Re: Staff change in piano music - a general approach?
Tobias Braun tobias at braun-oberkochen.de writes: I've been experimenting with the \partcombine command, which looks like it's made to do exactly what I want. Tobias, \partcombine is primarily for orchestral scores, with two instruments sharing a staff. Lilypond tries to determine when the two lines of music share the same rhythm, so they they may be placed on common stems (merged into a single Voice, in Lilypond terminology). But she is not yet smart enough to do that job in a completely satisfying way. Automatic combining of three lines of music is a much more difficult job. I recommend you do not use \partcombine when you have three voices, because the way that function combines two of the voices automatically will get in your way as you try to place the third voice. The approach you have in the lilypond code you posted so far is probably best. You can define a short word, such as \lu, to put before individual notes to tell Lilypond she may let notes combine just for the moment: lu = \once\override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t But as you have seen, this does not tell her to combine the stems; the notes must be in the same voice for that. You have to \shiftOnn or force-hshift to separate the stems in those cases. Eventually, if you are really interested in using Lilypond to do this in an elegant way, you could investigate \addQuote and \quoteDuring. Then you might set up two voices in each staff, and find a nice way to quote segments of your S A T B parts into those voices, so that parts share a voice during the times they share the same rhythm. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.
Just a minor remark: At least in German laws, there can't be a copyright on mere industrial art like typesetting or music engraving, independent from the effort. (I.e. Sweat of the brow from UK and Canadian jurisdiction isn't valid in Germany.) That means, there is no copyright on the layout of music, even if some publishers claim to own it. Additionally, there is a (very low) threshold of originality for a (new) copyright, i.e. just errors don't cause a new copyright on an edition. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schöpfungshöhe) But this originality is always controversial. I'm not a lawyer, and I can't speak for other legislations, of course. Laws of Austria and Switzerland are very similar to Germany's. Greetlings from Lake Constance --- fiëé visuëlle Henning Hraban Ramm http://www.fiee.net http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/ https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.
Interesting. I spent an hour or so doing various searches looking for court decisions and came up blank; I'm wondering if we're making a mountain out of a mole-hill? Can somebody find an instance of a music publisher suing somebody over such things? Like I say I couldn't find any with my average search skills; it would certainly be illuminating to see how the courts have ruled however. I'm wondering if fingerings and/or phrasing slurs are even copyrightable: is a suggestion on how to solve a technical problem copyrightable? If so, couldn't one copyright a golf swing? It starts to look ridiculous - which may explain the lack of easily-located court cases. Just thinking out loud. M. On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Michael Ellis michael.f.el...@gmail.comwrote: A few excerpts from the Wikipedia article on derivative works. Highlighting and italics added by me. 17 U.S.C.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code § 103(b) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/103%28b%29.html provides: The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Workshttps://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.copyright.gov%2Fcircs%2Fcirc14.pdf notes that: A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. *Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.* When does derivative-work copyright exist? For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originalityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality . Although serious emphasis on originality, at least so designated, began with the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in *Feist v. Ruralhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural *, some pre-*Feist* lower court decisions addressed this requirement in relation to derivative works. In *Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.*[1 ] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-0 and earlier in *L. Batlin Son, Inc. v. Snyder*,.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-1the Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright protection and copying it will not be copyright infringement. In the *Batlin* case, one maker of Uncle Sam toy banks sued another for copying its coin-operated bank, which was based on toy banks sold in the United States[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-2 since at least the 1880s. (These toys have Uncle Sam's extended arm and outstretched hand adapted to receive a coin; when the user presses a lever, Uncle Sam appears to put the coin into a carpet bag.) The plaintiff's bank was so similar to the 19th Century toys, differing from them only in the changes needed to permit a plastic molding to be made, that it lacked any original expression. Therefore, even though the defendant's bank was very similar to the plaintiff's,[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-3 the plaintiff's was not entitled to any copyright protection. To extend copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and monopolizing public domain work. -- Obviously, laws vary from country to country, but to me this suggests that it would be very hard to assert a copyright claim to any set of of rhythms and pitches that are already available in the public domain. I think that's why I was having trouble with the concept that a copy of a chorale with a mistake is a copyrighted work. Cheers, Mike On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:09 PM,
Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.
