>> scheme (usually just one) and the rest will work out.  So I don't really
>> think that a special syntax is needed.
>
> True. But isn't the point of this shortcut notation that it saves you
> the trouble of specifying those directions and voice names on your
> own?

Sure, but you talk about a case where one _has_ to specify a direction
and voice name after all because the default does not work.  Admittedly,
yet another shortcut saves you from figuring out what level of \inner
(or whatever) you have to use.

> Coincidentally, that's why I hardly ever use it: I tend to get
> lost with the automatic assignment

Well, which is why the automatic assignment should be as predictable and
brainless and useful as possible.

I think that the proposal in its current form is significantly better
than what we started with.  But obviously we don't want to have such
shakeups occur more often than absolutely necessary, so we should not
just get something that's better what we started with but also not worse
than anything else we can think of at the moment.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,

> On 10/27/2016 4:38 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
>> have been from the start.
> 
> DAYMAKER!

Agreed. I love this.  =)

As for the voice order, I think if possible it should be "top-down”. I’m 
mulling over the precise naming, but wondering if something like “\voiceUp.1” 
and \voiceDown.1" might work? So the name of the function determines direction, 
and the suffix determines “shift”?

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Karlin High]

On 10/27/2016 4:38 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
> have been from the start.

DAYMAKER!

I'm watching this voice-order discussion closely. I have no position on 
how LilyPond should work with this. I've been using it for less than 2 
years, often in cargo-cult mode, and really need to get around to 
reading the manuals the whole way through.

Just before the discussion started, I discovered the voice-order issue 
while trying to typeset the SSATTBB anthem "Prayer of Thankful Praise" 
by Hal Hopson.
(This thing: hopepublishing.com/media/pdf/HH3905.pdf , 
https://youtu.be/N5PWE_uHkR4 )
I happily entered Soprano I on top, Soprano II below it, and Alto at the 
bottom. It didn't do what I expected. I gave up and tried entering 
chords for  which then introduced me to \oneVoice 
temporary voices at the end, where each of the song's 7 voices has 
differing durations.
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-10-28 12:31, David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Kobel  writes:


On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote:

The majority tends to be silent.


Minority report out of the silent majority:
I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you
internalized the meaning of \voice.


Well, walking on your hands is totally natural once you internalized
being upside down.


Also, walking on your hands is easier than standing on them. I'm still 
waiting for that... ;-)



The problem I have is that all of the the s
in \voice stop making sense as soon as _one_  moves past
Two.


I wouldn't say that it stops making sense at all, but it's a different 
sense than the one you expect from a musical point of view. So, yes, I 
get your point.



I agree with you that these names are semantically suboptimal. On the
other hand, I find something like \inner \VoiceUp etc. slightly too
verbose; I'll get used to it, but I can't say I'm too fond of it.


Better proposals welcome.  My first idea was \voiceUpUp but that does
not work since additional voices are inner voices.  And \voiceUpDown and
\voiceUpDownDown would again be rather confusing.  So the idea with
\inner as a modifier.  Replacing \inner \inner with \innermost suffers
from the problem that the innermost level might be either further out or
in.


What about \voiceUp and \voiceDown? Where the former are 
counted from top to bottom, and the latter from bottom to top? So the 
current \voice becomes \voice ?

Or \FromTop and \FromBottom?


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


If that's the goal: I again agree with you that top-to-bottom makes
the most sense IMHO; but either the << ... \\ ... \\ ... >> just
assigns names, not styles, or you should also think about some
syntactic sugar to specify the boundary between "up" and "down"
voices. Something like
  <<
topmost \\ 2nd from top
\\\ % note the three backslashes
topmost stem-down \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down
  >>
which would translate to << 1 \\ 3 \\ 6 \\ 4 \\ 2 >>...


So does

<< topmost \\ 2nd from top
   \\ { \inner \inner \voiceDown topmost stem-down }
   \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down




Basically you need to only fix those voices not obeying the standard
scheme (usually just one) and the rest will work out.  So I don't really
think that a special syntax is needed.


