Re: Unknown expression mark

[William Rehwinkel]

Dear Paul,

Assuming that the symbol is a marcato-staccato, one could use some 
scheme code a bit like the following which is pasted together from the 
short fermata and staccato definitions, so that the layout and midi 
outputs are properly handled.


-William

\version "2.24.0"

staccatostrongaccent = #(make-articulation 'shortfermata
  'midi-length
  (lambda (len context)
(moment-min (ly:moment-mul len (ly:make-moment 1/3))
  (seconds->moment 1/3 context))) ; slightly shorter than staccato
'midi-extra-velocity 40 ; marcato midi-extra-velocity
)

\score {
\relative g' {
  g8^\staccatostrongaccent g8_\staccatostrongaccent
}

\layout {}
\midi {}
}


On 1/15/23 05:37, Paul Hodges wrote:
This is simply a combination of marcato (aka "strong accent") and 
staccato.  The symbols are not usually overlapped like that, but it is 
not unknown - see the attached image from "Music Engraving Today" by 
Steven Powell (which I found in a discussion of how to get Dorico to do 
this).


I haven't tried, but I imagine that a little tweaking of vertical 
positions of the two symbols could get them to overlap like this.


Paul


*From: * Alberto Simões 
*To: * lilypond-user 
*Sent: * 14/01/2023 17:58
*Subject: * Unknown expression mark

Hello, Friends

Anyone knows:
  - what is this expression mark (in terms of the player)
  - how to mimic this in Lilypond?

Thank you!
Alberto



--
+ -- +
|William Rehwinkel - Oberlin College and |
|   Conservatory '24 |
|  will...@williamrehwinkel.net  |
| PGP key:   |
| https://williamrehwinkel.net/static/pubkey.txt |
+ -- +


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Unknown expression mark

[Paul Hodges]

This is simply a combination of marcato (aka "strong accent") and staccato.  
The symbols are not usually overlapped like that, but it is not unknown - see 
the attached image from "Music Engraving Today" by Steven Powell (which I found 
in a discussion of how to get Dorico to do this).


I haven't tried, but I imagine that a little tweaking of vertical positions of 
the two symbols could get them to overlap like this.


Paul



 From:   Alberto Simões  
 To:   lilypond-user  
 Sent:   14/01/2023 17:58 
 Subject:   Unknown expression mark 



Hello, Friends


Anyone knows:
 - what is this expression mark (in terms of the player)
 - how to mimic this in Lilypond?


Thank you!
Alberto
 

Re: Unknown expression mark

[William Rehwinkel]

It looks to me like a short fermata:

https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/f5/lily-0fe2acbd.png

which you may call in lilypond via "\shortfermata"

However, it might also be a staccato and marcato, with more context (the 
rest of the score) the answer might be more clear.


-William

On 1/14/23 12:58, Alberto Simões wrote:

Hello, Friends

Anyone knows:
  - what is this expression mark (in terms of the player)
  - how to mimic this in Lilypond?

Thank you!
Alberto


--
+ -- +
|William Rehwinkel - Oberlin College and |
|   Conservatory '24 |
|  will...@williamrehwinkel.net  |
| PGP key:   |
| https://williamrehwinkel.net/static/pubkey.txt |
+ -- +


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Unknown expression mark

[Xavier Scheuer]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 at 19:05, Alberto Simões  wrote:
>
> And in lilypond, _^ is similar enough :-)

Hello,

For me it looks more like a \shortfermata .
See the list of articulations, as mentioned in NR 1.3.1 Expressive marks
attached to notes.
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.24/Documentation/notation/list-of-articulations

Cheers,
Xavier

-- 
Xavier Scheuer 

Re: Unknown expression mark

[Alberto Simões]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 6:02 PM Alberto Simões 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 5:58 PM Alberto Simões 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello, Friends
>>
>> Anyone knows:
>>  - what is this expression mark (in terms of the player)
>>  - how to mimic this in Lilypond?
>>
>>
> As per Wikipedia, it looks like a Marcato --
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcato
>

And in lilypond, _^ is similar enough :-)

Re: Unknown expression mark

[Alberto Simões]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 5:58 PM Alberto Simões 
wrote:

> Hello, Friends
>
> Anyone knows:
>  - what is this expression mark (in terms of the player)
>  - how to mimic this in Lilypond?
>
>
As per Wikipedia, it looks like a Marcato --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcato

Re: unknown escaped string: \setTextCresc

[Knute Snortum]

It's easy as pie to convert in Frescobaldi (which uses convert-ly).

--
Knute Snortum


On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 10:44 PM m.tarensk...@kpnmail.nl
 wrote:
>
> Have tried convert-ly?
>
> MT
>
> Verzonden vanaf mijn Huawei mobiele telefoon
>
>
>  Oorspronkelijk bericht 
> Onderwerp: unknown escaped string: \setTextCresc
> Van: Ivanov Dmitry
> Aan: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Cc:
>
>
> I downloaded Beethovens 1-st Sonata from mutopia:
>
> https://www.mutopiaproject.org/ftp/BeethovenLv/O2/LVB_Sonate_02no1_1/LVB_Sonate_02no1_1.ly
>
> Unfortunately, when I try to compile it, it fails:
>
> ./LVB_Sonate_02no1_1.ly:81:8: error: unknown escaped string: `\setTextCresc'
> ./LVB_Sonate_02no1_1.ly:81:8: error: string outside of text \lyricmode
>
> It seems that that this command was removed from lilypond since that file
> was typeset in 2008. What should I do?
\version "2.22.0"

 \header {
  title = "Piano Sonate Opus 2 No 1 (1st Movement)"
  composer = "Ludwig Van Beethoven"
  mutopiatitle = "Sonata No. 1 (1st Movement: Allegro)"
  mutopiacomposer = "BeethovenLv"
  mutopiainstrument = "Piano"
  mutopiaopus = "Op. 2, No. 1"
  date = "1794/95"
  source = "Breitkopf & Hartel (1862-1865)"
  style = "Classical"
  copyright = "Public Domain"
  maintainer = "Stelios Samelis"
  lastupdated = "2008/January/06"
  version = "2.10.3"
 footer = "Mutopia-2008/01/07-1211"
 tagline = \markup { \override #'(box-padding . 1.0) \override #'(baseline-skip . 2.7) \box \center-column { \small \line { Sheet music from \with-url "http://www.MutopiaProject.org; \line { \teeny www. \hspace #-1.0 MutopiaProject \hspace #-1.0 \teeny .org \hspace #0.5 } • \hspace #0.5 \italic Free to download, with the \italic freedom to distribute, modify and perform. } \line { \small \line { Typeset using \with-url "http://www.LilyPond.org; \line { \teeny www. \hspace #-1.0 LilyPond \hspace #-1.0 \teeny .org } by \maintainer \hspace #-1.0 . \hspace #0.5 Reference: \footer } } \line { \teeny \line { This sheet music has been placed in the public domain by the typesetter, for details see: \hspace #-0.5 \with-url "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain } } } }
}

