David, Again, thank you for your direction/advice.
Mark -----Original Message----- From: David Wright [mailto:lily...@lionunicorn.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 6:05 PM To: Mark Stephen Mrotek <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: that migrating "opus" On Sun 11 Mar 2018 at 12:40:35 (-0700), Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote: > David, > > 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. The convention on this list appears to be to: a person cc: the list so that's what I do. My response is on the list, but some mail systems do various things like: . deliver only one copy of messages (which could explain your case, where you received just the personal copy), . refuse to deliver messages they recognise as coming from the sender (which can lead people to keep reposting a message to a list because they think it never arrives). > 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. Fair enough. There are two things to watch out for: . the headings are left/right paired, so you can get gaps below them. (I use this as a positive feature with Anglican chants, using opus for the composer and meter for any necessary annotation, thereby ensuring that the composer is close-set and a lengthy annotation will not collide with it.) . There are LP headers that find their way into the PDF metadata, and they might end up mislabelled there. Not a worry for most people, and there are probably ways to edit such metadata anyway. Cheers, David. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list email@example.com https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user