True. But isn't the point of this shortcut notation that it saves you 
the trouble of specifying those directions and voice names on your own? 
- Coincidentally, that's why I hardly ever use it: I tend to get lost 
with the automatic assignment and prefer more (manual) verbosity here, 
but I'm mostly setting vocal music where I need to assign lyrics and 
stuff later.



Cheers,
Alexander

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Kobel  writes:

> On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote:
>> The majority tends to be silent.
>
> Minority report out of the silent majority:
> I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you
> internalized the meaning of \voice.

Well, walking on your hands is totally natural once you internalized
being upside down.  The problem I have is that all of the the s
in \voice stop making sense as soon as _one_  moves past
Two.

> I agree with you that these names are semantically suboptimal. On the
> other hand, I find something like \inner \VoiceUp etc. slightly too
> verbose; I'll get used to it, but I can't say I'm too fond of it.

Better proposals welcome.  My first idea was \voiceUpUp but that does
not work since additional voices are inner voices.  And \voiceUpDown and
\voiceUpDownDown would again be rather confusing.  So the idea with
\inner as a modifier.  Replacing \inner \inner with \innermost suffers
from the problem that the innermost level might be either further out or
in.

>> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
>> have been from the start.
>
> If that's the goal: I again agree with you that top-to-bottom makes
> the most sense IMHO; but either the << ... \\ ... \\ ... >> just
> assigns names, not styles, or you should also think about some
> syntactic sugar to specify the boundary between "up" and "down"
> voices. Something like
>   <<
> topmost \\ 2nd from top
> \\\ % note the three backslashes
> topmost stem-down \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down
>   >>
> which would translate to << 1 \\ 3 \\ 6 \\ 4 \\ 2 >>...

So does

<< topmost \\ 2nd from top
   \\ { \inner \inner \voiceDown topmost stem-down }
   \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down
>>

Basically you need to only fix those voices not obeying the standard
scheme (usually just one) and the rest will work out.  So I don't really
think that a special syntax is needed.

-- 
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,
>
> 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?

Well, I write the manual more than I read it.  Nevertheless I prefer it
if reading the manual is a reward more than a punishment.  LilyPond does
not have a graphic interface to woo its users; it talks to them using
its manuals.  So I prefer it if it does not have its entrails sticking
all over it while trying to be friendly.
 (I apologize to those not
in command of the German language, but the graphical content speaks for
itself).

> 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.

My father, like other German boys his age, was drafted in the final
stages of WWII.  He taught me and my siblings that directions should
make sense and that respect is not commanded but earned.  I am grateful
for the respect you express for those continuing to create LilyPond.  As
an early adopter you stand to having to relearn some things occasionally
and your feedback is important for figuring out how to keep this to a
minimum.

> I cannot conceive of the rationality of changing anything because some
> are too busy to read the manual.

Well, as a musician we often are in the situation of "this is how your
instrument works, suck it up".  And one has minor cheats loosening the
fundamental limitations of your instrument, like piano players using key
vibrato (a rather subtle effect which should not work at all) or
accordion players using various forms of vibrato (at least there the
means of propagation via bellows pressure is more obvious) or
half-pressed buttons or half-stopped registers.

The uncompromising anatomy of a violin is made more palatable using
shoulder and chin rests.

My own accordion spells rebellion against the musical limitations
dictated by a fixed chord octave: I have a slider allowing me to select
the chord octave among 20 different possibilities.

So even musicians question the status quo defined by their instruments.
LilyPond is easier to change than most instruments are, and in contrast
to physical instruments it has a lot of players and we try not just
accommodating the established masters of it.

I like Bach's solo violin pieces because in spite of their partly
tremendous challenges they don't contain gratuitous difficulty: they
aren't etudes: there is good musical reason and payoff for what they
demand from the player.  They are written for violin, not against it.
Fingering instructions are unnecessary in the harder passages because
there is just one obvious and physically and musically possible way to
play anyway.