\score {

 \new GrandStaff
 <<
 \new Staff = "up" {
 \clef treble
 \key f \minor
 \time 4/4
 \override Score.MetronomeMark.transparent = ##t
 \tempo 4 = 190
 \override TextScript.padding = #2.0
 \repeat volta 2 {
 \partial 4 c'4\p\staccato^\markup { \large \bold "Allegro." } f'\staccato aes'\staccato c''\staccato f''\staccato
 aes''4.( \tuplet 3/2 { g''16[ f'' e''] } f''4\staccato) r4
 g'\staccato c''\staccato e''\staccato g''\staccato bes''4.( \tuplet 3/2 { aes''16[ g'' f''] } g''4\staccato) r4
 \acciaccatura c''16 aes''4.\sf( \tuplet 3/2 { g''16[ f'' e''] } f''4\staccato) r4
 \acciaccatura c''16 bes''4.\sf( \tuplet 3/2 { aes''16[ g'' f''] } g''4\staccato) r4
 2\ff\arpeggio\> bes''8([ aes'' g'' f''\!]) \grace { e''16[ f'' g''] } f''4\p( e''\staccato) r4^\fermata r4 R1
 R1 << { g''4\rest g''8\rest \tuplet 3/2 { ees''16([ des''! c''] } des''4\staccato) des''\staccato
 des''1~ des''4. \tuplet 3/2 { ees''16([ des'' c''] } des''4\staccato) des''\staccato
 g''4\rest g''8\rest \tuplet 3/2 { des''16([ c'' b'] } c''4\staccato) c''\staccato } \\
 { aes'1~ aes'4. \tuplet 3/2 { bes'16([ aes' g'] } aes'4\staccato) aes'\staccato g'1 aes'1 } >>
 << { c''4\<( bes'!2\!\> aes'4\!) } \\ { f'1 } >> g'4\staccato ees''( des''! c'')~ c''4\<( bes'2\!\> aes'4\!)
 g'4 4\f(  )~ 4( 2 4)
 4 r r fes''4\p( ees''4 des''! bes' g') fes'4.\sf( ees'8 aes'4\staccato)
 fes''4( ees'' des'' bes' g') fes'4.\sf( ees'8 aes'4\staccato) fes''4( ees'' des'' bes' g')
 r8 g'( bes' aes') r a'( c'' bes') r b'( des'' c'') r d''8\<( aes''\!\> d''\!)
 ees''4 r r8 d''8\<( aes''\!\> d''\!) ees''4 r r8 g''8\<( fes'''\!\> g''\!) aes''4 r r8 g''8\<( fes'''\!\> g''\!)
 r8 g''\<( bes'' aes'') r a''( c''' bes'') r b''( des''' c''') r c'''( ees''' des'''\!)
 r8 d'''8\f( f''' ees''' des''' c''' bes'' aes'' g''8 f'' ees'' des'' c'' bes' aes' g' f'\p ees' d' ees' d' ees' d' ees'
 d' ees' f' ees' d' ees' f' ees') r8 aes''8\f( f''' ees''' des'''! c''' bes'' aes'' g'' f'' ees'' des'' c'' bes' aes' g'
 f'\p ees' des' c' bes aes g f ees f g aes bes c' des' bes aes4)
 r4 \acciaccatura d'16 ces''4._\markup { \italic "con espressione" }( bes'8) aes'2 g'4.( ees''8)
 ees''4\sf( aes'4) \acciaccatura d'16 ces''4.( bes'8) aes'2 g'4.( ees''8) ees''4\sf( aes'4)
 \acciaccatura d''16 ces'''4.( bes''8) aes''2 g''4.( ees'''8) 1\ff\> 4\!\p r4 r }

 ees'4\p\staccato aes'\staccato c''\staccato ees''\staccato aes''\staccato
 c'''4.( \tuplet 3/2 { bes''16[ aes'' g''] } aes''4\staccato) r4
 \acciaccatura des''16 des'''4.( \tuplet 3/2 { c'''16[ bes'' a''] } bes''4\staccato) r4
 bes'4\staccato des''\staccato g''\staccato bes''\staccato
 \acciaccatura des''16 des'''4.( \tuplet 3/2 { c'''16[ bes'' a''] } bes''4\staccato) r4
 \acciaccatura des''16 des'''4.\<( \tuplet 3/2 { c'''16[ bes'' a''] } bes''4\staccato) r4\!
 a''4\fp r 

Re: unknown escaped string: \setTextCresc

[m.tarensk...@kpnmail.nl]

Have tried convert-ly?MTVerzonden vanaf mijn Huawei mobiele telefoon Oorspronkelijk bericht Onderwerp: unknown escaped string: \setTextCrescVan: Ivanov Dmitry Aan: lilypond-user@gnu.orgCc: I downloaded Beethovens 1-st Sonata from mutopia:https://www.mutopiaproject.org/ftp/BeethovenLv/O2/LVB_Sonate_02no1_1/LVB_Sonate_02no1_1.lyUnfortunately, when I try to compile it, it fails:./LVB_Sonate_02no1_1.ly:81:8: error: unknown escaped string: `\setTextCresc'./LVB_Sonate_02no1_1.ly:81:8: error: string outside of text \lyricmodeIt seems that that this command was removed from lilypond since that filewas typeset in 2008. What should I do?

Re: (unknown)

[Rachael Carlson]

The truth is that your content does not belong on this mailing list, and
you have been told so already.  This mailing list's description is

This list is for discussing how to use
lilypond. (www.gnu.org/software/lilypond)

If you don't have anything relevant to the list's purpose to contribute,
please do those reading the list the favor of not abusing their list for
your own agenda.

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under
the heavens.  Take yours where it belongs.


Thank you, David.

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

Re: (unknown)

[Martin Tarenskeen]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, David Kastrup wrote:


Musescore and LilyPond would be in version 2 a long time ago.



LilyPond has been in version 2 for a long time already.


And so has Musescore


If you want to discuss how to use LilyPond, this is the right place.  If
not, it isn't.  Adding some random paragraph with the word "LilyPond" to
an otherwise off-topic rant does not make it the right place, either.


+10

--

MT

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

Re: (unknown)

[David Kastrup]

Mirosław Doroszewski  writes:

> Only telling the Truth sincerely, frankly, is powerful, helpful,
> hopeful.

The truth is that your content does not belong on this mailing list, and
you have been told so already.  This mailing list's description is

This list is for discussing how to use
lilypond. (www.gnu.org/software/lilypond)

If you don't have anything relevant to the list's purpose to contribute,
please do those reading the list the favor of not abusing their list for
your own agenda.

