Re: making a book with LilyPond
Hello Frederico,
you can use \bookpart :
\book {
\bookpart{
\tocItem ...
\header {
title = ...
}
}
\bookpart{
\tocItem ...
\header {
title = ...
}
}
}
If you surround every piece with a bookpart-statement, you dont need to
pagebreak.
My mobile INet-Connection is quite slow right now, so you have to google
to find the right page in the docs.
Or someone else has a pointer ;)
I hope it helps!
regards,
Jan-Peter
Federico Bruni schrieb:
I'm trying to compile a number of scores in a book using just LilyPond
(I've tried lilypond-book before, but I had some trouble with layout
and as I'm not confident with LaTeX I dropped it).
I need a help to start in the right way.
What I want to print:
* table of content
* scores (let's say 2 scores, as example)
Each score should have the title printed at the beginning.
Page numbers should start from the first score, not from the toc page:
so from page 2 and not page 1 of the output.
In order to get a title for each piece, I guess I need to use \bookpart.
I tried the code below, but I get some weird error messages..
Probably, there's something wrong with the way I've included the files
in \bookpart
Any suggestion?
Thanks,
Federico
==
\version 2.13.3
\paper {
% I'll add something later
}
\bookpart {
\header {
title = Score 1
}
\include score1.ly
}
\bookpart {
\header {
title = Score 2
}
\include score2.ly
}
If I use the code below, the file compiles but I can't get the titles
at the beginning of each score.
\version 2.13.3
\markuplines \table-of-contents
\pageBreak
\tocItem \markup Score 1
\include score1.ly
\pageBreak
\tocItem \markup Score 2
\include score2.ly
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: staff groups.....deletable?
Please use the Lilypond-User List
lilypond-user@gnu.org for these questions.
Limao Luo wrote Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:51 PM
I have a piece in which I have combined the violin 1 and violin 2
parts because
the notes in the first thirty or so measures are the same;
however, when I try
to use the \new StaffGroup command to separate the notes into two
different
staves, I find that there are three staves all in a column;
however, I want to
be able to get rid of the staff they were originally combined on
in the first
thirty measures. Is this at all possible?
The excerpt of code I used that produced this unwanted bug is as
follows:
{
\time 7/8 d8- (cis) b a- (b) fis- (g)
\new StaffGroup \new Staff { \time 3/8 a4 e'8} \new Staff { a
(a,) e'}
}
Here's one way. You will need to insert a \break
where the two staves begin. See section 1.6.2 in
the Notation Reference for details.
\layout {
\context {
\RemoveEmptyStaffContext
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'remove-first = ##t
}
}
{
\new Staff {
\time 7/8
d8- (cis) b a- (b) fis- (g)
\break
}
\new StaffGroup
\new staff {
\time 3/8
a4 e'8
}
\new Staff {
a8 (a,) e'
}
}
Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: chord durations
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 20:23, Christian Henningchhenn...@gmail.com wrote: Also, how can I describe a duration that lasts for 2.25 beats? The easy way is to make a half note tied to a sixteenth note - like this: c2~c16 But the real question is, why do you want a 2.25 beat duration? If you explain what you really want to do with Lilypond, it will be easier to help. (What I mean is, show the lilypond code you made that isn't working right, or describe the music you're trying to print, instead of asking a confusing question about one weird note.) Hope it helps David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
chord durations
-- Forwarded message -- From: David Rogers davidandrewrog...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 00:34 Subject: Re: chord durations To: Christian Henning chhenn...@gmail.com Even more important - just try stuff from the manual and see for yourself how it works. Unlike a lot of software, Lilypond's learning manual is EXTREMELY important to read, and luckily very good too. Using Lilypond without reading the manual is like eating soup with a fork. You could do it, but it would be really frustrating and take far too long. All the answers people are going to give to questions like this, are already answered better in the manual. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
One big parenthesis around a note _and_ its accidental
Hi again I was setting another piece yesterday and this had, as final note, a \parenthesis fis1 The fis in this chord is in parenthesis (basically) like this: - O ---/-\--- | # O | ---\-/--- However, lilypond gives me this: - O - # (O) - The parenthesis are hardly visible, because they are half occluded by the accidental and because they are so small. Is there a way to achieve the style of my template's look? -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' Crayons can take you more places than starships. (Guinan) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Am Montag, 31. August 2009 06:14:21 schrieb David Raleigh Arnold: On Saturday 29 August 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote: David, The key signature is and has been for many centuries an integral part of the notation. Yes... and now you're suggesting we make it *not* integral — your argument holds no merit. No. I'm stating outright that you make the key signature musically irrrelevant now, because changing the key signature has no effect on the pitch of the notes. No, it's not making it irrelevant. But you are right, the key signature has no effect on the pitch with absolute note neames, because in lilypond you need to give the absolute pitch (i.e. the note name). Per definition a pitch is a pitch, and the key signature does not change the pitch, it only changes how a pitch is displayed (i.e. the key signature is a shortcut that avoids writing lots of accidentals) and it describes the basic harmony that lies behind the notes. Your argument makes sense if you think in relative solmisation (as developed byCurwen and Kodaly, see e.g. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonic_sol-fa ), where the note names don't specify absolute pitches like c,d,e,f,g,a,b,c, but relative pitches within the key signatures. E.g. a do in tonic solmisation always describes the tonic of the key, re always the note above, etc. Their meaning changes with the key signature, of course. This seems to be quite popular in the States, while over here in Europe, practically everyone uses and thinks in absolute pitch names. (There is also absolute solmisation, where a do is always the absolute pitch c, so that is basically just absolute pitch names named do, re, mi, etc.) However, the absolute pitch names a, b, etc. are really absolute pitch names and their meaning should never, ever depend on the key signature. Just ask anyone music teacher of any level you know... What you are asking for, is basically an implementation of tonic solmisation in lilypond, where you want to misuse absolute pitch names. However, beware that tonic solmisation is not a general solution. It works for tonal pieces, but modern pieces often don't have an underlying tonality, so there is no key signature to which the names can be proportional. Try to be more rational, please. Try to be less insulting, please. And please try to accept that there are other people, who have far better musical education than you have. There are lots of people involved in lilypond who really know what they are doing... Cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
2009/8/31 Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com: However, the absolute pitch names a, b, etc. are really absolute pitch names and their meaning should never, ever depend on the key signature. Just ask anyone music teacher of any level you know... I think it does worth mentioning the Spanish tradition of not solmisating the exact pitches but the noteheads alone, so to speak. So we sing the Beethoven's fifth as sol sol sol m (with the actual sound being g8 g g ees2\fermata), which is confusing, of course, but it is a deeply rooted tradition. This makes also far easier and faster to solmisate pieces in D flat major, for example. I reckon this kind of solmisation is pretty useless and ambiguous. As for the allegedly easier input of notes in lilypond if you'd enter noteheads only the visual way, ignoring the key signature, I must say that beginners complain strongly when they have to enter heavyly altered music, of course, but then I gently suggest the 'transposing' and the 'actual meaning' arguments and they get disarmed immediately. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: making a book with LilyPond
Hi Jan,
thanks for your reply.
Actually, I had tried \bookpart (see the 1st example below, in my
first email) but I have problems with \include.
If in the included files there's an \include (even a simple include
english.ly), it can't compile.
I attach a tiny example, where book-test.ly includes file1.ly and
file2.ly.
It works just if you comment out the \include lines in file1.ly and
file2.ly.
Why?
I've checked this page:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/user/lilypond/Including-LilyPond-files#Including-LilyPond-files
All the files I want to include are in
~/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/current/ly
so it's not a matter of path
Jan-Peter Voigt wrote:
Hello Frederico,
you can use \bookpart :
\book {
\bookpart{
\tocItem ...
\header {
title = ...
}
}
\bookpart{
\tocItem ...
\header {
title = ...
}
}
}
If you surround every piece with a bookpart-statement, you dont need to
pagebreak.
My mobile INet-Connection is quite slow right now, so you have to google
to find the right page in the docs.
Or someone else has a pointer ;)
I hope it helps!
regards,
Jan-Peter
Federico Bruni schrieb:
I'm trying to compile a number of scores in a book using just LilyPond
(I've tried lilypond-book before, but I had some trouble with layout
and as I'm not confident with LaTeX I dropped it).
I need a help to start in the right way.
What I want to print:
* table of content
* scores (let's say 2 scores, as example)
Each score should have the title printed at the beginning.
Page numbers should start from the first score, not from the toc page:
so from page 2 and not page 1 of the output.
In order to get a title for each piece, I guess I need to use \bookpart.
I tried the code below, but I get some weird error messages..
Probably, there's something wrong with the way I've included the files
in \bookpart
Any suggestion?
Thanks,
Federico
==
\version 2.13.3
\paper {
% I'll add something later
}
\bookpart {
\header {
title = Score 1
}
\include score1.ly
}
\bookpart {
\header {
title = Score 2
}
\include score2.ly
}
If I use the code below, the file compiles but I can't get the titles
at the beginning of each score.
\version 2.13.3
\markuplines \table-of-contents
\pageBreak
\tocItem \markup Score 1
\include score1.ly
\pageBreak
\tocItem \markup Score 2
\include score2.ly
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
\version 2.13.3
\book {
\markuplines \table-of-contents
\pageBreak
\bookpart{
\tocItem \markup Score 1
\include file1.ly
}
\bookpart{
\tocItem \markup Score 2
\include file2.ly
}
} \version 2.13.3
\include english.ly
\header {
title= Score 1
}
{ c d e f }\version 2.13.3
\include english.ly
\header {
title= Score 2
}
{ g a b c }___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: One big parenthesis around a note _and_ its accidental
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:06:20 +0200, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
The fis in this chord is in parenthesis (basically) like this:
-
O
---/-\---
| # O |
---\-/---
Hi Frank,
This does the trick in a bit unorthodox way:
\relative c'' {
\override TextScript #'extra-offset = #'(-2.2 . 1.9)
a b c d |
a fis1_\markup { \small ( ) }
}
See: http://hemiola.eu/pics/test.png
But there will probably be a better way, without the offset fiddling and
using the space bar...
