On 7/20/2018 9:41 AM, Rutger Hofman wrote:
On 16-07-18 17:29, Ben wrote:
On 7/13/2018 2:25 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Ben,
I probably confused you with my wording, sorry! I just meant it's
above the staff when it's supposed to be (in rare situations where
dynamics are technically different between the same instrument
parts)...and then it's below for the part 'extraction' single staff
file. ;) Right?
Correct! In the score: dynamics unique to Flute 1 appear above the
staff, dynamics unique to Flute 2 appear below the staff, and shared
dynamics appear [once only] below the score; in the parts: dynamics
appear below the staff.
Magic. =)
K.
________________________________
Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website:www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email:[email protected]
Question please:
Say you have a large orchestral piece, and for the majority of one
movement the flutes 1 & 2 share the same music. Suppose they have
only about 5-10 measures out of several hundred measures in the
movement that are different, requiring separate voices.
I know you can simplify and reduce typing of the music by using
variables and such, however I am wondering: how would you go about
setting up the instrument for Flutes 1/2, as well as Flute 1 and
Flute 2? If you use temporary \\ backslash polyphony in those
measures, that won't translate to partcombine of course (because they
would 'live' in the same variable, so I can't do \partcombine
fluteone and have it work)...The only way to use partcombine then,
would be to have two variables correct?
So, how can you *not* re-type or copy-paste the music into the other
flute variable for partcombine? I'm looking at this the wrong way I
know, perhaps one of you could straighten me out.
I'd like to use partcombine throughout this piece so ideally I'd like
to keep the variables separate, but one movement out of the many do
not have the need for polyphony so I am unsure how to proceed. But is
it sometimes not advisable to use partcombine if the ratio of
polyphony is low? I'm wondering what the common consensus is of when
to use partcombine vs. when to manually single-variable input
everything << >> inline.
My policy in this kind of situation is to use \quoteDuring,
\partcombine and the \partcombine{Apart,Chords,Unisono,SoloI,SoloII}
commands, like in this sub-minimal example:
\version "2.19.82" % some recent version
fluteI = { .... flute I and unisono music ... }
\addQuote fluteI { \fluteI }
fluteII = {
\partcombineUnisono \quoteDuring fluteI {
s1*33 | % duration of common music
} \undo partcombineUnisono
... different music for flute II ...
\partcombineUnisono \quoteDuring fluteI {
s1*33 | % duration of common music
} \undo partcombineUnisono
% etc.
}
Then the separate setup for parts and score:
parts:
\score {
\new Staff { \fluteI }
}
\score {
\new Staff { \fluteII }
}
full score:
\score {
\new Staff {
\partcombine
\fluteI
\fluteII
}
}
Beware that there are limitations here. quoteDuring cannot quote
quoted music, for instance, and the partcombiner, when switching mode
(Apart, Chords, Unisono etc), gets confused by spanner-type stuff
(hairpins, text spanners, etc).
Rutger
P.S. If you require that the flute parts are sometimes on one staff,
sometimes on 2, then you would want to get familiar with the so-called
divisi engraver, which makes use of the Keep_alive_together_engraver,
the VerticalAxisGroup.remove-layer property and the utility function
targetstaff.
Where is the documentation for the "divisi engraver"?
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