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under
the heavens.  Take yours where it belongs.

> If the world would not pay 100,000,000,000 dollars or euro every month
> for bulbs (=electric lights) in computers and computer peripherals,
> even loud-speakers — i.e. Musescore and LilyPond would be in version 2
> a long time ago.

LilyPond has been in version 2 for a long time already.  Your flimsy
pretense of posting something relevant to the list by adding a single
factually wrong and confused paragraph is pathetic.

If you want to discuss how to use LilyPond, this is the right place.  If
not, it isn't.  Adding some random paragraph with the word "LilyPond" to
an otherwise off-topic rant does not make it the right place, either.

Thanks for your consideration

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: (unknown)

[David Kastrup]

Rob Torop  writes:

> I'm finding that when I use a TabStaff and also set some properties (either
> or both of minimumFret and restrainOpenStrings), my first line has an extra
> TabStaff!  What can I do to get rid of it? Thanks!
>
> Here's what it looks like:
>
> [image: Screen Shot 2017-03-26 at 4.46.59 PM.png]
>
> And here's the code that generated this:
>
> \version "2.19"
> \language "english"
>
> solo = \relative c' {
>
> % Either of both of the two settings will cause an extra "TAB" staff to
> be rendered
>  \set TabStaff.minimumFret=#1
>  \set TabStaff.restrainOpenStrings = ##t
>
>  c8   f e ef df c bf af
> }
>
> \score {
>   <<
>  \new Staff\solo
>  \new TabStaff  \solo
>>>
> }

The easiest remedy in this case is likely to use
\set Staff.minimumFret ...
since TabStaff is aliased to Staff, so you'll just be setting
properties in the _Staff_ context that are irrelevant, while the
settings reach the _TabStaff_ fine.

This will not work when writing something like

\new StaffGroup { \solo }

or so since then \set Staff.xxx will create a _Staff_ context before a
TabStaff has a chance to be available.  But if one is already there, it
will get used.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: (unknown)

[David Kastrup]

Scott Lawrence  writes:

> So I downloaded lilypond... All I get when I start the application is
> the following message: "%{
> Welcome to LilyPond
> ===
>
> Congratulations, LilyPond has been installed successfully.
>
> Now to take it for the first test run.
>
>   1. Save this file
>
>   2. Select
>
>    Compile > Typeset file
>
>   from the menu.
>
>   The file is processed, and
>
>   3.  The PDF viewer will pop up. Click one of the noteheads.
>
>
> That's it.  For more information, visit http://lilypond.org .
>
> %}
>
> \header{
>   title = "A scale in LilyPond"
> }
>
> \relative {
>   c d e f g a b c
> }
>
>
> \version "2.18.2"  % necessary for upgrading to future LilyPond versions."
>
> I saved it like it said but I see no musical things

Saving it was "1." in the list.  The list also contains "2." and "3.".
The list is not a list of alternatives but is rather a _sequence_ of
steps to perform.

Have you tried following up step "1." with steps "2." and "3."?  If you
did, how did you fare with those?

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Switching the direction of slurs in tupletBracketToSlur (from Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710))

[Richard Shann]

On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 23:02 +0200, Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2016-05-23 16:27 GMT+02:00 Richard Shann :
> > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 10:13 +0200, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> >> On 22.05.2016 23:29, Richard Shann wrote:
> >> > I wonder did my email "Switching
> >> > the direction of slurs in tupletBracketToSlur" get overlooked or is
> >> > there no way that a direction can be set to be the opposite to the stems
> >> > and beams direction?
> >>
> >> Certainly it hasn’t been overlooked, and there is a way to do it.
> >
> > Spurred on by your confidence that it can be done I dug into it
> >
> > #(define (invert-direction x) (if (eq? UP 
> > (ly:tuplet-bracket::calc-direction x)) DOWN UP))
> > \override TupletBracket.direction = #invert-direction
> >
> > seems to do the trick.
> 
> Even more concise:
> 
> #(define (invert-direction grob)
>   (* -1 (ly:tuplet-bracket::calc-direction grob)))

This hinges on UP and DOWN never getting assigned different values. In
which case I see that 

#(define (invert-direction grob)
  (- (ly:tuplet-bracket::calc-direction grob)))

will work too.

> 
> > If anyone knows of a problem with this code,
> > please say,
> 
> Well, as soon as polyphonic happens it will produce strange output, see:
> 
> mus = {
> \override TupletBracket.bracket-visibility = ##t
> \override TupletBracket.direction = #invert-direction
> \tuplet 3/2 { a'8 b c }
> \tuplet 3/2 { r8 d e }
> \tuplet 3/2 { r8 r f, }
> \tuplet 3/2 { g, a'' r }
> \tuplet 3/2 { c,,8 c c }
> \tuplet 3/2 { r8 c c }
> \tuplet 3/2 { r8 r c }
> \tuplet 3/2 { c c'' r }
> }
> 
> \new Staff
> <<
> \new Voice \relative c'' { \voiceOne \mus }
> \new Voice \relative c { \voiceTwo \mus }
> >>

Thankfully my personal use-case doesn't stretch to that sort of
thing ...

Richard



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

Re: Switching the direction of slurs in tupletBracketToSlur (from Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710))

[Thomas Morley]

2016-05-23 16:27 GMT+02:00 Richard Shann :
> On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 10:13 +0200, Simon Albrecht wrote:
>> On 22.05.2016 23:29, Richard Shann wrote:
>> > I wonder did my email "Switching
>> > the direction of slurs in tupletBracketToSlur" get overlooked or is
>> > there no way that a direction can be set to be the opposite to the stems
>> > and beams direction?
>>
>> Certainly it hasn’t been overlooked, and there is a way to do it.
>
> Spurred on by your confidence that it can be done I dug into it
>
> #(define (invert-direction x) (if (eq? UP (ly:tuplet-bracket::calc-direction 
> x)) DOWN UP))
> \override TupletBracket.direction = #invert-direction
>
> seems to do the trick.

Even more concise:

#(define (invert-direction grob)
  (* -1 (ly:tuplet-bracket::calc-direction grob)))

> If anyone knows of a problem with this code,
> please say,

Well, as soon as polyphonic happens it will produce strange output, see:

mus = {
\override TupletBracket.bracket-visibility = ##t
\override TupletBracket.direction = #invert-direction
\tuplet 3/2 { a'8 b c }
\tuplet 3/2 { r8 d e }
\tuplet 3/2 { r8 r f, }
\tuplet 3/2 { g, a'' r }
\tuplet 3/2 { c,,8 c c }
\tuplet 3/2 { r8 c c }
\tuplet 3/2 { r8 r c }
\tuplet 3/2 { c c'' r }
}

\new Staff
<<
\new Voice \relative c'' { \voiceOne \mus }
\new Voice \relative c { \voiceTwo \mus }
>>

> otherwise could it be a simpler replacement for
>
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=860
>
> which seems to be trying to achieve the same thing?