Just to clarify: anything is copyrightable of course - there's no laws that I'm aware of that prevent people from asserting a copyright; question is, can it/has it a chance of standing up? M. On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Mike Blackstock blackstock.m...@gmail.comwrote: Interesting. I spent an hour or so doing various searches looking for court decisions and came up blank; I'm wondering if we're making a mountain out of a mole-hill? Can somebody find an instance of a music publisher suing somebody over such things? Like I say I couldn't find any with my average search skills; it would certainly be illuminating to see how the courts have ruled however. I'm wondering if fingerings and/or phrasing slurs are even copyrightable: is a suggestion on how to solve a technical problem copyrightable? If so, couldn't one copyright a golf swing? It starts to look ridiculous - which may explain the lack of easily-located court cases. Just thinking out loud. M. On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Michael Ellis michael.f.el...@gmail.comwrote: A few excerpts from the Wikipedia article on derivative works. Highlighting and italics added by me. 17 U.S.C.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code § 103(b) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/103%28b%29.html provides: The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Workshttps://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.copyright.gov%2Fcircs%2Fcirc14.pdf notes that: A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. *Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.* When does derivative-work copyright exist? For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originalityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality . Although serious emphasis on originality, at least so designated, began with the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in *Feist v. Ruralhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural *, some pre-*Feist* lower court decisions addressed this requirement in relation to derivative works. In *Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.*[ 1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-0 and earlier in *L. Batlin Son, Inc. v. Snyder*,.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-1the Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright protection and copying it will not be copyright infringement. In the *Batlin* case, one maker of Uncle Sam toy banks sued another for copying its coin-operated bank, which was based on toy banks sold in the United States[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-2 since at least the 1880s. (These toys have Uncle Sam's extended arm and outstretched hand adapted to receive a coin; when the user presses a lever, Uncle Sam appears to put the coin into a carpet bag.) The plaintiff's bank was so similar to the 19th Century toys, differing from them only in the changes needed to permit a plastic molding to be made, that it lacked any original expression. Therefore, even though the defendant's bank was very similar to the plaintiff's,[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-3 the plaintiff's was not entitled to any copyright protection. To extend copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and monopolizing public domain work. -- Obviously, laws vary from country to country, but to me this suggests that it would be very hard to
Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 02:16:44AM -0800, Mike Blackstock wrote: Just to clarify: anything is copyrightable of course That is false. - there's no laws that I'm aware of that prevent people from asserting a copyright; question is, can it/has it a chance of standing up? You are confusing things. Somebody may claim to possess copyright on something, but asserting a copyright does not mean that it is, in fact, under copyright. Whether something is under copyright is a question of the written law and case histories (in countries which recognize precedence), not mere opinion. Granted, a pessimist may point out that certain highly-paid lawyers are more successful in having judges agree with their opinions than non-highly-paid lawyers. I am not claiming that the case history is a perfect record of objective judgements, but (for better or worse) those judgements *are* the precedence. Moreover, there are in fact laws against abusing the system. Various jursidictions have laws against malicious prosecution. The (in)famous DMCA of the USA requires a copyright claimant to swear under perjury that they do, in fact, own the copyright in question. Admittedly, this does not appear to be enforced -- there have been a few cases wherein the MPAA, RIAA, or actors on their behalf, have claimed copyright when they did not in fact own the copyright. But that's a problem of enforcement, not the written law. I spent an hour or so doing various searches looking for court decisions and came up blank; I'm wondering if we're making a mountain out of a mole-hill? Can somebody find an instance of a music publisher suing somebody over such things? I believe that it is more common to issue a cease and desist letter first; if the offending party complies with it, there is generally no lawsuit. These definitely happen; for example, recent action against guitar tab notation for pop songs: http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/03/music_publisher/ I've heard that publishers of Christian pop/rock songs are particularly active in this regard. There's good money in selling sheet music to church groups! And don't forget about the German kindergarden that was recently sued for infringing copyright on sheet music: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14741186,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf Like I say I couldn't find any with my average search skills; it would certainly be illuminating to see how the courts have ruled however. Sadly, these stories are a dime a dozen these days. In many cases, they never go to court because any lawyer will tell their client that they don't have a hope of defending against the charge. For example, if your amateur church choir photocopies a 1984 arrangement of a hymn for SATB plus rock band (for the teenagers in the congregation to play), that's a clear infringement of copyright. There's no point trying to defend yourself legally; you're absolutely on the wrong side of the law. I'm wondering if fingerings and/or phrasing slurs are even copyrightable: Yes. is a suggestion on how to solve a technical problem copyrightable? If it is in fixed form (generally meaning written). If so, couldn't one copyright a golf swing? Not the swing itself, but any fixed representation of that swing. In this case, perhaps an instructional video? voice-over, showing the swing from different angles, maybe slow-motion video... that is definitely under copyright. It starts to look ridiculous Some people, including myself, think so, and therefore vote in favor of political parties which favor copyright reform. But never confuse what is *moral* with what is *legal*. I have been discussing my interpretation of the *laws*. I am not saying that a company is *morally* justified in suing a kindergarten, or amateur choral group, or a website showing guitar tabs. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in 2.13.44-1?
