Re: simple editor for windows
In message 8c1eed9b0912160008v6b676a9fida41a99a8f72f...@mail.gmail.com, Stefan Thomas kontrapunktste...@googlemail.com writes Responding very late ... Dear community, I'm searching for a simple text-editor for windows. It is for the computer in my music-school. It is an old machine and lilypondtool, because it requires java, doesn't work on it. Vim and emacs would be too complicated for my dear colleagues. And with the very simple editor that comes with the lilypondversion of windows, I have the problem, that it shows the whole file (that I've written with Frescobaldi) in one line. Does someone of You have an recommandation? My favourite editor is PFE (programmers file editor). Unfortunately, last I know, it was abandonware, but it's still a simple nice editor. Written by somebody at Lancaster Uni iirc. You should still be able to find it, and it's a small self-contained installable. Only thing is, if you want fancy features I don't know if it can do them - I don't use them. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
header in score block not working
I need to put the \header block inside the \score block.
Could you please tell me what's wrong in this example (it prints
nothing in the header)?
Thanks!
Federico
\version 2.13
\include english.ly
firstpiece = \relative c' {
c d e fs
}
\score {
\new Staff {
\firstpiece
}
\header {
title= First Piece
composer = John Doe
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: header in score block not working
Put the \header block in front of /new Staff:
\score {
\header {
title= First Piece
composer = John Doe
}
\new Staff {
\firstpiece
}
}
Hope this helps!
patrick
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:40:50 +0100
Von: Federico Bruni brunol...@gmx.com
An: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Betreff: header in score block not working
I need to put the \header block inside the \score block.
Could you please tell me what's wrong in this example (it prints
nothing in the header)?
Thanks!
Federico
\version 2.13
\include english.ly
firstpiece = \relative c' {
c d e fs
}
\score {
\new Staff {
\firstpiece
}
\header {
title= First Piece
composer = John Doe
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: header in score block not working
There's nothing wrong with your example, it's just not doing as you intended:
see the Notation Reference, 3.2.1, Creating titles.
Lilypond documentation wrote:
If you define the \header inside the \score block, then normally only the
piece and opus headers will be printed. Note that the music expression
must come before the \header. . . . You may change this behavior (and
print all the headers when defining \header inside \score) by using
\paper{
print-all-headers = ##t
}
hope that helps,
mike
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/header-in-score-block-not-working-tp26992326p26992634.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: header in score block not working
sorry, I was wrong. The error message escaped my notice. (And I didn't consult
the Notation Reference.)
thanks Mike
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:28:37 +0100
Von: Patrick Schmidt p.l.schm...@gmx.de
An: Federico Bruni brunol...@gmx.com, lilypond-user@gnu.org
Betreff: Re: header in score block not working
Put the \header block in front of /new Staff:
\score {
\header {
title= First Piece
composer = John Doe
}
\new Staff {
\firstpiece
}
}
Hope this helps!
patrick
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:40:50 +0100
Von: Federico Bruni brunol...@gmx.com
An: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Betreff: header in score block not working
I need to put the \header block inside the \score block.
Could you please tell me what's wrong in this example (it prints
nothing in the header)?
Thanks!
Federico
\version 2.13
\include english.ly
firstpiece = \relative c' {
c d e fs
}
\score {
\new Staff {
\firstpiece
}
\header {
title= First Piece
composer = John Doe
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3.5 -
sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: header in score block not working
Il 02/01/2010 13:28, mike99 ha scritto:
There's nothing wrong with your example, it's just not doing as you intended:
see the Notation Reference, 3.2.1, Creating titles.
Lilypond documentation wrote:
If you define the \header inside the \score block, then normally only the
piece and opus headers will be printed. Note that the music expression
must come before the \header. . . . You may change this behavior (and
print all the headers when defining \header inside \score) by using
\paper{
print-all-headers = ##t
}
Thanks Mike,
it works perfect :-)
Your solution is better than the one proposed by Patrick because if I
put \header before the music expression it works but I got an error
message.