And I like my software to make sense of its own without fingering
instructions as well.  Let the players save their energy for that which
is musically rewarding.  We have enough necessary complications that it
is worth trying to minimize the unnecessary ones.

Dan called some consequences I explicated "repulsive" but they were sort
of inherent in the current design and name choice.  I have to agree and
would like to get rid of that noodle if feasible without becoming too
disruptive.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Robert Schmaus  writes:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it 
> now. 
>
> But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the
> code_ to match the vertical arrangement of the _engraved_ notes (and
> isn't that also, what Lilypond is all about? You specify the input in
> a well-structured way, let lily care about the engraving) I'd find any
> input sequence other than 1/2/3/... counterintuitive.

Well, there is still the question of what 1/2/3 should _mean_.
Currently they are connected with \voiceOne, \voiceTwo,
\voiceThree... and the meaning of those is "topmost", "lowest", "below
topmost" ...

I find this both disturbing and hard to remember and so for me the
question is what the most satisfactory way to change that would be in
the long term.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Dan Eble  writes:

> 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.

Well, it is actually more like

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

because I misremembered the order.  But I assume that your qualification
would still apply.

> I mean that in as friendly a way as possible.

Well, I did mention that I was also for retiring \voiceOne...\voiceFour.

My current proposal would be more like

<< \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceUp ...
   \context Voice = "2" \with \inner \voiceUp ...
   \context Voice = "3" \with \inner \voiceDown ...
   \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceDown ... >>


At any rate, does that mean that you are fine with

<< \sopranoI \\ \alto \\ \sopranoII >>

and

<< \sopranoI \\ \altoII \\ \sopranoII \\ \altoI >>

because that is what we currently have?

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote:

The majority tends to be silent.


Minority report out of the silent majority:
I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you 
internalized the meaning of \voice. Hardly use it, though, but 
that's a different story.


I agree with you that these names are semantically suboptimal. On the 
other hand, I find something like \inner \VoiceUp etc. slightly too 
verbose; I'll get used to it, but I can't say I'm too fond of it.



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


If that's the goal: I again agree with you that top-to-bottom makes the 
most sense IMHO; but either the << ... \\ ... \\ ... >> just assigns 
names, not styles, or you should also think about some syntactic sugar 
to specify the boundary between "up" and "down" voices. Something like

  <<
topmost \\ 2nd from top
\\\ % note the three backslashes
topmost stem-down \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down
  >>
which would translate to << 1 \\ 3 \\ 6 \\ 4 \\ 2 >>...


Cheers,
Alexander

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Robert Schmaus]

Hi everyone,

I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it now. 

But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the code_ to 
match the vertical arrangement of the _engraved_ notes (and isn't that also, 
what Lilypond is all about? You specify the input in a well-structured way, let 
lily care about the engraving) I'd find any input sequence other than 1/2/3/... 
counterintuitive. 

Best,
Robert

__

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon 
insufficient evidence. 
-- William Kingdon Clifford


> On 27 Oct 2016, at 13:40, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> 
> 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: Changing voice order...

[Michael Gerdau]

> > I respect your right to disagree.
> > Yet,1, 2, 3 stem up, 2, 4, 6 stem down? Not, as they say, rocket
> > science.
> 
> Actually 1, 3, 5 stem up.
> 
> So not rocket science, but tricky to remember :-)

Which kind of prooves the point I was trying to make :-)

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...

[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: 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 <carsonm...@ca.rr.com>; 'David Kastrup'
<d...@gnu.org>
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: 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 <carsonm...@ca.rr.com>
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...

"Mark Stephen Mrotek" <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> 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 <carsonm...@ca.rr.com>
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...

"Mark Stephen Mrotek" <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> 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: 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 <carsonm...@ca.rr.com>
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...

"Mark Stephen Mrotek" <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> 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