Hi Torsten, Thanks so much for this supremely clear explanation.
It's quite subtle really, isn't it? A big help. Probably this context does not come up often for people - my piano scores flutter between, one, two, three, and four staves in a quite complex manner. Scriabin too, but he does not go down to one staff much, if at all, as I recall. So a kind of rare corner case arises in my work - but lilypond as usual triumphs! Andrew On 10 February 2018 at 20:57, Torsten Hämmerle <torsten.haemme...@web.de> wrote: > > The difference between \RemoveEmptyStaves and \RemoveAllEmptyStaves is that > \RemoveEmptyStaves will not remove empty staves in the first system, the > reason for it being that in orchestral scores it is common to display all > instruments involved in the first system - no matter if they play or not. > > Your problem is caused by the fact that, from LilyPond's point of view, > staves containing "no music", i.e. rests or spacer rests only, are > considered as "empty". Therefore, dynamics will also vanish using > \RemoveEmtpyStaves. > > The difference between PianoStaff and GrandStaff, by the way, is that > PianoStaff uses the "Keep_alive_together_engraver". This has the effect > (in > orchestral scores) that both piano staves are shown as soon as one of them > contains music. > >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