Indeed.
860 was one of my early codings, far too complicated thinking.
Actually it redefines parts of `ly:tuplet-bracket::calc-direction' ...
Otoh, it is aware of kneed-beams, sort of.

Though, it has the same problem as mentioned above and I'm not sure
how to avoid it.


Cheers,
  Harm

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

Re: Switching the direction of slurs in tupletBracketToSlur (from Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710))

[Richard Shann]

On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 10:13 +0200, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> On 22.05.2016 23:29, Richard Shann wrote:
> > I wonder did my email "Switching
> > the direction of slurs in tupletBracketToSlur" get overlooked or is
> > there no way that a direction can be set to be the opposite to the stems
> > and beams direction?
> 
> Certainly it hasn’t been overlooked, and there is a way to do it.

Spurred on by your confidence that it can be done I dug into it

#(define (invert-direction x) (if (eq? UP (ly:tuplet-bracket::calc-direction 
x)) DOWN UP))
\override TupletBracket.direction = #invert-direction

seems to do the trick. If anyone knows of a problem with this code,
please say, otherwise could it be a simpler replacement for 

http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=860

which seems to be trying to achieve the same thing?

Richard




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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Simon Albrecht]

On 22.05.2016 23:29, Richard Shann wrote:

I wonder did my email "Switching
the direction of slurs in tupletBracketToSlur" get overlooked or is
there no way that a direction can be set to be the opposite to the stems
and beams direction?


Certainly it hasn’t been overlooked, and there is a way to do it. Only 
noone yet felt like looking for it, or had time.


Best, Simon

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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Richard Shann]

On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 12:46 +0100, Richard Shann wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 13:26 +0200, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> > On 22.05.2016 13:01, Andrew Bernard wrote:
> > > Hi Richard,
> > >
> > > When attempting to view your score on IMSLP, I get an error page as 
> > > follows:
> > >
> > > You have reached this page because the file you requested has not been 
> > > reviewed for copyright, or is currently restricted due to various 
> > > reasons. The block will be lifted after the file is reviewed for 
> > > copyright and/or other applicable reasons are resolved.
> > > Unless you are the uploader, all files marked "[B]" are blocked 
> > > temporarily awaiting copyright review (which should finish in a few days 
> > > at most) or will become public domain next year. There are currently 36 
> > > files awaiting review, and 182 files will fall into public domain next 
> > > year.
> > >
> > > Consequently the score is inaccessible.
> > 
> > …for a few days, until it has been approved.
> 
> a few hours in my experience...

It's cleared now - I've added the second of the sonatas as well now,
which took less than half the time - no tweaks at all for this one,
apart from the curved tuplet bracket; I wonder did my email "Switching
the direction of slurs in tupletBracketToSlur" get overlooked or is
there no way that a direction can be set to be the opposite to the stems
and beams direction?

Richard



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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Richard Shann]

On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 13:26 +0200, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> On 22.05.2016 13:01, Andrew Bernard wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > When attempting to view your score on IMSLP, I get an error page as follows:
> >
> > You have reached this page because the file you requested has not been 
> > reviewed for copyright, or is currently restricted due to various reasons. 
> > The block will be lifted after the file is reviewed for copyright and/or 
> > other applicable reasons are resolved.
> > Unless you are the uploader, all files marked "[B]" are blocked temporarily 
> > awaiting copyright review (which should finish in a few days at most) or 
> > will become public domain next year. There are currently 36 files awaiting 
> > review, and 182 files will fall into public domain next year.
> >
> > Consequently the score is inaccessible.
> 
> …for a few days, until it has been approved.

a few hours in my experience...

Richard

> 
> Best, Simon



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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Simon Albrecht]

On 22.05.2016 13:01, Andrew Bernard wrote:

Hi Richard,

When attempting to view your score on IMSLP, I get an error page as follows:

You have reached this page because the file you requested has not been reviewed 
for copyright, or is currently restricted due to various reasons. The block 
will be lifted after the file is reviewed for copyright and/or other applicable 
reasons are resolved.
Unless you are the uploader, all files marked "[B]" are blocked temporarily 
awaiting copyright review (which should finish in a few days at most) or will become 
public domain next year. There are currently 36 files awaiting review, and 182 files will 
fall into public domain next year.

Consequently the score is inaccessible.


…for a few days, until it has been approved.

Best, Simon

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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Richard,

When attempting to view your score on IMSLP, I get an error page as follows:

You have reached this page because the file you requested has not been reviewed 
for copyright, or is currently restricted due to various reasons. The block 
will be lifted after the file is reviewed for copyright and/or other applicable 
reasons are resolved.
Unless you are the uploader, all files marked "[B]" are blocked temporarily 
awaiting copyright review (which should finish in a few days at most) or will 
become public domain next year. There are currently 36 files awaiting review, 
and 182 files will fall into public domain next year.

Consequently the score is inaccessible.

Andrew





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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Richard Shann]

On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 18:01 +1000, Andrew Bernard wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> Studying this in the full context of the scanned original, it’s clear to me 
> these are ‘t.’ glyphs, and the edges of the type form have smudged from time 
> to time. I notice there are some ‘.t’ forms – probably printing errors.
> 
> Even though an old print, it’s pretty miserable music printing for the era 
> all said.

Well I've uploaded my transcription to IMSLP now, so after 306 years
there is a LilyPond typeset of it available. It took me nearly two hours
to input via Denemo, being so indistinct, but didn't call for any tweaks
beyond the clash between the slur and the accidental which you can see
in the incipit. (For some reason the incipit doesn't obey the tweak ...)

Richard


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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Simon Albrecht]

On 22.05.2016 10:18, Rutger Hofman wrote:
Please be careful about distributing such information about IMSLP. It 
is incorrect. IMSLP still allows anyone to download any score for free 
and without registration, but you have to wait a short time, I think 
10 seconds,


15, actually.

before downloading. If you are a subscriber, you don't have the wait 
penalty.


I found it’s worthwhile to make some contributions – after about 100 
edits you’ll be appointed a member and can access everything instantly. 
And contributing is really easy – it’s like correcting small errors, 
supplying bits of information on the pages, and then it quickly adds up 
to the required 100 (IIRC) edits.
And I’d like to add that this system has been introduced for good 
reasons: It has been necessary to give the whole project a better 
foundation, and that first means stabilising financial resources.


Best, Simon



Rutger

On 05/22/2016 09:53 AM, Richard Shann wrote:

On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 17:51 +1000, Andrew Bernard wrote:

HI Richard,

On 22/05/2016, 5:41 PM, "Richard Shann"  
wrote:



I gave a link to a scan of the original print,


You can’t view it unless you are a subscriber to IMSLP.