In fact the doc snippet above say:
Note that the music expression must come before the \header
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Editing notes in a separate file
Le Sat, 2 Jan 2010 00:32:08 -0500, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca a écrit : Hi Michael, I am experimenting with methods to enter notes from a manuscript and produce several typeset scores, including at least • one that looks very much like the manuscript, for proof reading • another that is good for performance. There will probably be other versions too. Problem: the manuscript naturally has errors that need to be corrected for a performance score, to say nothing of editorial changes that may do more than correct errors. But I would like to make the production of performance scores independent of the representation of the manuscript. Data entry from the manuscript should not involve any musical correction; editing changes for a performance score should not involve any change to the representation of the manuscript (which has a lot of historical significance, as well as being the source of the music). Corrections to note durations are particularly troublesome. I can build scripts to edit a *.ly file, say with sed, but I'd rather stick entirely to Lilypond and its tools. Any pointers? Look into \tag. Which is documented there: Notation Reference (NR) 3.2.2 Different editions from one source http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Different-editions-from-one-source ;-) Cheers, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: hymns: chords vs. voices
Le Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:30:19 -0800 (PST),
mike99 mike.br...@gmail.com a écrit :
Fair enough, but there are the lyrics, set here to the soprano voice,
which, unintended by myself, skips the fourth beat in the second
measure. In the documentation's first example on divisi lyrics
(Notation Reference, 2.1.4, version 2.12), it does not, because the
authors have explicitly created a new voice.
Yes, this is clearly a limitation of the \\ construct: voices
within that construct are considered as voices both different as the
voice outside this construct.
This is not the case with
{ \voiceOne ... }
\new Voice { \voiceTwo ... }
since the first voice in this construct is considered as the
continuation of the voice outside the construct.
If such a technique is required for all exceptions to the chord
structure, it seems as if the chord method could become patchwork
if many exceptions are needed in a piece. Ten exceptions might be
common on a one-page hymn, requiring the creation of as many new
voices.
You can use \context Voice = splitapart for the second exception
voice (instead of \new ...). So you have only 2 voices created. ;-)
With consistent technique it should be doable; for commonly occurring
exceptions it should even be possible to define some clever commands
that reduce clutter. Extra work in any case.
Actually there is a project to rewrite \\ so it behaves like with
explicitly created voice construction.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-09/msg00096.html
Let's hope this will be done, so for cases like this one explicitly
created voice construction won't be necessary. And \\ is a
considerably reduced clutter for that. ;-p
Enter my question: What is your opinion to the two methods, given the
direction of the project and in terms of readability and
complications that it would cause in the score?
I'm not used to write vocal scores, sorry.
Cheers,
Xavier
--
Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: hymns: chords vs. voices
On 02.01.2010, at 16:20, Xavier Scheuer wrote:
If such a technique is required for all exceptions to the chord
structure, it seems as if the chord method could become patchwork
if many exceptions are needed in a piece. Ten exceptions might be
common on a one-page hymn, requiring the creation of as many new
voices.
You can use \context Voice = splitapart for the second exception
voice (instead of \new ...). So you have only 2 voices created. ;-)
If you do this, you have to have a \context splitapart {s1*1000} or
whatever number you need for the length of your score, otherwise the
context will die, and create a new context each time, then you'll
have problems if you need to align texts to these split parts. See
the thread here.
I am a fan of explicitly creating every part in a vocal piece, on the
off-chance that I may need to have split lyrics, or something unique
to one voice, for any amount of time. If you decide to use chord
notation , I would reccommend manually aligning the text to the
music (see manual syllable durations in the notation reference). If
you decide to use separate voices for each part, then you shouldn't
really have any problems, and you can still manually align the text
to the music, if one part has a dotted figure, while another has a
even one.