Jethro.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: One big parenthesis around a note _and_ its accidental
Am Montag, 31. August 2009 schrieb Jethro Van Thuyne:
Hi Frank,
This does the trick in a bit unorthodox way:
\relative c'' {
\override TextScript #'extra-offset = #'(-2.2 . 1.9)
a b c d |
a fis1_\markup { \small ( ) }
}
But there will probably be a better way, without the offset fiddling and
using the space bar...
Well, but it does the trick fair enough. Thanks. :-)
--
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla'
I wish my lawn was emo, so it would cut itself.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
As I have just had a rather powerful evaluation server to play around with for a few days while I tested our various Windows and Linux server builds on it, I thought I'd also take the opportunity to compare the build speed of a reasonably substantial score. I used Reinhold's setting of Reubke's sonata on the 94th psalm. I tested on three machines, all running the same version of Lilypond: 1. Dell GX620 workstation, Pentium D dual-core 3.0GHz CPU, 1Gb RAM, Ubuntu 9.04 x86: 10min 11sec 2. Dell GX745 workstation, Pentium D dual-core 3.4GHz CPU, 2Gb RAM, WinXP SP3: 9min 22sec 3. PowerEdge R710 server, dual quad-core Xeon 5560 2.8GHz CPUs, 24Gb RAM, Debian 5 amd64: 4min 4sec Number of CPUs seemed irrelevant as only a single CPU was getting flogged on each machine while the build was in progress. I saw pretty much the same percentage difference in build time on shorter scores as well - eg a four page score built in 16sec on the GX620 workstation and 8sec on the server. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: linking render frames in Scribus
Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: If you want multiple page PDFs in Scribus, you can do so. You only need as many image frames as the number of pages in the PDF, then put the same PDF into the image frames, and set the Page attribute of the image. With Render frames you lose syntax highlight, sytnax checking etc., so for larger pieces it is not worth it. Thanks Bert, your solution is even better of render frames. Unfortunately, it works just in the Scribus file. I mean: I import a 3 page .pdf in three different image frames (one per page), I set the correct page attribute for each image frame, and: * the result is perfect in the Scribus window * but when I export to PDF I always have the first page of the pdf in each page Do you know how to fix it? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: linking render frames in Scribus
Are you using the Embed PDF blabla (EXPERIMENTAL) setting while exporting to PDF? What if using the not experimental? Federico Bruni wrote: Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: If you want multiple page PDFs in Scribus, you can do so. You only need as many image frames as the number of pages in the PDF, then put the same PDF into the image frames, and set the Page attribute of the image. With Render frames you lose syntax highlight, sytnax checking etc., so for larger pieces it is not worth it. Thanks Bert, your solution is even better of render frames. Unfortunately, it works just in the Scribus file. I mean: I import a 3 page .pdf in three different image frames (one per page), I set the correct page attribute for each image frame, and: * the result is perfect in the Scribus window * but when I export to PDF I always have the first page of the pdf in each page Do you know how to fix it? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi David R, AFAIK, all of the graphical-interface music scoring programs use the visually-oriented logic. The last time I used Finale — which, thankfully, was a very long time ago! ;) — there were only two ways of entering notes: 1. From a MIDI keyboard: Clearly, you can't follow the key signature with this method, since pressing a (MIDI) g-sharp gives a g-sharp, regardless of the key signature. 2. Mouse/QWERTY keyboard (Speedy?) entry: When you clicked on (e.g.) the g-line of the treble clef, a g-NATURAL appeared, regardless of the key signature, and you had to scroll up or down (or click-add an accidental) to change the pitch/alteration. Is that not still true? Are there any Finale or Sibelius users out there who can confirm what model these prorgrams use? Thanks, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: chord durations
On Aug 30, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Christian Henning wrote: Hi there, adding a dot to a chord duration prolongs it by 50%. g4., for instance, is 1.5 beats or three 8th notes. g4.. is 1.75 beats, I believe. Which would translate into seven 16th notes. But what is g4...? Here, with 3 dots. Two dots are rarely used and I have never seen three dots used. Also, how can I describe a duration that lasts for 2.25 beats? For a 2.25 beat duration, do a half note and a tied 16th note: g2~ g16 I realize that I don't really ask lilypond related things but more general music theory questions. I'm hoping this community is still kind enough helping me out. You appear to be trying to learn sheet music and LilyPond simultaneously. It would go faster to learn the rules of Western sheet music first- the fundamentals are actually pretty easy and you can readily find most of the information online- and then LilyPond. http://www.notationmachine.com/how_to_read_sheetmusic/readingmusic.htm migbht be a good place to start. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
From: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Hi David R, AFAIK, all of the graphical-interface music scoring programs use the visually-oriented logic. The last time I used Finale — which, thankfully, was a very long time ago! ;) — there were only two ways of entering notes: 1. From a MIDI keyboard: Clearly, you can't follow the key signature with this method, since pressing a (MIDI) g-sharp gives a g-sharp, regardless of the key signature. 2. Mouse/QWERTY keyboard (Speedy?) entry: When you clicked on (e.g.) the g-line of the treble clef, a g-NATURAL appeared, regardless of the key signature, and you had to scroll up or down (or click-add an accidental) to change the pitch/alteration. Is that not still true? Are there any Finale or Sibelius users out there who can confirm what model these prorgrams use? Of course these programs operate as you describe. If you edit a piece in G major and enter the notes through a MIDI keyboard you have to play E F# G, not E F G, and I can't imagine an other way. Well I can, but it is like playing a piano with a key setting so that when you hit the F, an F# sounds if you set the G-major mode. Kees (An ex Finale user who'll never go back) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: linking render frames in Scribus
Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: Are you using the Embed PDF blabla (EXPERIMENTAL) setting while exporting to PDF? What if using the not experimental? no, by default it's disabled and if I select that box and export to PDF again, nothing changes I have to say that the preflight verifier produces 3 warnings concerning the three images: object is a placed PDF But I have not found anything to understand this error.. except these pages: http://docs.scribus.net/index.php?lang=enpage=devel/checkDocument_8cpp-source http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/2006-December/016642.html It seems it's just a way of saying that the pdf will be rasterized.. So maybe the problem is somewhere else.. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: linking render frames in Scribus
Checking the Embed will not rasterize, but embed the PDF. If the page setting is not applied, then it's a bug in Scribus that should be reported. Federico Bruni wrote: Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: Are you using the Embed PDF blabla (EXPERIMENTAL) setting while exporting to PDF? What if using the not experimental? no, by default it's disabled and if I select that box and export to PDF again, nothing changes I have to say that the preflight verifier produces 3 warnings concerning the three images: object is a placed PDF But I have not found anything to understand this error.. except these pages: http://docs.scribus.net/index.php?lang=enpage=devel/checkDocument_8cpp-source http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/2006-December/016642.html It seems it's just a way of saying that the pdf will be rasterized.. So maybe the problem is somewhere else.. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi Kees, these programs operate as you describe Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond, not some visually-oriented method which follows the key signature... So is there *any* example of an application which tries to follow the key signature for someone? Not only do I know of no such program, I can't even imagine how it could be done (technically). Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: linking render frames in Scribus
Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: Checking the Embed will not rasterize, but embed the PDF. If the page setting is not applied, then it's a bug in Scribus that should be reported. I decided to try the stable version before contacting the Scribus team, but I found out that the page setting for image frames is not present in version 1.3.3.13 Also, I noticed which is the incorrect behaviour. When I set the page number to an image frame, the change is applied to all the other image frames. I'll try to contact someone and let you know. Cheers, Federico ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
2009/8/31 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Hi Kees, these programs operate as you describe Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond, not some visually-oriented method which follows the key signature... So is there *any* example of an application which tries to follow the key signature for someone? Not only do I know of no such program, I can't even imagine how it could be done (technically). Well, I think technically it's easy, just draw the little balls. You'll have a drawing program that knows little about music. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi Francisco, Well, I think technically it's easy, just draw the little balls. You'll have a drawing program that knows little about music. Of course, you're right... I was foolishly assuming this would be a music engraving program that knew something about music. ;) Thanks, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 08:32, Kieren MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: Hi Kees, these programs operate as you describe Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond, not some visually-oriented method which follows the key signature... So is there *any* example of an application which tries to follow the key signature for someone? Not only do I know of no such program, I can't even imagine how it could be done (technically). It has been SO long since I tried Sibelius (and that just for a short time) that I honestly forgot how it worked. Example of an application (Mac OS X only) that does follow the key signature on mouse-click input: NoteAbility http://debussy.music.ubc.ca/NoteAbility/ It was the last graphically oriented app I used, and so I guess had modified my own memory concerning the big guns Finale and Sibelius. David R ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Using the QWERTY way (QWERTZ in German layout keyboard) does indeed work the visual way in programs like MuseScore, and Sibelius 5. Depending on the key signature, for example a keyboard stroke d gives either des d or dis. regards Arne Peters, Berlin (reading the whole slightly baffled and amused ...) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Accidentals%3A-Unwanted-naturals-tp25121407p25227539.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Friday 28 August 2009, David Rogers wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:58, Kieren
MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Hi David (et al),
Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in
the
following statement:
It's necessary to consider the sound of the music,
*and not the conventional rules of printed scores*
when doing Lilypond pitch input.
Quite the contrary, the conventional rules of printed scores DO
consider
(incorporate) the sound of the music — that's why the Western
notation
system works as well as it does (despite some flaws/shortcomings,
and
countless attempts to replace it with a superior alternative).
Let's start by considering the CRoPS with respect to a simple
notation
example. If the key signature is D major (i.e., two sharps), and the
pitch
class [!!] being displayed is the top line of the treble clef (i.e.,
F),
then the CRoPS tells us that the actual pitch that should be
performed is an
F-sharp (i.e., fis'').
Now, let's do Lilypond pitch input for this same example. You want
Lilypond to output an F-sharp at the top of the treble clef, and
display the
result in D major (i.e., with a D major key signature).
Step 1 is to define/list the pitch(es) you want engraved:
theMusic = { fis'' }
Step 2 is to build the score, with clef and key signature:
\score { \new Staff \key d \major \clef treble \theMusic }
Doing the same thing *without* the pitch alteration (sharp) in
theMusic
definition exposes the fundamental problem with
a follow-the-key-signature
approach.
I know that. I think Lilypond is operating correctly here, that this
part of the code should be kept as is with nothing added, and that
those users who wish it operated differently are making a mistake, for
exactly the reasons you've just pointed out.