I heard they had introduced some sort of penalty system on IMSLP which
is a great pity. As I understand it though, they will still allow you to
download for free, but I suppose before you didn't have to register an
account (for free).

Richard


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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Rutger Hofman]

Please be careful about distributing such information about IMSLP. It is 
incorrect. IMSLP still allows anyone to download any score for free and 
without registration, but you have to wait a short time, I think 10 
seconds, before downloading. If you are a subscriber, you don't have the 
wait penalty.


Rutger

On 05/22/2016 09:53 AM, Richard Shann wrote:

On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 17:51 +1000, Andrew Bernard wrote:

HI Richard,

On 22/05/2016, 5:41 PM, "Richard Shann"  wrote:


I gave a link to a scan of the original print,


You can’t view it unless you are a subscriber to IMSLP.


I heard they had introduced some sort of penalty system on IMSLP which
is a great pity. As I understand it though, they will still allow you to
download for free, but I suppose before you didn't have to register an
account (for free).

Richard



Andrew








___
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: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Richard,

Studying this in the full context of the scanned original, it’s clear to me 
these are ‘t.’ glyphs, and the edges of the type form have smudged from time to 
time. I notice there are some ‘.t’ forms – probably printing errors.

Even though an old print, it’s pretty miserable music printing for the era all 
said.

Andrew




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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Richard Shann]

On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 17:51 +1000, Andrew Bernard wrote:
> HI Richard,
> 
> On 22/05/2016, 5:41 PM, "Richard Shann"  wrote:
> 
> >I gave a link to a scan of the original print,
> 
> You can’t view it unless you are a subscriber to IMSLP.

I heard they had introduced some sort of penalty system on IMSLP which
is a great pity. As I understand it though, they will still allow you to
download for free, but I suppose before you didn't have to register an
account (for free).

Richard

> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> 



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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Andrew Bernard]

HI Richard,

On 22/05/2016, 5:41 PM, "Richard Shann"  wrote:

>I gave a link to a scan of the original print,

You can’t view it unless you are a subscriber to IMSLP.

Andrew





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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Richard Shann]

On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 11:42 +1000, Andrew Bernard wrote:
> Can you give a bit more context? What instrument? 
I gave a link to a scan of the original print, but here is a link to the
page where there is a choice of 80Mb or 4.5Mb scans of the print.

http://imslp.org/wiki/12_Recorder_Sonatas,_Op.3_%28Valentine,_Robert%29


Having tried the sonata out, I'm still none the wiser. Looking more
widely, I see it occurs five times in the Allegro movement of Sonata 1,
then twice more in the Gavotta and once in the Gavotta of Sonata 2,
three times in Sonata 3 and so on.
Attached is a part of sonata 9 and here I detect a sort of progression
from the first trill sign, quite distinctly "t." to the "E" at the end.
So perhaps it is, after all just the edges of a block for "t." catching
the ink, which Frauke Jurgensen reported is what it looked like viewed
on a mobile phone...

Thanks to you both!

Richard

> Can we see the signs at the bottom of the image? Who is the composer? The 
> work? More clues would help.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> On 22/05/2016, 12:01 AM, "lilypond-user on behalf of Richard Shann" wrote:
> 
> >Attached is a bit of an early 18th print (*) using movable type - does
> >anyone on the list know what the sign that looks like an E is?
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Andrew Bernard]

Can you give a bit more context? What instrument? Can we see the signs at the 
bottom of the image? Who is the composer? The work? More clues would help.

Andrew


On 22/05/2016, 12:01 AM, "lilypond-user on behalf of Richard Shann" wrote:

>Attached is a bit of an early 18th print (*) using movable type - does
>anyone on the list know what the sign that looks like an E is?





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

Re: Unknown marking in Roman print (1710)

[Frauke Jurgensen]

On my phone, it looks like a blobby lower-case t, which makes sense in
context.
On 21 May 2016 15:06, "Richard Shann"  wrote:

> Attached is a bit of an early 18th print (*) using movable type - does
> anyone on the list know what the sign that looks like an E is?
>
> Richard
> (*)
> http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/423684
>
> ___
> 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: Unknown Schumann piece

[Peter Toye]

I'm not sure that for very small people really describes the piece well, 
given the large stretch at the end of bar 4. Or maybe, like Stravinsky, he 
forgot that small people have small left hands as well as right hands.

Another solution - a very small child plays the upper part, and a slightly more 
advanced one the lower part, using two hands.  So whether it's for two 
pianists or very small people becomes irrelevant.

 
Regards,

Peter
mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
www.ptoye.com___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Urs Liska]

Am 06.05.2014 17:36, schrieb Peter Toye:

I'm not sure that for very small people really describes the piece
well, given the large stretch at the end of bar 4. Or maybe, like
Stravinsky, he forgot that small people have small left hands as well as
right hands.


I think this piece is already more complex than the other of the first 
pieces. I can imagine that this was the reason to emend the title.


Urs



Another solution - a very small child plays the upper part, and a
slightly more advanced one the lower part, using two hands.  So whether
it's for two pianists or very small people becomes irrelevant.


Regards,

Peter
mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
www.ptoye.com http://www.ptoye.com


___
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: [SPAM] Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.05.2014 04:22, schrieb Mogens Lemvig Hansen:

See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMcrb-sKh5wfeature=youtube_gdata_player


:-)



Regards,
Mogens


On 2014-05-03, at 17:26, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote:


Am 04.05.2014 01:49, schrieb Pierre Perol-Schneider:

2014-05-04 1:38 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl:



On Sat, 3 May 2014, Urs Liska wrote:

   There is just one important thing that I couldn't read in

Schumann's

   handwriting. It's overstroken by Schumann and in that typical 19th
   century German handwriting. But maybe someone in this group is

able  to

   read it. See attachment.




   Maybe something like Für ganz Kleine:?

  Would make sense in the context of op. 68, but I really can't read the
last
  word.



I like that one. Until someone comes up with a better idea I'll use that
one.

I have attached the tune (.pdf and .ly).



Thanks Martin.
I'm pretty sure that the last letter  is an r... I've tried to clean your
image, see enclosed.


The second-to-last is most probably an n - compare with the second-to-last 
character of the second word.

Then we have a clear i dot before that.

With the r I'm not 100% sure - although I admit this looks quite convincing.
The r in Für has a first stroke that is more distinct than in that last 
character.
Believe it or not, I can well imagine that the last and the fourth-to-last characters are 
both es.

I'd like to know what that stroke above/between the first two characters of the 
last word is. Just an arbitrary stroke? Or an apostrophe separating a letter 
and a word?

Urs


Cheers,
Pierre



___
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


___
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: Unknown Schumann piece

[Martin Tarenskeen]

On Sun, 4 May 2014, Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:


   Maybe something like Für ganz Kleine:?
   Would make sense in the context of op. 68, but I really can't read the 
last
   word.


