Your continued effort to address my inquiry is uncommon. Many more esoteric
and arcane matters appear on the list with multiple, and often contentious,
responses. Yet you are the only one to respond to this simple inquiry and
then it is not posted on the list.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Your courtesy (your snippet is in my repository!) restricts any further
comment. Suffice it to say that I have found a simple alternative: put the
opus number in the "arranger" field.
From: David Wright [mailto:lily...@lionunicorn.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:05 PM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek <carsonm...@ca.rr.com>
Subject: Re: that migrating "opus"
On Sat 10 Mar 2018 at 13:28:20 (-0800), Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote:
> Thank you for your pointed reply.
> Yes, I did take away something from your explanation.
> I have used it on the previously referenced score.
> My basic question, more operational than technical (I really don't get all
of the \scoreTitlemarkup stuff!).
> Why is it that "piece" and "opus" are the only ones beatified to migrate?
Because a musical work "typically" has one title at the top (cf a novel) and
one composer (cf author), whereas each movement (particularly where they're
often performed separately) will be numbered (cf chapters) and sometimed
titled (like children's stories).
> The process you provide seems a little kludgy to get "opus" behave as it
would on a normal score with multiple movements.
I think the example (which BTW I didn't write) was designed to give you a
lot of flexibility without using the \fromproperty method.
If your music is very conventional as just described, then the default
scheme may work for you, as attached (modified from that example cited).
lilypond-user mailing list