HOWEVER, I think it's necessary to explain this issue *in their terms*
in the documentation, so that they can stop being confused by a
perfectly good (but logically backwards *to them*) implementation,
letting them get on with their work.
Thank you for trying to be more evenhanded.
How is insisting on one mode of pitch entry any different from
insisting on every note having its duration number? Or insisting on
specifying an octave with each note, ruling out relative pitch? How is
\followKeySignature any different in philosophy or specificity or
la-la-la from \relative pitch? The difference is that
\followKeySignature would *seem* to be more difficult to implement,
when, provided that the key signature to be followed is specified
independently, it would be very simple. The initial impulse for the
negative attitude, which has prevented any thought of how the thing
could and should be done, is simple laziness.
I have an editing tool that works, and I can continue to use it and
make it available to any who are interested. I just get tired
of reading the nonsense and insults whenever anyone questions this
irrational decision not to make following the key signature an option
in lilypond. The decision does the coders no credit. Regards, daveA
--
For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists.
http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and
better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi David, The initial impulse for the negative attitude, which has prevented any thought of how the thing could and should be done, is simple laziness. I can't speak for anyone else, but I *have* put thought into how this could be done in Lilypond, and ultimately decided not that it CAN'T be done (since, as you say, it would be relatively easy to implement), but only that it SHOULDN'T (as seconded by Graham and essentially everyone else involved in this thread). This is clearly where you seem to not understand the situation, and, by extension, the way that open-source communities work. For the second (or maybe third?) time, I recommend that if you feel \followKeySignature is a worthwhile thing to have in Lilypond, instead of smugly tossing insults around — which seems to be your modus operandi — submit a *Lilypond* (i.e., C++ or Scheme) patch to implement it. Barring that, accept that you are the main obstacle to its implementation, and stop bothering us with the idea. I just get tired of reading the nonsense and insults Now there, we agree 100%... and my simple laziness (as you so insultingly put it) won't get in the way of me moving on: I'm done even bothering to think about this issue. Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi David, Example of an application (Mac OS X only) that does follow the key signature on mouse-click input: NoteAbility http://debussy.music.ubc.ca/NoteAbility/ Interesting... Keith Hamel was a teacher of mine at UBC, and so I used NoteWriter back in the late 80s and early 90s. The last time I tried a demo of NoteAbility (about four or five years ago), I found the flexibility to be superior — at least to Finale, Sibelius, and Igor Engraver, which were the three big guns at the time — but the GUI to be incomprehensibly and needlessly complex. Perhaps I'll give it another look, just for old time's sake. Thanks, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
\bookpart and the \include trouble
[sorry for opening a new thread on the same matter, but I thought a
more precise subject was needed]
I'm trying to compile several different scores into a book, using a
new file (book.ly) and \bookpart.
I can't get it working if in the scores there are some \include.
The error messages says there's a synthax error in the included file
(even english.ly!?).
So it's weird, I can't find a solution anywhere.
Below is my book.ly
You find it attached (with 2 included files, if you want to test it
yourself).
Thanks for help,
Federico
\version 2.13.3
\book {
\markuplines \table-of-contents
\pageBreak
\bookpart{
\tocItem \markup Score 1
\include file1.ly
}
\bookpart{
\tocItem \markup Score 2
\include file2.ly
}
}
\version 2.13.3
\book {
\markuplines \table-of-contents
\pageBreak
\bookpart{
\tocItem \markup Score 1
\include file1.ly
}
\bookpart{
\tocItem \markup Score 2
\include file2.ly
}
} \version 2.13.3
\header {
title= Score 1
}
{ c d e f }\version 2.13.3
\include english.ly
\header {
title= Score 2
}
{ g a b c }___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
At 13:39 on 31 Aug 2009, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: How is insisting on one mode of pitch entry any different from insisting on every note having its duration number? Or insisting on specifying an octave with each note, ruling out relative pitch? How is \followKeySignature any different in philosophy or specificity or la-la-la from \relative pitch? The difference is that \followKeySignature would *seem* to be more difficult to implement, when, provided that the key signature to be followed is specified independently, it would be very simple. The initial impulse for the negative attitude, which has prevented any thought of how the thing could and should be done, is simple laziness. You seem to misunderstand how open source software development works. It is not laziness for someone to not spend time on a feature that they have no need for. I have an editing tool that works, and I can continue to use it and make it available to any who are interested. Please post this magic script so we can see how your solution is implemented. I just get tired of reading the nonsense and insults whenever anyone questions this irrational decision not to make following the key signature an option in lilypond. The decision does the coders no credit. Regards, daveA I have just read through most of this thread again, and the only insults I find come from you. -- Mark Knoop ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: chord durations
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Tim McNamaratim...@bitstream.net wrote:
[...]
You appear to be trying to learn sheet music and LilyPond simultaneously.
It would go faster to learn the rules of Western sheet music first- the
fundamentals are actually pretty easy and you can readily find most of the
information online- and then LilyPond.
Or, try to learn lilypond first, then tackle an absurdly complex piece
of music (Debussy's Clair of Lune, for example) and dive head-first on
it, just to be stuck on the first measure (*), and go to your wife who
happens to be a music teacher and start asking her for help. It does a
lot to improve communication...