Hope this helps___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Editing notes in a separate file
Thanks for pointing out \tag. I've already read up, and experimented with it. It doesn't solve the problem, because it requires that I anticipate every possible correction when entering the data from the MS. The only way to get useful coverage is to tag every note with a different tag, which is too complicated and invites other sorts of errors. Cheers, Mike O'Donnell Xavier Scheuer wrote: Le Sat, 2 Jan 2010 00:32:08 -0500, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca a écrit : Hi Michael, I am experimenting with methods to enter notes from a manuscript and produce several typeset scores, including at least • one that looks very much like the manuscript, for proof reading • another that is good for performance. There will probably be other versions too. Problem: the manuscript naturally has errors that need to be corrected for a performance score, to say nothing of editorial changes that may do more than correct errors. But I would like to make the production of performance scores independent of the representation of the manuscript. Data entry from the manuscript should not involve any musical correction; editing changes for a performance score should not involve any change to the representation of the manuscript (which has a lot of historical significance, as well as being the source of the music). Corrections to note durations are particularly troublesome. I can build scripts to edit a *.ly file, say with sed, but I'd rather stick entirely to Lilypond and its tools. Any pointers? Look into \tag. Which is documented there: Notation Reference (NR) 3.2.2 Different editions from one source http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Different-editions-from-one-source ;-) Cheers, Xavier ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Additional notes or ossia
Am 29.12.2009 20:04, schrieb James Bailey: I thought I could help, but apparently my scheme-fu isn't good enough for this. I first thought I could beat \Balloon_engraver into doing what you need, but there's scant information on it, and I don't know how to change the size of the box it creates. Then I thought I could just use markup and extra-offset to move the box where it needed to be, but again, I lack the understanding of how extra-offset works to be able to use it. Perhaps, however, with those two suggestion you, or someone else may be able to get the results you need. James, thanks for reply. I am unexperienced with scheme functions. But I'm curious too. Could you send me your function allowing me to see, how it could be done? Helge ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: hymns: chords vs. voices
On 1/1/10 6:30 PM, mike99 mike.br...@gmail.com wrote: Enter my question: What is your opinion to the two methods, given the direction of the project and in terms of readability and complications that it would cause in the score? It would not be a simple thing to switch between the two methods once several songs are written, and the songbook should be as consistent as possible. That's why I'm looking for feedback on the technical side before I discuss with others involved in the project. Mike, Hymns are one of my major uses for LilyPond. I prefer the chord method, as it's standard in the US. I do it using partcombine, with a hack that lyrics are set to a hidden voice that's up an octave. I've attached a copy of a hymn that I've written, to show how this works. HTH, Carl salvation.ly Description: salvation.ly ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Editing notes in a separate file
Hi Michael,
Thanks for pointing out \tag. I've already read up, and experimented
with it. It doesn't solve the problem, because it requires that I
anticipate every possible correction when entering the data from the MS.
The only way to get useful coverage is to tag every note with a
different tag, which is too complicated and invites other sorts of errors.
Either I don't understand what you're doing, or you haven't properly understood
the use of \tag.
I'm suggesting that you do something like
\version 2.13.9
notes = \relative e'' {
e4 \tag #'MS {e} \tag #'corr {d} c d |
e e e2 |
}
\markup { ORIGINAL: }
\score { \keepWithTag #'MS \notes }
\markup { CORRECTED: }
\score { \keepWithTag #'corr \notes }
Clearly, this doesn't require tagging every note with a different tag — you
simply tag the notes for different editions as you need them.
What am I misunderstanding about your particular situation?
Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Editing notes in a separate file
You are proposing very good solutions for the short term production of scores. I am more concerned with the very long term management of the information. The object is to 1. have a file containing data entry from the MS which represents the uncorrected manuscript, and which (almost) never needs to change; 2. introduce all changes, including musical corrections and adjustments, for performance scores, without modifying the MS data entry. For the short term, the tag method is a very good way to produce multiple versions in a project involving one person or small group of collaborators. In the case of a historical MS, there should be one representation of the MS, archived and (almost) never changed. Various derived scores should be produced separately from the MS representation, using it as input. The editors of the derived scores may be completely independent of those who produced the MS representation. Sure, a future editor may take a copy of the MS representation, and modify it. But each such step introduces extra confusion in the information, and leads to other sorts of errors. I was trying to keep the description short, but I guess I provided too little information. Here's some context: I have a beautiful facsimile of the Canonici Misc MA, Bodleian 213, which I acquired on a whim when I was singing a DuFay song taken from the MS. I wondered whether Lilypond provided a notation in which it would be sensible to typeset the entire MS in a form that looked a lot like the MS, allowed for very easy proof reading of the data entry (and discussion of the questionable choices), then also allowed systematic