I like that one. Until someone comes up with a better idea I'll use that one.

I have attached the tune (.pdf and .ly).


Thanks Martin.
I'm pretty sure that the last letter  is an r... I've tried to clean your 
image, see enclosed.


Thanks.
Für ganz Kleiner could very well be right.

--

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

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[David Kastrup]

Martin Tarenskeen m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl writes:

 On Sun, 4 May 2014, Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:

    Maybe something like Für ganz Kleine:?
    Would make sense in the context of op. 68, but I really can't read 
 the last
    word.


 I like that one. Until someone comes up with a better idea I'll use that one.

 I have attached the tune (.pdf and .ly).


 Thanks Martin.
 I'm pretty sure that the last letter  is an r... I've tried to
 clean your image, see enclosed.

 Thanks.
 Für ganz Kleiner could very well be right.

Except that Schumann could be expected to have a basic grasp of German
grammar.  It _would_ explain striking through the title out of
embarrassment, but then one would have expected a properly spelled
version below.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

2014-05-04 9:30 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl:


 Für ganz Kleiner could very well be right.


Is it possible that there is a word after ? Something like Für ganz
Kleiner Spieler ?
Otherwise it is grammatically wrong.
After seeing the video I vote for Für ganz Kleine.
Cheers,
Pierre
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Malte Meyn]

“Für ganz Kleiner Spieler” is grammatically wrong as well, it would be 
“Für ganz kleine Spieler”. And I don’t think that there is another word, 
it seems like this text ends with a colon or a dot (I forgot how this 
dot is called in English …)


On 04.05.2014 09:53, Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:

2014-05-04 9:30 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl
mailto:m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl:

Für ganz Kleiner could very well be right.


Is it possible that there is a word after ? Something like Für ganz
Kleiner Spieler ?
Otherwise it is grammatically wrong.
After seeing the video I vote for Für ganz Kleine.
Cheers,
Pierre



___
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: Unknown Schumann piece

[David Kastrup]

Pierre Perol-Schneider pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com writes:

 2014-05-04 9:30 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl:


 Für ganz Kleiner could very well be right.


 Is it possible that there is a word after ? Something like Für ganz
 Kleiner Spieler ?

Still ungrammatical.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

2014-05-04 9:54 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:


 Still ungrammatical.


Oups, sorry for that...
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[David Kastrup]

Pierre Perol-Schneider pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com writes:

 2014-05-04 9:54 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:


 Still ungrammatical.


 Oups, sorry for that...

I consider it a feature rather than a bug that not everyone is German.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Martin Tarenskeen]

On Sun, 4 May 2014, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:


I have attached the tune (.pdf and .ly).


So much response for a question about such a small and simple piece!
Isn't this mailinglist great?

Following up on this I have another question. What are the rules for the 
vertical placement of rests in polyphonic writing? Are there any? For 
example in my Schumann piece, lower staff, Lilypond did a very ugly choice 
by default and I had to use something like b'\rest even for this very 
simple piece. (Don't know if that's the correct placement but it looks 
fine to my eyes)


--

MT

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

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.05.2014 13:09, schrieb Martin Tarenskeen:



On Sun, 4 May 2014, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:


I have attached the tune (.pdf and .ly).


So much response for a question about such a small and simple piece!
Isn't this mailinglist great?

Following up on this I have another question. What are the rules for the
vertical placement of rests in polyphonic writing? Are there any? For
example in my Schumann piece, lower staff, Lilypond did a very ugly
choice by default and I had to use something like b'\rest even for this
very simple piece. (Don't know if that's the correct placement but it
looks fine to my eyes)



This has just come up recently. See
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3902
and follow the link there to see how different notation programs handle 
that situation.


Urs

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

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Brian Barker]

At 13:09 04/05/2014 +0200, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
What are the rules for the vertical placement of rests in polyphonic 
writing? Are there any? For example in my Schumann piece, lower 
staff, Lilypond did a very ugly choice by default and I had to use 
something like b'\rest even for this very simple piece. (Don't know 
if that's the correct placement but it looks fine to my eyes)


Elaine Gould says (pp. 36-7):
For clarity, upper-part rest are usually placed above the centre 
stave-line, lower-part rests below the centre line
When one part lies outside the stave (on ledger lines), crotchet, 
quaver, and shorter-value rests for the other part may move back to 
the centre of the stave

Semibreve and minim rests must never stray across the centre stave line
When both parts have rests simultaneously, as in strict contrapuntal 
writing, separate these with at least one stave-line
Many editions place all minim and semibreve rests only on the 
outside stave-lines, to avoid confusion; some avoid rests on the 
middle stave-line, for the same reason


This last remark appears to describe (and validate?) what Lilypond 
does by default. But it's clearly not the only way.


Brian Barker 



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

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Martin Tarenskeen]

On Sat, 3 May 2014, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:



Hi,

I have an edition of Robert Schumann's Album für die Jugend that has some 
pictures of his handwritten scores inside. One of the pictures shows a small 
but apparently unapproved pianopiece, before the first tune Melodie starts. 
The tune is very simple and not very interesting musically. That's probably 
why Schumann didn't like it and dumped it. But I couldn't resist trying to 
typeset it with Lilypond anyway.


There is just one important thing that I couldn't read in Schumann's 
handwriting. It's overstroken by Schumann and in that typical 19th century 
German handwriting. But maybe someone in this group is able to read it. See 
attachment.


(I will share the tune later.)


Sorry,
I  accidentally attached the complete page, instead of just the title.
See attchment.

--

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

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Malte Meyn]

On 03.05.2014 21:54, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:



On Sat, 3 May 2014, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:



There is just one important thing that I couldn't read in Schumann's
handwriting. It's overstroken by Schumann and in that typical 19th
century German handwriting. But maybe someone in this group is able to
read it. See attachment.



Hi,

the first word is “Für” (English: “for”) an I think the third one could 
be “Clavier” (“piano”).


Oh, maybe “Für zwey Clavier(e)” (“for two pianos”)? That would explain 
the two hooks/swashes below the line (belonging to the z and y). And 
could also explain why this text was cancelled.


Cheers,
Malte

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

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Urs Liska]

Am 03.05.2014 22:20, schrieb Malte Meyn:

On 03.05.2014 21:54, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:



On Sat, 3 May 2014, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:



There is just one important thing that I couldn't read in Schumann's
handwriting. It's overstroken by Schumann and in that typical 19th
century German handwriting. But maybe someone in this group is able to
read it. See attachment.



Hi,

the first word is “Für” (English: “for”)


I think this is absolutely clear.


an I think the third one could
be “Clavier” (“piano”).


This not. (I mean it's not clear).



