Am Di., 23. Juli 2024 um 23:52 Uhr schrieb Tom Brennan <[email protected]>: > > Hi all > > I'm notating a sonata for a cello and piano, and I would like to produce > three "artifacts" (products?) from this: > > 1. A solo cello part (a typical single staff representation) > 2. A "study score" where all staves are equivalent sizes > 3. An accompaniment part for the piano, where the cello is above in a smaller > staff > > Now, the problem I'm facing is that there are plenty of "accel." and "rit." > marks with lines/spanners that I would like to be treated like tempo > markings, so that they are presented in the following ways: > > 1. Normally for the solo cello part > 2. Only above the entire system in the "study score" product > 3. Above both the piano and the solo part in the "accompaniment" product > > The way I have designed the music input is like: > > ``` > lattice = { s1 \tempo "Andante" 4 = 72 | s1 } > cello = << \lattice \relative c { a4 b c2 | d1 } >> > left = << \lattice { ...some music... } >> > right = << \latttice { ... } >> > ``` > > i.e., so that the tempo lives in its own spaced-out voice, which provides the > tempo to the rest of the staves but doesn't have its own staff to print. This > seems to work, but I'm missing some key knowledge about how to handle the > above scenarios. In particular, I don't know how to > > 1. treat a tempo marking and/or textmark as a spanner, so that it can have a > dotted connecting line between tempo changes > 2. toggle these tempo changes based on the requirements above -- sometimes > only above the whole system, sometimes above the grand staff and the cello > part (but not the left hand) > > I haven't been able to find the right documentation for this -- it seems like > the only way to use a spanner is within a particular staff. Perhaps my > approach is completely wrong, and I would love to know the best approach. I > imagine this has to be a common (and hence solved) problem. > > Thanks > Tom
Tempo-spanners are not yet implemented. Though we have an issue for it: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/3176 You'll find a workaround there: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/3176#note_1277019697 Furthermore I tried a proper implementation, see: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/2256 Though, a problem arises as soon as the relevant engravers are moved around. This is unsolved... Anyway, you may use the workaround from the issue or grap the code from the MR, in most cases it will work. Though, no garantee... Cheers, Harm