editing of performance scores in modern notation, with a variety of editorial choices. I started experimenting with the first song, covering 3 folio sides. I observed the fundamental problems with Lilypond's support of mensural notation, but I can work on prototypes that will be easy to adapt when developers fix that part of Lilypond some day. I cooked up my own prototype of a set of macros that produce mensural notation or modern notation from parameters (this is not quite trivial, since Lilypond's representation of mensural durations is a bit tangled, and even ambiguous regarding actual performance duration in the case of perfectum vs. imperfectum). I have reached the point where I produce crude but somewhat useful prototypes of both the mensural and modern notation. Synchronizing duration between the three voices in the modern notation currently requires me to enter corrections in the primary representation of the notes from the MS. Tags make it easy to include or exclude those corrections, but I am still faced with entering every variant of every correction into the MS data, which would be better left alone while editing the modern version. The problem is not so much the tags that I enter now (although the need to experiment with a variety of different synchronizations already makes it a pain), but with those that I or someone else would want in 10 or 20 years or even much later. MSs and information of this sort lie fallow for a long time before reaching users. I didn't expect Lilypond to have the right feature for this information-management problem, and I expect to either scale back the goal of the work, or to work out some preprocessing with tools outside of Lilypond (which degrades the robustness of the product, since other users need to collect the same tools). In the hope that I had overlooked something (I've read the whole notation manual, but there are clearly things that haven't made it in yet---I've found some of them in the *.scm and *.ly sources but there are bound to be others that I've missed) I posted the query. Regarding my own knowledge: I am the merest dilletante regarding ancient music, and piece together my editorial decisions from Wikipedia articles and other easily accessible sources. I don't hope to produce an authoritative edition of Bodleian 213, only something that's structurally convenient to correct using better knowledge from my further learning or from real experts. On the other hand, I am an expert, with decades of experience, in information management. I may not have explained the problem with continual addition of tagged corrections to the same original file of MS data very well, but it is a huge one that comes back to bite projects when someone revisits data after some years. Cheers, Mike O'Donnell Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Michael, Thanks for pointing out \tag. I've already read up, and experimented with it. It doesn't solve the problem, because it requires that I anticipate every possible correction when entering the data from the MS. The only way to get useful coverage is to tag every note with a different tag, which is too complicated and invites other sorts of errors. Either I don't understand what you're doing, or you haven't properly understood the use of \tag. I'm suggesting that you do something like \version 2.13.9 notes
Re: Editing notes in a separate file
Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Clearly, this doesn't require tagging every note with a different tag — you
simply tag the notes for different editions as you need them.
Perhaps I should have just answered this point directly. The problem is
that I don't know what the different editions will be. They are to be
determined in the future, and it is much better to develop them without
manually changing (even a copy of) the original data from the MS.
Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thanks for pointing out \tag. I've already read up, and experimented
with it. It doesn't solve the problem, because it requires that I
anticipate every possible correction when entering the data from the MS.
The only way to get useful coverage is to tag every note with a
different tag, which is too complicated and invites other sorts of errors.
Either I don't understand what you're doing, or you haven't properly
understood the use of \tag.
I'm suggesting that you do something like
\version 2.13.9
notes = \relative e'' {
e4 \tag #'MS {e} \tag #'corr {d} c d |
e e e2 |
}
\markup { ORIGINAL: }
\score { \keepWithTag #'MS \notes }
\markup { CORRECTED: }
\score { \keepWithTag #'corr \notes }
Clearly, this doesn't require tagging every note with a different tag — you
simply tag the notes for different editions as you need them.
What am I misunderstanding about your particular situation?
Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Editing notes in a separate file
Hi Michael,
Clearly, this doesn't require tagging every note with a different tag —
you simply tag the notes for different editions as you need them.
Perhaps I should have just answered this point directly. The problem is
that I don't know what the different editions will be. They are to be
determined in the future, and it is much better to develop them without
manually changing (even a copy of) the original data from the MS.
Ah… Then I would suggest the following thought experiment, however ungainly it
may seem at first.
If someone with real Scheme-fu could build a function that took a series of
moments and tweaks, you might be able to do something like
ms = \relative e'' {
e4 e c d |
e e e2 |
}
correctionsEditionA = {
\coolSchemeFunction #'(ly:make-moment 0 1) #'pitch #-2
…
}
\markup { EDITION A: }
\score { \new Voice \ms \correctionsEditionA }
correctionsEditionB = {
\coolSchemeFunction #'(ly:make-moment 0 1) #'script #'staccato
…
}
\markup { EDITION B: }
\score { \new Voice \ms \correctionsEditionB }
...
___
Now any editor simply needs to build a series of tweaks which are overlaid on
the original — like a transparency of bowings might be overlaid on [and easily
removed from] a violin part — without affecting the original in any way.
This is WAY beyond my ken, so there might be [probably are] many tweaks that
would not be possible.
Hope this helps!