Oh, maybe “Für zwey Clavier(e)” (“for two pianos”)? That would explain
the two hooks/swashes below the line (belonging to the z and y). And
could also explain why this text was cancelled.


I wouldn't bet my reputation against it, but I am quite sure the second 
word is ganz


Maybe something like Für ganz Kleine:?
Would make sense in the context of op. 68, but I really can't read the 
last word.


Urs



Cheers,
Malte

___
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: Unknown Schumann piece

[Martin Tarenskeen]

On Sat, 3 May 2014, Urs Liska wrote:


 There is just one important thing that I couldn't read in Schumann's
 handwriting. It's overstroken by Schumann and in that typical 19th
 century German handwriting. But maybe someone in this group is able 
 to

 read it. See attachment.



 Maybe something like Für ganz Kleine:?
 Would make sense in the context of op. 68, but I really can't read the last
 word.


I like that one. Until someone comes up with a better idea I'll use that one.

I have attached the tune (.pdf and .ly).

--

MT

00-unknown.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
\version 2.19.5
%\pointAndClickOff

\header {
  title = Für ganz Kleine (?)
  composer = Robert Schumann
}

rh = \relative {
  c''4-.( c-.) e-.( e-.) | g( f d2) | e4-.( e-.) c-.( c-.) | d1 |
  \break
  c4-.( c-.) e-.( e-.)   | g( f d2) | e4-.( e-.) d-.( d-.) | c1 |
  \bar |.
}

lh = \relative {
  
\new Voice {
  \voiceOne
  b'2\rest e, g | b'\rest d, g | b'\rest e, g | b'\rest b, d g |
  b'\rest e, g | b'\rest d, g | c e g b d g | c e1 |
}
\new Voice {
  \voiceTwo
  c1 | b | c | g | c | b | s | s |
}
  
  \bar |.
}

\score {
  \new PianoStaff 
\new Staff \rh
\new Dynamics { s1\mf }
\new Staff \lh
  
  \layout {}
}


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

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

2014-05-04 1:38 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl:


 On Sat, 3 May 2014, Urs Liska wrote:

   There is just one important thing that I couldn't read in
 Schumann's
  handwriting. It's overstroken by Schumann and in that typical 19th
  century German handwriting. But maybe someone in this group is
 able  to
  read it. See attachment.


   Maybe something like Für ganz Kleine:?
  Would make sense in the context of op. 68, but I really can't read the
 last
  word.


 I like that one. Until someone comes up with a better idea I'll use that
 one.

 I have attached the tune (.pdf and .ly).


Thanks Martin.
I'm pretty sure that the last letter  is an r... I've tried to clean your
image, see enclosed.
Cheers,
Pierre
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Unknown Schumann piece

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.05.2014 01:49, schrieb Pierre Perol-Schneider:

2014-05-04 1:38 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl:



On Sat, 3 May 2014, Urs Liska wrote:

   There is just one important thing that I couldn't read in

Schumann's

   handwriting. It's overstroken by Schumann and in that typical 19th
   century German handwriting. But maybe someone in this group is

able  to

   read it. See attachment.




   Maybe something like Für ganz Kleine:?

  Would make sense in the context of op. 68, but I really can't read the
last
  word.



I like that one. Until someone comes up with a better idea I'll use that
one.

I have attached the tune (.pdf and .ly).



Thanks Martin.
I'm pretty sure that the last letter  is an r... I've tried to clean your
image, see enclosed.


The second-to-last is most probably an n - compare with the 
second-to-last character of the second word.


Then we have a clear i dot before that.

With the r I'm not 100% sure - although I admit this looks quite 
convincing.
The r in Für has a first stroke that is more distinct than in that 
last character.
Believe it or not, I can well imagine that the last and the 
fourth-to-last characters are both es.


I'd like to know what that stroke above/between the first two characters 
of the last word is. Just an arbitrary stroke? Or an apostrophe 
separating a letter and a word?


Urs


Cheers,
Pierre



___
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: Unknown Schumann piece

[Mogens Lemvig Hansen]

See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMcrb-sKh5wfeature=youtube_gdata_player

Regards,
Mogens


On 2014-05-03, at 17:26, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote:

 Am 04.05.2014 01:49, schrieb Pierre Perol-Schneider:
 2014-05-04 1:38 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl:
 
 
 On Sat, 3 May 2014, Urs Liska wrote:
 
   There is just one important thing that I couldn't read in
 Schumann's
   handwriting. It's overstroken by Schumann and in that typical 19th
   century German handwriting. But maybe someone in this group is
 able  to
   read it. See attachment.
 
 
   Maybe something like Für ganz Kleine:?
  Would make sense in the context of op. 68, but I really can't read the
 last
  word.
 
 
 I like that one. Until someone comes up with a better idea I'll use that
 one.
 
 I have attached the tune (.pdf and .ly).
 
 
 Thanks Martin.
 I'm pretty sure that the last letter  is an r... I've tried to clean your
 image, see enclosed.
 
 The second-to-last is most probably an n - compare with the second-to-last 
 character of the second word.
 
 Then we have a clear i dot before that.
 
 With the r I'm not 100% sure - although I admit this looks quite convincing.
 The r in Für has a first stroke that is more distinct than in that last 
 character.
 Believe it or not, I can well imagine that the last and the fourth-to-last 
 characters are both es.
 
 I'd like to know what that stroke above/between the first two characters of 
 the last word is. Just an arbitrary stroke? Or an apostrophe separating a 
 letter and a word?
 
 Urs
 
 Cheers,
 Pierre
 
 
 
 ___
 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

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

Re: (unknown)

[David Kastrup]

Tommaso Gordini illinguista1...@gmail.com writes:

 Hello to all. I quote from the file usage.pdf in the section about
 lilypond-book:

 Each snippet will call the Following macros if they have been defined by
 the user:
 \preLilyPondExample [...]
  ^^^
 \postLilyPondExample [...]
   ^^^

 I tried to use in the same way also the commands \pre- and
 \postLilyPondSystem, but I did not see any results after compilation
   ^^

-- 
David Kastrup


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

Re: (unknown)

[Tim Slattery]

Christopher Reed christopher.ree...@gmail.com wrote:

hello can someone please help me export my file to lilypond it will not do
it for some reason :(

You're going to have to be clearer. Export from what to Lilypond? What
won't do it?

Lilypond doesn't import files. When you start it, you tell it what
*.ly file to read. It processes that and puts out a PDF (or PNG) with
the engraved score.

-- 
Tim Slattery
slatter...@bls.gov


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

Re: (unknown)

[David Kastrup]

ed stuckems edstuck...@gmail.com writes:

 What's special about the \clef command in the following:

 According to section 2.2.1 of the manual:

 To determine the number of staves in a piece, LilyPond looks at the
 beginning of the first expression. If there is a single note, there is
 one staff; if there is a simultaneous expression, there is more than
 one staff.