On Jan 3, 2011, at 1:09 AM, -Eluze wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
#(ly:set-option 'delete-intermediate-files #t)
\paper {
indent = 0.0
ragged-last = ##f
\header {
title = Lilypond Test
composer = McNamara
meter = Swing Ballad
}
it compiles without errors on windows vista if i close the parenthesis
after/before the \paper/\header!
without, i get errors, but different from yours.
Sorry, bad pasting on my part. I tried removing and replacing a number of
things (version number, \paper block, deleting the .ps file, etc.) and kept
updating my e-mail before sending it. I've also tried it with and without
various \include files I use (including one called pop-chords.ly to correct the
naming of chords because I don't like the default Ignaztek chord names. My
first thought was that this would be the culprit due to some change in the
Lilypond internals causing a conflict, but \including it or leaving it out
makes no difference on my machine.
Perhaps I should mention this is on OS X 10.6.5 on an Intel Mac.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in 2.13.44-1?
On Jan 3, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Jan 3, 2011, at 1:09 AM, -Eluze wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
#(ly:set-option 'delete-intermediate-files #t)
\paper {
indent = 0.0
ragged-last = ##f
\header {
title = Lilypond Test
composer = McNamara
meter = Swing Ballad
}
it compiles without errors on windows vista if i close the parenthesis
after/before the \paper/\header!
without, i get errors, but different from yours.
Sorry, bad pasting on my part. I tried removing and replacing a number of
things (version number, \paper block, deleting the .ps file, etc.) and kept
updating my e-mail before sending it. I've also tried it with and without
various \include files I use (including one called pop-chords.ly to correct
the naming of chords because I don't like the default Ignaztek chord names.
My first thought was that this would be the culprit due to some change in the
Lilypond internals causing a conflict, but \including it or leaving it out
makes no difference on my machine.
Perhaps I should mention this is on OS X 10.6.5 on an Intel Mac.
I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but this compiled just fine
for me on my osx 10.6.5 on an intel iMac:
\version 2.13.44
#(ly:set-option 'delete-intermediate-files #t)
\paper {
indent = 0.0
ragged-last = ##f
}
\header {
title = Lilypond Test
composer = McNamara
meter = Swing Ballad
}
harmonies = \chordmode {
r8
% 1
bes2:min7 ges2:7
des1:maj7
bes2:min7 ges2:7
des1:maj7
% 5
bes2:min7 ges2:7
bes2:min7 ees2:7
ees2:min7 aes2:7
des1:maj7
}
melody = \relative c' {
\override Staff.TimeSignature #'style = #'()
\time 4/4
\clef treble
\key des\major
% 1
r1
r1
r1
r1 \break
% 5
r1
r1
r1
r1
\bar :|
}
\score
{
\new ChordNames {
\set chordChanges = ##t
\harmonies
}
\new Staff \melody
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.
Mike, Graham, Henning,
Thanks again, it's all good discussion. For the time being, I've altered
the home page on the solfege-resources site to offer two choices of License,
namely Free Art license in addition to CC BY-NC-AS. I've also added a
couple paragraphs explaining my understanding of U.S. copyright law and
urging users to accept the CC license with commercial restriction in honor
of Margaret GreenTree's patient labor while acknowledging that patient labor
in itself may not create copyrightable work and therefore offering also the
Free Art option. I realize that it may all be legally meaningless, but it
seems as I close as I can come for the moment to balancing the various legal
and ethical considerations.
I've still not heard from her. Hopefully she's just on vacation and will
eventually reply.
I'm still open to replacing the notation in the Bach Chorales with Phil's
work and offering those under Free Art license only. (Phil, if you will
send me a gmail address (needed by googlecode.com), I will authorize it for
commit privileges on the site). But please hold off from making extensive
changes as I'd like to revise the lilypond files to achieve even greater
separation between the notation and the output. I'd like to get to the
point where the notation files look like:
\include common.ly
\header { ... }
voiceFoo = { ... music ... }
voiceBar = { ... music ... }
...
\output
where \output is a scheme function defined in common.ly that (somehow)
detects the voicenames and creates all the \book { \score { ... } } blocks
needed to create the PDF and MIDI files for the full score and individual
parts.