Wait, what were we talking about?
--
Leonardo Herrera
mailto:leonardo.herr...@gmail.com
http://leus.epublish.cl
(*): Just for keeping things on-topic-ish, this is what I'm talking about:
\version 2.12.0
blanknotes = { \override NoteHead #'transparent = ##t
\override Stem #'transparent = ##t }
unblanknotes = { \revert NoteHead #'transparent
\revert Stem #'transparent }
upper = \relative c'' {
\clef treble
\key des \major
\time 9/8
\override Staff.NoteCollision #'merge-differently-dotted = ##t
\override Score.RehearsalMark #'Y-offset = #0.1
\mark \markup { \upright Andante \italic \concat{t r \char ##x00E9 s
} ¬expressif }
r8 \pp r8 \blanknotes f aes8\( ~ \unblanknotes \stemDown f aes4.
des f4. ~
des f8[c ees8 des f8] c ees2. ~
}
lower = \relative c' {
\key des \major
\time 9/8
\override Staff.NoteCollision #'merge-differently-dotted = ##t
% 1
{ s8 f aes8 \change Staff = upper \relative c''{ \stemDown
f aes8 } }
\\
% trick to make legatto...
{ r8 \blanknotes f aes4 ~ \unblanknotes f aes2. }
% 2
ges a2. ~ ges a4.
}
\score {
\new PianoStaff
\context Staff = upper {
% \set PianoStaff.instrumentName = Piano
#(set-accidental-style 'piano)
\upper
}
\context Staff = lower {
#(set-accidental-style 'piano)
\lower
}
\layout { }
\midi { }
}
attachment: t.JPG___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:50, Arne Peters wrote: Using the QWERTY way (QWERTZ in German layout keyboard) does indeed work the visual way in programs like MuseScore, and Sibelius 5. Depending on the key signature, for example a keyboard stroke d gives either des d or dis. There is the following layout for diatonic (extended meantone) system, which is what the Western musical notation system describes: A# B# Cx Dx Ex A B C# D# E# Fx Gx Ax Bx Bb C D E F# G# A# B# Cb Db Eb F G A B C'# D'# Dbb Ebb Fb Gb Ab Bb C' D' E' Transposition is by translation in this diagram. So the same scale, interval or chord (disregarding inversions) will have the same pattern but translated. Different scale degrees are on different / diagonals. I have used it for playing music in Scala and Chuck in various tunings, like Pythagorean and quarter-comma meantone (which sets the major second to the interval ratio 5/4). It works just fine. It might be good for note input, as it does not impose E12 enharmonic equivalence. But it may not be a LilyPond proper question - one needs an editor or key-map that can generate note names in LilyPond code. Hans ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: making a book with LilyPond
Federico,
Put the \include english.ly call in your top-level file instead (see
below)
Cheers,
Ian
Federico Bruni wrote:
Hi Jan,
thanks for your reply.
Actually, I had tried \bookpart (see the 1st example below, in my first
email) but I have problems with \include.
If in the included files there's an \include (even a simple include
english.ly), it can't compile.
I attach a tiny example, where book-test.ly includes file1.ly and file2.ly.
It works just if you comment out the \include lines in file1.ly and
file2.ly.
Why?
I've checked this page:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/user/lilypond/Including-LilyPond-files#Including-LilyPond-files
All the files I want to include are in
~/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/current/ly
so it's not a matter of path
Jan-Peter Voigt wrote:
Hello Frederico,
you can use \bookpart :
\book {
\bookpart{
\tocItem ...
\header {
title = ...
}
}
\bookpart{
\tocItem ...
\header {
title = ...
}
}
}
If you surround every piece with a bookpart-statement, you dont need
to pagebreak.
My mobile INet-Connection is quite slow right now, so you have to
google to find the right page in the docs.
Or someone else has a pointer ;)
I hope it helps!
regards,
Jan-Peter
Federico Bruni schrieb:
I'm trying to compile a number of scores in a book using just
LilyPond (I've tried lilypond-book before, but I had some trouble
with layout and as I'm not confident with LaTeX I dropped it).
I need a help to start in the right way.
What I want to print:
* table of content
* scores (let's say 2 scores, as example)
Each score should have the title printed at the beginning.
Page numbers should start from the first score, not from the toc
page: so from page 2 and not page 1 of the output.
In order to get a title for each piece, I guess I need to use \bookpart.
I tried the code below, but I get some weird error messages..
Probably, there's something wrong with the way I've included the
files in \bookpart
Any suggestion?
Thanks,
Federico
==
\version 2.13.3
\include english.ly
\paper {
% I'll add something later
}
\bookpart {
\header {
title = Score 1 %remove the \include english.ly from here
}
\include score1.ly
}
\bookpart {
\header {
title = Score 2
}
\include score2.ly %remove the \include english.ly from here
}
If I use the code below, the file compiles but I can't get the titles
at the beginning of each score.
