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

2016-05-24 Thread 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))

2016-05-23 Thread 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))

2016-05-23 Thread 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)

2016-05-23 Thread 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)

2016-05-22 Thread 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)

2016-05-22 Thread 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)

2016-05-22 Thread 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)

2016-05-22 Thread 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)

2016-05-22 Thread 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)

2016-05-22 Thread 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)

2016-05-22 Thread 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)

2016-05-22 Thread 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)

2016-05-22 Thread 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)

2016-05-22 Thread 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)

2016-05-22 Thread 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)

2016-05-21 Thread 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)

2016-05-21 Thread 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