 This would appear to be the case in the following:

 
  { f a c e }
  { e g b d }
 

 However, if a \clef is specified, the statement doesn't appear to
 hold.  For example, the following doesn't produce multiple staves
 despite the fact that the beginning of the first expression starts
 with simultaneous expression like the example above:

 
  { f a c e }
  { \clef bass e g b d }
 

[...]

 So my question is why does adding the \clef also require adding the
 \new Staff when section 2.2.1 suggests otherwise?  What have I
 missed?

Actually, it is not the clef that is special but rather rhythmic
events like f and e.  The clef more or less works by just setting a few
Staff properties, and since a Staff already exists at the time of \clef
bass, it just uses that.  The following e is no longer in the special
position of being considered a Staff-starter.

Automatically started staffs might not have been the best possible idea,
particularly in parallel music.  It is usually least problematic to
explicitly specify all of your staffs.

-- 
David Kastrup


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

Re: (unknown)

[David Kastrup]

MING TSANG tsan...@rogers.com writes:

 LP users,

 I encounter compile error from init.ly. Can anyone experience this
 before?


 Detail of the error
 .

 Starting lilypond-windows.exe 2.14.2 [definities-1159.ly]...
 Processing `D:/mingtsang-2/lied-1159/definities-1159.ly'
 Parsing...
 C:/Program Files
 (x86)/LilyPond/usr/share/lilypond/current/ly/init.ly:37:0: error:
 syntax error, unexpected SCM_TOKEN
 #(if (and (ly:get-option 'old-relative)
 error: failed files: D:/mingtsang-2/lied-1159/definities-1159.ly
 Exited with return code 1.

A syntax error in definities-1159.ly extends beyond the end of file and
thus reaches into init.ly from where definities-1159.ly is loaded.

-- 
David Kastrup


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

Re: Unknown final note shape / object. What it is?

[Owain Sutton]

On 21:32, Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Nils Gey wrote:
 I stumbled upon this picture of notation and I've never seen the final note 
 (in each voice, the right page voices have a slightly different version)
 http://anaigeon.free.fr/mes_facs/fsjosq.jpg
 
 From the position it must be a longa, the fermata over it indictates the 
 same. Best visible on the top left version is that there is indeed the 
 right-handed stem from a longa at the end of this symbol.
 
 Has anyone seen this in a different context? I would like to see more 
 pictures or versions.
 
 Btw. if you know any other strange or seldom used notation symbols please let 
 me know :)
 
 Greetings,
 
 Nils


Probably just a scribal quirk - the incomplete illuminations give some idea of 
how prestigious this volume was (or was intended to be).  Which source is it?

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

Re: Unknown final note shape / object. What it is?

[Nils Gey]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:40:15 +
Owain Sutton m...@owainsutton.co.uk wrote:

 On 21:32, Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Nils Gey wrote:
  I stumbled upon this picture of notation and I've never seen the final note 
  (in each voice, the right page voices have a slightly different version)
  http://anaigeon.free.fr/mes_facs/fsjosq.jpg
  
  From the position it must be a longa, the fermata over it indictates the 
  same. Best visible on the top left version is that there is indeed the 
  right-handed stem from a longa at the end of this symbol.
  
  Has anyone seen this in a different context? I would like to see more 
  pictures or versions.
  
  Btw. if you know any other strange or seldom used notation symbols please 
  let me know :)
  
  Greetings,
  
  Nils
 
 
 Probably just a scribal quirk - the incomplete illuminations give some idea 
 of how prestigious this volume was (or was intended to be).  Which source is 
 it?

If going to the root of this URL does not help I don't know. Google image 
search. I searched through mensural music (and medieval) for exactly these 
things. Strange looking or nice looking things in notation (without the usual 
Ars Subtilior Heart-Shape Notation)

Nils 

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

Re: Unknown final note shape / object. What it is?

[Michael Ellis]

It appears to be the opening Kyrie of the Josquin's Missa Beata Virgine, ca
1510.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Josquin_Missa_BV_Kyrie.jpg

I believe music printing was a thriving enterprise by then, so it's unlikely
to be (completely) hand scribed.

Cheers,
Mike


On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Nils Gey den...@nilsgey.de wrote:

 On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:40:15 +
 Owain Sutton m...@owainsutton.co.uk wrote:

  On 21:32, Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Nils Gey wrote:
   I stumbled upon this picture of notation and I've never seen the final
 note (in each voice, the right page voices have a slightly different
 version)
   http://anaigeon.free.fr/mes_facs/fsjosq.jpg
  
   From the position it must be a longa, the fermata over it indictates
 the same. Best visible on the top left version is that there is indeed the
 right-handed stem from a longa at the end of this symbol.
  
   Has anyone seen this in a different context? I would like to see more
 pictures or versions.
  
   Btw. if you know any other strange or seldom used notation symbols
 please let me know :)
  
   Greetings,
  
   Nils
 
 
  Probably just a scribal quirk - the incomplete illuminations give some
 idea of how prestigious this volume was (or was intended to be).  Which
 source is it?

 If going to the root of this URL does not help I don't know. Google image
 search. I searched through mensural music (and medieval) for exactly these
 things. Strange looking or nice looking things in notation (without the
 usual Ars Subtilior Heart-Shape Notation)

 Nils

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

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

RE: Unknown final note shape / object. What it is?

[James Lowe]

Hello,

I am not sure if you are aware of this website

http://www.diamm.ac.uk/index.html

It contains very high resolution digital images of mensural music. You do need 
to register (free) but some of the images there are beautiful.

James


-Original Message-
From: lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org on behalf of Nils 
Gey
Sent: Fri 12/10/2010 21:46
To: Owain Sutton
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Unknown final note shape / object. What it is?
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:40:15 +
Owain Sutton m...@owainsutton.co.uk wrote:

 On 21:32, Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Nils Gey wrote:
  I stumbled upon this picture of notation and I've never seen the final note 
  (in each voice, the right page voices have a slightly different version)
  http://anaigeon.free.fr/mes_facs/fsjosq.jpg
  
  From the position it must be a longa, the fermata over it indictates the 
  same. Best visible on the top left version is that there is indeed the 
  right-handed stem from a longa at the end of this symbol.
  
  Has anyone seen this in a different context? I would like to see more 
  pictures or versions.
  
  Btw. if you know any other strange or seldom used notation symbols please 
  let me know :)
  
  Greetings,
  
  Nils
 
 
 Probably just a scribal quirk - the incomplete illuminations give some idea 
 of how prestigious this volume was (or was intended to be).  Which source is 
 it?

If going to the root of this URL does not help I don't know. Google image 
search. I searched through mensural music (and medieval) for exactly these 
things. Strange looking or nice looking things in notation (without the usual 
Ars Subtilior Heart-Shape Notation)

Nils 

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


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