\version 2.13.3
\markuplines \table-of-contents
\pageBreak
\tocItem \markup Score 1
\include score1.ly
\pageBreak
\tocItem \markup Score 2
\include score2.ly
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: making a book with LilyPond
Ian Hulin wrote:
Federico,
Put the \include english.ly call in your top-level file instead (see
below)
Hi Ian,
I've tried that, but this way I get another error concerning variables
(all my included files - the real ones, not the examples posted here -
have two variables).
This is a tiny example of the structure of my included files (in this
case I would get the error unknown escaped string \music):
\version 2.13.3
\header {
title= Score 1
}
music= { c d e f }
\score {
\new Staff { \music }
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Nick == Nick Payne njpa...@internode.on.net writes: Nick As I have just had a rather powerful evaluation server to play Nick around with for a few days while I tested our various Windows Nick and Linux server builds on it, I thought I'd also take the Nick opportunity to compare the build speed of a reasonably Nick substantial score. I used Reinhold's setting of Reubke's sonata Nick on the 94th psalm. I tested on three machines, all running the Nick same version of Lilypond: Nick 1. Dell GX620 workstation, Pentium D dual-core 3.0GHz CPU, Nick1Gb RAM, Ubuntu 9.04 x86: 10min 11sec Nick 2. Dell GX745 workstation, Pentium D dual-core 3.4GHz CPU, Nick2Gb RAM, WinXP SP3: 9min 22sec Nick 3. PowerEdge R710 server, dual quad-core Xeon 5560 2.8GHz CPUs, Nick24Gb RAM, Debian 5 amd64: 4min 4sec I think you'll find the main difference is in size of L2/L3 cache, and amount of RAM. Lily (like many object-oriented programs) tends to have quite a deep stack, and to use lots of memory --- which it visits in what looks to the processor like random orders --- so small caches generate lots of cache misses, which slows things down. If you run out of RAM and have to swap, things get even worse. Xeon 5560: 256k L2, 8M L3 cache (which is almost as fast as the Pentium D's L2 cache) Pentium D: 1M L2 cache, no L3 cache. -- Dr Peter Chubb www.nicta.com.aupeter DOT chubb AT nicta.com.au http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au ERTOS within National ICT Australia ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: linking render frames in Scribus
I checked this at my installation (1.3.5.0) There is a clear bug: if you change the page attribute for one image, it also changes for the other. Have you submitted a bug report for scribus about this? Federico Bruni wrote: Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: Checking the Embed will not rasterize, but embed the PDF. If the page setting is not applied, then it's a bug in Scribus that should be reported. I decided to try the stable version before contacting the Scribus team, but I found out that the page setting for image frames is not present in version 1.3.3.13 Also, I noticed which is the incorrect behaviour. When I set the page number to an image frame, the change is applied to all the other image frames. I'll try to contact someone and let you know. Cheers, Federico ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
one bar number per system
I would like Lilypond to print one bar number per system, except the first. The default behavior appears to be to print one bar number per system, except the first, for systems that begin at a measure break. Systems that begin in mid-measure (e.g. due to \bar ) do not get a bar number on the first bar line, and that is what I would like to change. I looked in the snippet reference, but nothing seems to fit. I do not want to use rehearsal marks if I can avoid it. I already use a variable \meterBreak to increase the likelihood of breaking the line at chosen places (mid-measure or not), so if there is something I could add to \meterBreak that would force the next bar line to have a number, that would be useful. If there is no way to get a number on the next bar, an acceptable alternative would be to print the current bar number in parentheses at the beginning of the line. I have seen how barNumberVisibility can be set to a function that considers a bar number and says whether or not it should be visible, but I am out of my depth trying to understand if there is any way for such a function to know if a bar number has already been printed on the current line. Thanks for any suggestions, -- Dan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: linking render frames in Scribus
Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: I checked this at my installation (1.3.5.0) There is a clear bug: if you change the page attribute for one image, it also changes for the other. Have you submitted a bug report for scribus about this? no, can you do it? actually, I tried to send an email to the Scribus mailing list, but it was not published.. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:21:34 -0700 From: Kees van den Doel kvand...@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals To: lilypond-user@gnu.org Message-ID: cd15c2846d16b.4a9b7...@shaw.ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Hi David R, AFAIK, all of the graphical-interface music scoring programs use the visually-oriented logic. The last time I used Finale — which, thankfully, was a very long time ago! ;) — there were only two ways of entering notes: 1. From a MIDI keyboard: Clearly, you can't follow the key signature with this method, since pressing a (MIDI) g-sharp gives a g-sharp, regardless of the key signature. 