Carl, Lukas-Fabian, Thomas, thank you all. I now have enough information to make the score work.
-- Knute Snortum On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 2:05 AM Thomas Morley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am Di., 4. Mai 2021 um 17:34 Uhr schrieb Knute Snortum <[email protected]>: > > > > Hi, everyone. This will probably be a long post. I hope you will bear > > with me. > > > > I have two questions: one as experts in LilyPond and one that just has > > to do with typesetting, but they are related. > > > > First, I am trying to shorten the stems of beamed eighth notes. I > > found that Stem.details.beamed-lengths could do that, but it seems to > > have minimums that it won't go past. Consider this snippet: > > > > %%% Start > > \version "2.22.1" > > > > \relative { > > \override Stem.details.beamed-lengths = #'(2) > > c''8 c c c > > \override Stem.details.beamed-lengths = #'(3) > > c b a g | > > \override Stem.details.beamed-lengths = #'(3) > > c a f d > > } > > %%% End > > > > I can't get the repeated "c" eighth notes lower than 2 or the > > descending eighth notes lower than 3. Is there a way to get past these > > minimums? Or am I doing something wrong? > > > > Now the typesetting question: I have a piano piece that has several > > voices and there is a run of descending eighth notes inside of other > > voices that gets really cramped. Attached is a screenshot of how some > > older editions dealt with it (old-edition-solution.png). It requires > > shortening the eighth note beam down to almost nothing. > > > > Here is how the two measures look without any intervention > > (eighth-note-stems-without-intervention.ly produces > > lilypond-solution.png). It's an interesting solution, but I don't > > think it will work. > > > > And here is my solution (eighth-note-stems-my-solution.ly produces > > my-solution.png). Is it readable? Should I try to make it look like > > the old edition? If so, how? > > > > Thanks for reading this to the end. > > > > -- > > Knute Snortum > > For completeness: > > The override for Stem.details.beamed-lengths is not always sufficient, > because Stem.details.beamed-extreme-minimum-free-lengths and > Stem.details.beamed-minimum-free-lengths provide some minimums. > In own scores I had set them to zero, adjusted > Stem.details.beamed-lengths to taste and used Beam.positions for > fine-tuning. > > \relative { > c''8 c c c > \override Stem.details.beamed-lengths = #'(1) > \override Stem.details.beamed-extreme-minimum-free-lengths = #'(0) > \override Stem.details.beamed-minimum-free-lengths = #'(0) > > \override Stem.no-stem-extend = ##t > c8 c c c > c b a g > \once \override Beam.positions = #'(1.8 . 0.5) > c b a g > c a f d > \once \override Beam.positions = #'(1.8 . -1.1) > c' a f d > } > > As soon as 16th happen other values are preferable, thus Carl's method > looks superior (not tested, though). > > Cheers, > Harm