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: simple editor for windows
Anthony W. Youngman lilyp...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: My favourite editor is PFE (programmers file editor). Unfortunately, last I know, it was abandonware, but it's still a simple nice editor. Written by somebody at Lancaster Uni iirc. Yes, good stuff, and I used it for a long time. Unfortunately, it doesn't know anything about UTF-8, and therefore is unsuitable for Lilypond files. -- Tim Slattery slatter...@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: simple editor for windows
I'll take a slight issue with this. Tim Slattery wrote: Anthony W. Youngman lilyp...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: My favourite editor is PFE (programmers file editor). Unfortunately, last I know, it was abandonware, but it's still a simple nice editor. Written by somebody at Lancaster Uni iirc. Yes, good stuff, and I used it for a long time. Unfortunately, it doesn't know anything about UTF-8, and therefore is unsuitable for Lilypond files. No. what you mean is 'unsuitable for Lilypond files that require UTF-8 chars' and even then you can explicitly put in the UTF code use the \char and \concat switches which work fine. James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: simple editor for windows
In message gg0vj5huatb821fles7lijktsbl8adv...@4ax.com, Tim Slattery slatter...@bls.gov writes Anthony W. Youngman lilyp...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: My favourite editor is PFE (programmers file editor). Unfortunately, last I know, it was abandonware, but it's still a simple nice editor. Written by somebody at Lancaster Uni iirc. Yes, good stuff, and I used it for a long time. Unfortunately, it doesn't know anything about UTF-8, and therefore is unsuitable for Lilypond files. But I use it for them all the time ... Still, I don't know very much about UTF-8 and pretty much only use the standard ASCII character set. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Additional notes or ossia
On 02.01.2010, at 17:16, Helge Kruse wrote: Am 29.12.2009 20:04, schrieb James Bailey: I thought I could help, but apparently my scheme-fu isn't good enough for this. I first thought I could beat \Balloon_engraver into doing what you need, but there's scant information on it, and I don't know how to change the size of the box it creates. Then I thought I could just use markup and extra-offset to move the box where it needed to be, but again, I lack the understanding of how extra-offset works to be able to use it. Perhaps, however, with those two suggestion you, or someone else may be able to get the results you need. James, thanks for reply. I am unexperienced with scheme functions. But I'm curious too. Could you send me your function allowing me to see, how it could be done? Helge I think you've misunderstood me. I don't know how to get the results you want. I spent maybe 5 minutes total with \Balloon_engraver and trying to use #'extra-offset to move a markup box around the note, but I failed at both. To be fair, I've never used either, and I'm fairly confident that markup with #'extra-offset could get the result that you need. That is to say, I have no functioning solution to your problem, and I only mentioned this in the hope that it would give you, or someone else, a starting point. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ANN BETA: LilyPondTool 2.12.890 available for testing
One bug I have come across is that with \pointAndClickOn, point and click from PDF preview into the source doesn't work if the source filename contains an accented character. For example, if I'm working on a score in file named Bésard_preludio.ly, then point and click doesn't work, but if I rename the score to Besard_preludio.ly, then it does. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ANN BETA: LilyPondTool 2.12.890 available for testing
On 03/01/10 06:13, Nick Payne wrote: One bug I have come across is that with \pointAndClickOn, point and click from PDF preview into the source doesn't work if the source filename contains an accented character. For example, if I'm working on a score in file named Bésard_preludio.ly, then point and click doesn't work, but if I rename the score to Besard_preludio.ly, then it does. ps. I should have mentioned, environment is Ubuntu 9.10 amd64, jEdit 4.3pre18, Java 1.6.0_15. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: simple editor for windows
On 03/01/10 04:43, James Lowe wrote: I'll take a slight issue with this. Tim Slattery wrote: Anthony W. Youngman lilyp...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: My favourite editor is PFE (programmers file editor). Unfortunately, last I know, it was abandonware, but it's still a simple nice editor. Written by somebody at Lancaster Uni iirc. Yes, good stuff, and I used it for a long time. Unfortunately, it doesn't know anything about UTF-8, and therefore is unsuitable for Lilypond files. No. what you mean is 'unsuitable for Lilypond files that require UTF-8 chars' and even then you can explicitly put in the UTF code use the \char and \concat switches which work fine. Try Notepad2. Small, single executable that doesn't require installing, supports UTF-8 if you want it, available as both 32- and 64-bit versions. http://www.flos-freeware.ch/notepad2.html. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Editing notes in a separate file
