2009/12/11 Owain Sutton <[email protected]>: > On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:20 +0000, Philip Potter wrote: >> 2009/12/11 Jay Anderson <[email protected]>: >> > I've done triple-stops like this in the past: >> > << c4 <g' e'>2.\fermata >> >> > >> > I'd prefer to do the triple-stop something more like this to avoid >> > warnings: >> > <\tweak #'duration-log #2 \tweak #'dot-count #0 c g' e'>2.\fermata | >> > >> > Unfortunately I can't make the dot disappear easily (the dot-count >> > thing I was trying doesn't work). I could probably write a function to >> > remove the dot for this case (which might not be a bad idea: >> > \tripleStop <c g' e'>2.\fermata), but if there's a simple tweak to get >> > rid of the dot I'd be interested to know. Does this fall under the >> > recent \tweak nested properties changes? Thanks. >> >> Is this notation something you've seen other music producers use? It >> sounds like you want a chord with a crotchet at the bottom and two >> fermata'd minims at the top; and you want to ignore the warning about >> the lower crotchet not being the same length as the minims. I'm not >> convinced that this is the best way to do what you want, but I'm not a >> string player so I'm not familiar with string music conventions. > > > This kind of thing is perfectly normal notation, as an explicit > instruction to arpeggiate a chord in a certain way - off-hand, examples > I can think of are in the last movement of Tchaik 5, and various points > in the Stravinsky violin concerto.
Do you have a graphical example? I still can't picture it, and it would help greatly to understand exactly what is wanted. Phil _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