2. Mouse/QWERTY keyboard (Speedy?) entry: When you clicked on (e.g.) the g-line of the treble clef, a g-NATURAL appeared, regardless of the key signature, and you had to scroll up or down (or click-add an accidental) to change the pitch/alteration. Is that not still true? Are there any Finale or Sibelius users out there who can confirm what model these prorgrams use? Of course these programs operate as you describe. If you edit a piece in G major and enter the notes through a MIDI keyboard you have to play E F# G, not E F G, and I can't imagine an other way. Well I can, but it is like playing a piano with a key setting so that when you hit the F, an F# sounds if you set the G-major mode. Kees (An ex Finale user who'll never go back) In Finale, both Speedy Entry and Simple Entry add notes to the staff without putting any accidentals in front of the note. If you're in c-major and you enter a note on the middle line of the treble clef, it's a b-natural. If you're in f-major, it's entered as a b-flat. Handling these types of graphical entry in the same way as Lilypond would be peculiar, because in Finale the process is a kind of computer-assisted hand engraving where you put the mouse pointer on the staff and click to let the program etch the note for you. If you were to hand engrave a piece in f-major and you wanted a b-flat, you would just etch the note-head on the middle line, so that's the metaphor for GUI entry. In Lilypond that would be analogous to a system to specify which line, space, or ledger line on the staff you want the notehead to be drawn on. It is not, however, analogous to using the character f to specify an f-sharp in the key of d-major; from the user's point of view, Finale remains agnostic on what to call the note that's being entered. If there were a speech-recognition plugin in Finale that would draw an f-sharp when f was spoken, I'm sure a lot of theory teachers would be up in arms. -Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Peter Chubblily.u...@chubb.wattle.id.au wrote: I think you'll find the main difference is in size of L2/L3 cache, and amount of RAM. Lily (like many object-oriented programs) tends to have quite a deep stack, and to use lots of memory --- which it visits in what looks to the processor like random orders --- so small caches generate lots of cache misses, which slows things down. If you run out of RAM and have to swap, things get even worse. More importantly: LilyPond is single-threaded, so the number of cores is irrelevant. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond Speed
Han-Wen == Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes: Han-Wen On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Peter Han-Wen Chubblily.u...@chubb.wattle.id.au wrote: I think you'll find the main difference is in size of L2/L3 cache, and amount of RAM. Lily (like many object-oriented programs) tends to have quite a deep stack, and to use lots of memory --- which it visits in what looks to the processor like random orders --- so small caches generate lots of cache misses, which slows things down. If you run out of RAM and have to swap, things get even worse. Han-Wen More importantly: LilyPond is single-threaded, so the number Han-Wen of cores is irrelevant. That doesn't explain why going from the Core Duo to the Xeon dropped the time from 11 minutes to 4 minutes. The reason, as I said, is the increased cache size. -- Dr Peter Chubb www.nicta.com.aupeter DOT chubb AT nicta.com.au http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au ERTOS within National ICT Australia ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: chord durations
Hi there, first of all thanks to everyone who replied. I really
appreciate every reply.
For a start, I would like to describe what I'm really after. I have
some songs, mostly transcribed by my guitar teacher, which I like to
transform into sheet music. I have every songs on a piece of paper
written by a pencil. Though, I know what lilypond is suppose to
produce. All songs are mostly chord progression with an accompanying
rhythm. There is nothing fancy about the songs. They are mostly
Pixies, or Radiohead songs.
I have read most of the documentation on chords, duration, and rhythm.
Also, I'm a very beginner in writing sheet music and in being a
lilypond user.
Now, I use \chordmode to describe the chord progression with their
duration. For the rhythm I use \voice. See the next example:
\version 2.12.2
#(ly:set-option 'delete-intermediate-files #t) % deletes the .ps file
automatically
\new ChordNames {
\chordmode {
g1 | g4..:sus4 g2 | \break bes1 | b4..:sus4 bes2
}
}
\new Voice \with {
\consists Pitch_squash_engraver
} \relative c'' {
\improvisationOn
g16 g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
g16 g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
g16 g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
g16 g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
}
After rendering it, the chords are off by a 16th note. The first line
is mostly correct, except that the first b_flat is suppose to start on
the second line ( 3rd measure ). Though, there is something wrong with
the second G chord's duration in the second measure. Fixing that would
help me a lot.
I hope things are more clear now with my real intention.
Thanks again for the great support.
Christian
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
these programs operate as you describe Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond, not some visually-oriented method which follows the key signature... Not so. In Sibelius, you put the key signature, e.g. F sharp major, then type the plain letter names, e.g. f g a b c d e f which plays back as the scale of F sharp major. The Lilypond method seems a bit odd to start with, but es and is are easily typed. What's the point of quibbling over it. As Graham says, the coders got there first. So is there *any* example of an application which tries to follow the key signature for someone? Yes - Sibelius. Not only do I know of no such program, I can't even imagine how it could be done (technically). ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: chord durations
On 01.09.2009, at 04:19, Christian Henning wrote:
\chordmode {
g1 | g4..:sus4 g2 |
Here is your problem. Another way of writing this would be:
g1 | g4~ g8~ g16 g2
The second measure is missing a 16th note.
James E. Bailey
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: chord durations
On Aug 31, 2009, at 10:19 PM, Christian Henning wrote:
\chordmode {
g1 | g4..:sus4 g2 | \break bes1 | b4..:sus4 bes2
}
Both your second and fourth bars are short one 16th note - maybe you
meant
\set chordChanges = ##t %only show chord changes (ie. not
repeated chords)
g1 | g4..:sus4 g16 ~ g2 | \break bes1 | b4..:sus4 bes16 ~ bes2
Double-dotted notes are rare, especially in pop music - more typically
you might write this rhythm out (provided this is the rhythm you want)
as
g1 | g4:sus4 ~ g8.:sus4 g16 ~ g2 | \break bes1 | b4:sus4 ~
b8.:sus4 bes16 ~ bes2
-Tucker
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