On 1/2/10 10:06 AM, Michael J. O'Donnell michael_odonn...@acm.org wrote: You are proposing very good solutions for the short term production of scores. I am more concerned with the very long term management of the information. The object is to 1. have a file containing data entry from the MS which represents the uncorrected manuscript, and which (almost) never needs to change; 2. introduce all changes, including musical corrections and adjustments, for performance scores, without modifying the MS data entry. For the short term, the tag method is a very good way to produce multiple versions in a project involving one person or small group of collaborators. In the case of a historical MS, there should be one representation of the MS, archived and (almost) never changed. Various derived scores should be produced separately from the MS representation, using it as input. The editors of the derived scores may be completely independent of those who produced the MS representation. Sure, a future editor may take a copy of the MS representation, and modify it. But each such step introduces extra confusion in the information, and leads to other sorts of errors. I was trying to keep the description short, but I guess I provided too little information. Here's some context: I have a beautiful facsimile of the Canonici Misc MA, Bodleian 213, which I acquired on a whim when I was singing a DuFay song taken from the MS. I wondered whether Lilypond provided a notation in which it would be sensible to typeset the entire MS in a form that looked a lot like the MS, allowed for very easy proof reading of the data entry (and discussion of the questionable choices), then also allowed systematic editing of performance scores in modern notation, with a variety of editorial choices. I started experimenting with the first song, covering 3 folio sides. I observed the fundamental problems with Lilypond's support of mensural notation, but I can work on prototypes that will be easy to adapt when developers fix that part of Lilypond some day. I cooked up my own prototype of a set of macros that produce mensural notation or modern notation from parameters (this is not quite trivial, since Lilypond's representation of mensural durations is a bit tangled, and even ambiguous regarding actual performance duration in the case of perfectum vs. imperfectum). I have reached the point where I produce crude but somewhat useful prototypes of both the mensural and modern notation. Synchronizing duration between the three voices in the modern notation currently requires me to enter corrections in the primary representation of the notes from the MS. Tags make it easy to include or exclude those corrections, but I am still faced with entering every variant of every correction into the MS data, which would be better left alone while editing the modern version. The problem is not so much the tags that I enter now (although the need to experiment with a variety of different synchronizations already makes it a pain), but with those that I or someone else would want in 10 or 20 years or even much later. MSs and information of this sort lie fallow for a long time before reaching users. I didn't expect Lilypond to have the right feature for this information-management problem, and I expect to either scale back the goal of the work, or to work out some preprocessing with tools outside of Lilypond (which degrades the robustness of the product, since other users need to collect the same tools). In the hope that I had overlooked something (I've read the whole notation manual, but there are clearly things that haven't made it in yet---I've found some of them in the *.scm and *.ly sources but there are bound to be others that I've missed) I posted the query. Regarding my own knowledge: I am the merest dilletante regarding ancient music, and piece together my editorial decisions from Wikipedia articles and other easily accessible sources. I don't hope to produce an authoritative edition of Bodleian 213, only something that's structurally convenient to correct using better knowledge from my further learning or from real experts. On the other hand, I am an expert, with decades of experience, in information management. I may not have explained the problem with continual addition of tagged corrections to the same original file of MS data very well, but it is a huge one that comes back to bite projects when someone revisits data after some years. May I suggest that the proper way to handle this is not to try to turn LilyPond into an information manager? Instead, the proper way is to use an information manager with LilyPond. I would recommend that the semantically appropriate way to handle this is to stop thinking of a piece as a single file, and instead, think of it as a git repository (or the equivalent, but I think git is *perfect* for this application). Each different
Titles and localtitle
Greetings and Happy New Year!
I'm running LilyPond 2.12.2 under Ubuntu 9.10. I'm transposing a bunch of
violin etudes to make them viola etudes, and I've hit a snag. I'm making
each etude a separate score. I've been using
\score {
{
--
Ralph Palmer
Montague City, MA
USA
palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Titles and localtitle
Sorry about that - hit a wrong combination of keys.
Greetings and Happy New Year!
I'm running LilyPond 2.12.2 under Ubuntu 9.10. I'm transposing a bunch of
violin etudes to make them viola etudes, and I've hit a snag. I'm making
each etude a separate score. I've been using
\score {
{
\music
}
\header {
opus = Name
}
}
successfully with music held in another file included in the score file.
When I came across some solos with titles, I tried including title,
subtitle, and composer in the \header inside the \score block, but the
title, subtitle, and composer didn't print. When I put the \header block
immediately before the \score block, the headers printed at the beginning of
the whole file. I'm not using an explicit \book block.
I took a look at the Learning Manual and at the Snippets List, and it looks
like it was intended that localtitle and such were intended to work (and
opus does work), but localtiltle, localcomposer, and localpoet don't
print in the Snippets List either. Is this a known bug? Is there a known
work-around?
Here's my Test.ly file:
Begin Snippet
\version 2.12.2
%\include english.ly
music = {
\key c \major
\time 6/8
\relative c'' {
e4-2\mf( f8) f4( e8) |
e8(d f) f4( e8) |
}
}
\score {
{
\music
}
\header {
title = Barcarolle
subtitle = from Tales of Hoffman
composer = Offenbach
}
}
End Snippet
I appreciate your time and help,
Ralph
--
Ralph Palmer
Montague City, MA
USA
palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: voices problem: notes positioning
user28 wrote: i need to place rests from voice three between notes from first and second voices, you can position the rests of a voice using \once \override Voice.Rest #'staff-position = #-2 changing the number to what you need! -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/voices-problem%3A-notes-positioning-tp26997327p26997576.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: Titles and localtitle
Hi Ralph
This is working as designed. It's explained towards the bottom of
section 3.2.1 in the Notation Reference. By default only the piece
and opus are printed when \header is included in the \score block.
Setting print-all-headers true in a paper block is what you're
looking for.
Trevor
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Palmer palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com
To: lilypond-user Mailinglist lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 10:35 PM
Subject: Titles and localtitle
Sorry about that - hit a wrong combination of keys.
Greetings and Happy New Year!
I'm running LilyPond 2.12.2 under Ubuntu 9.10. I'm transposing a
bunch of
violin etudes to make them viola etudes, and I've hit a snag. I'm
making
each etude a separate score. I've been using
\score {
{
\music
}
\header {
opus = Name
}
}
successfully with music held in another file included in the
score file.
When I came across some solos with titles, I tried including
title,
subtitle, and composer in the \header inside the \score block, but
the
title, subtitle, and composer didn't print. When I put the \header
block
immediately before the \score block, the headers printed at the
beginning of
the whole file. I'm not using an explicit \book block.
I took a look at the Learning Manual and at the Snippets List, and
it looks
like it was intended that localtitle and such were intended to
work (and
opus does work), but localtiltle, localcomposer, and
localpoet don't
print in the Snippets List either. Is this a known bug? Is there a
known
work-around?
Here's my Test.ly file:
Begin Snippet
\version 2.12.2
%\include english.ly
music = {
\key c \major
\time 6/8
\relative c'' {
e4-2\mf( f8) f4( e8) |
e8(d f) f4( e8) |
}
}
\score {
{
\music
}
\header {
title = Barcarolle
subtitle = from Tales of Hoffman
composer = Offenbach
}
}
End Snippet
I appreciate your time and help,
Ralph
--
Ralph Palmer
Montague City, MA
USA
palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com
___
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: voices problem: notes positioning
On 03.01.2010, at 00:28, -Eluze wrote: user28 wrote: i need to place rests from voice three between notes from first and second voices, you can position the rests of a voice using \once \override Voice.Rest #'staff-position = #-2 changing the number to what you need! You can also do g8\rest ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: voices problem: notes positioning
On 03.01.2010, at 00:28, -Eluze wrote: user28 wrote: i need to place rests from voice three between notes from first and second voices, you can position the rests of a voice using \once \override Voice.Rest #'staff-position = #-2 changing the number to what you need! You can also do g8\rest ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Editing notes in a separate file
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 12:22:27PM -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
If someone with real Scheme-fu could build a function that took a series of
moments and tweaks, you might be able to do something like
ms = \relative e'' {
e4 e c d |
}
correctionsEditionA = {
\coolSchemeFunction #'(ly:make-moment 0 1) #'pitch #-2
…
}
I've mused about this -- not for editions, but to separate
bug-specific tweaks (i.e. #'extra-offset for collisions) from the
actual music definition.
I don't foresee anything happening for months if not years, but
I've added it to the tracker. If I wasn't doing release and
manager tasks, I'd like to tackle it myself:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=955
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Editing notes in a separate file
Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com wrote: Look into \tag. Which is documented there: Notation Reference (NR) 3.2.2 Different editions from one source http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Different-editions-from-one-source ;-) That's 3.3.2, not 3.2.2 Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Editing notes in a separate file
I might attack this myself some day, if it can really
be accomplished at the Scheme interface. I doubt that I will ever
penetrate the C++ substrate. At present, I don't understand the data
structures quite well enough, and I think a few more iterations of the
documentation are probably required before it's clear enough to me.
For one thing, I haven't figured out yet whether a "moment" is a point
in time, or an interval at a specific spot in time, or just a duration
used in a particular way. Kieren's suggestion below seems to indicate
that it's a point in musical time.
Unfortunately, editorial changes to note durations are particularly
problematic, since they change all of the time values downstream. To do
the "external tweaking" thing right, one might need another way of
identifying points in the time line of the score. I notice that the
synchronization of lyrics to notes already uses note syllable
counts, but adding yet another time-ish line is probably a big change
in the system, and not to be expected soon. I am not even sure what
sort of specification is desirable.
"To separate bug-specific tweaks from the ... music" seems to be partly
possible already. To produce a typeset version similar to the MS, I put
all offset and similar mark-up in a separate voice from the notes (in
the style suggested by the manual for presenting breaks: I'm still not
sure whether I'm winning or losing by doing it that way, but I think I
should explore the technique before going beyond a prototype---the
alternative is to tag all of that markup for easy removal). I suspect
that Graham is referring specifically to "tweaks" in the technical
sense of changes that are local to a single voice. My MS has only one
voice per staff, and I think that I would be unable to adjust two
voices on the same staff in this manner, because adjustments that went
above the level of a single tweak-voice would hit the full staff
context. But I still haven't totally groked contexts.
If you are mostly satisfied with the current ability to adjust a whole
staff with \overrides in a special voice separate from the notes, then
the right improvement is probably to adjust the hierarchy of contexts,
so that a voice full of adjustments can attach them to particular
voices even within a single staff context. I suspect that you will
eventually want a general way to specify any context, not just one
enclosing the current one. A slightly less flexible approach is to
allow an intermediate grouping context to contain one voice on a staff
along with its tweak-voice, while isolating them from the other voices
on the staff.
Cheers,
Mike O'Donnell
Graham Percival wrote:
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 12:22:27PM -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
If someone with real Scheme-fu could build a function that took a series of moments and tweaks, you might be able to do something like
ms = \relative e'' {
e4 e c d |
}
correctionsEditionA = {
\coolSchemeFunction #'(ly:make-moment 0 1) #'pitch #-2
…
}
I've mused about this -- not for editions, but to separate
bug-specific tweaks (i.e. #'extra-offset for collisions) from the
actual music definition.
I don't foresee anything happening for months if not years, but
I've added it to the tracker. If I wasn't doing release and
manager tasks, I'd like to tackle it myself:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=955
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Scoping of variables - converting scores to songbook
I'm working on converting a collection of single scores into a song-book, by \including the .ly files, and seem to have run across a problem with scoping of variables: in some of my scores, I use no variables, neither for notes nor lyrics. Other scores, using variables defined outside a \score block, will error off the compile of the book, throwing unexpected STRING errors at every variable definition. Moving the variables inside the \score block doesn't help. I haven't found a clear definition of variable scoping in the NR, nor have I found a specification of what can and cannot be in a \included file. The docs seem to say I can have an arbitrary number of \score blocks in a file. They also say that variables can be defined at top level ( outside a \score block ), and become visible to all lower level contexts. My questions are probably best put as: 1. if I'm \including files containing variable definitions, must the variable names be globally unique? 2. if I define variables inside a \score block, do they become globally visible when I \include the file in another? 3. is there any way of refining variable scope to define local or global? Colin -- When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it. - Scott Adams, Dilbert Sept 22,'09 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Editing notes in a separate file
Hi Michael,
Unfortunately, editorial changes to note durations are particularly
problematic, since they change all of the time values downstream.
Agreed.
adjustments that went above the level of a single tweak-voice would hit the
full staff context.
If the Scheme function took a context [name?] parameter, that would solve any
problem in this regard.
a voice full of adjustments can attach them to particular voices even within
a single staff context.
Mostly, that's already possible now:
\version 2.13.9
ms = \relative e'' {
{ \voiceOne e4 e c d } \context Voice = 2 { \voiceTwo g,1 }
\oneVoice |
{ \voiceOne e'4 } \context Voice = 2 { \voiceTwo g, } \oneVoice e'
e2 |
{ \voiceOne e4 g g2 } \context Voice = 2 { \voiceTwo g,2 r }
\oneVoice |
}
\markup { ORIGINAL: }
\score { \new Staff \ms }
editionATweaks = {
s1
\override Voice.NoteHead #'color = #red s1
\override Voice.NoteHead #'font-size = #4 s1
}
\markup { TWEAKED: }
\score {
\new Staff
\ms
\context Voice = 2 \editionATweaks
}
I suspect that you will eventually want a general way to specify any context,
not just one enclosing the current one.
Agreed: a more surgical approach would be superior.
Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