If that is possible in LilyPond it would make it very simple for folks who
want to contribute transcriptions of other works to put their files in a
simple format and, at the same time, allow all the output to have a
consistent look. It also could allow for the use of command line defines to
control what gets generated.
I'm going to start a separate thread on that topic, so lets not discuss it
here.
Cheers,
Mike
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.cawrote:
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 02:16:44AM -0800, Mike Blackstock wrote:
Just to clarify: anything is copyrightable of course
That is false.
- there's no laws
that I'm aware of that
prevent people from asserting a copyright; question is, can it/has it
a
chance of standing up?
You are confusing things. Somebody may claim to possess copyright
on something, but asserting a copyright does not mean that it
is, in fact, under copyright. Whether something is under
copyright is a question of the written law and case histories (in
countries which recognize precedence), not mere opinion.
Granted, a pessimist may point out that certain highly-paid
lawyers are more successful in having judges agree with their
opinions than non-highly-paid lawyers. I am not claiming that the
case history is a perfect record of objective judgements, but (for
better or worse) those judgements *are* the precedence.
Moreover, there are in fact laws against abusing the system.
Various jursidictions have laws against malicious prosecution.
The (in)famous DMCA of the USA requires a copyright claimant to
swear under perjury that they do, in fact, own the copyright in
question.
Admittedly, this does not appear to be enforced -- there have been
a few cases wherein the MPAA, RIAA, or actors on their behalf,
have claimed copyright when they did not in fact own the
copyright. But that's a problem of enforcement, not the written
law.
I spent an hour or so doing various searches looking for court
decisions
and came up blank; I'm wondering if we're making a mountain out of
a
mole-hill? Can somebody find an instance of a music publisher suing
somebody over such things?
I believe that it is more common to issue a cease and desist
letter first; if the offending party complies with it, there is
generally no lawsuit. These definitely happen; for example,
recent action against guitar tab notation for pop songs:
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/03/music_publisher/
I've heard that publishers of Christian pop/rock songs are
particularly active in this regard. There's good money in selling
sheet music to church groups!
And don't forget about the German kindergarden that was recently
sued for infringing copyright on sheet music:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14741186,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf
Like I say I couldn't find any with my
average search skills; it would certainly be illuminating to see how
the
courts have ruled however.
Sadly, these stories are a dime a dozen these days. In many
cases, they never go to court because any lawyer will tell their
client that they don't have a hope of defending against the
charge.
For example, if your amateur church choir photocopies a 1984
arrangement of a hymn for SATB
Re: testing lilydev
Am 03.01.2011 07:38, schrieb Graham Percival: We think that we've finished creating our Ubuntu LilyPond Developer Remix (lilydev; formerly know as lilybuntu). It would be helpful if more people could test the latest version. Begin here: http://lilypond.org/help-us.html and look under advanced tasks. Do you have a download link or instruction? Helge ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: testing lilydev
- Original Message - From: Helge Kruse helge.kruse-nos...@gmx.net To: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 6:35 PM Subject: Re: testing lilydev Am 03.01.2011 07:38, schrieb Graham Percival: We think that we've finished creating our Ubuntu LilyPond Developer Remix (lilydev; formerly know as lilybuntu). It would be helpful if more people could test the latest version. Begin here: http://lilypond.org/help-us.html and look under advanced tasks. Do you have a download link or instruction? Helge If you go to the page above, and look for Advanced tasks you'll find a link in the section indented with Note: -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Completely separating notation from output logic
I'm trying to develop an include file with Scheme functions that will
allow notation files to contain nothing more than a header block and
music for one or more voices. Below is what I've got so far. What
I'm finding is that I can easily define a music function that appends
voices to a list and a corresponding function that retrieves them in
order within the context of a \score block. What doesn't work so
far is trying to generate the score block itself. I get an error
complaining about Unexpected \score. I'm assuming that's because a
\score isn't a music type. Is that right? Also, what I'm doing now
feels a bit hackish. Is there a more elegant approach?
Thanks,
Mike
%% To go into an include file, e.g. myinclude.ly ...
\version 2.12.3
%% Append music for one voice to a list.
appendVoice = #(define-music-function (P L ml m) (list? ly:music?)
(append! ml m))
%% Insert a voice in a score block
newvoice = #(define-music-function (P L M) (ly:music?)
#{
\new Voice $M
#})
%% Insert list of voices to a score block
allvoices = #(define-music-function (P L mlist) (list?)
(if (eq? mlist '())
#{ #}
(let ((v (car mlist)))
#{
\newvoice $v
#}
(allvoices (cdr mlist)
%% Generate a score block containing voices from a list.
thescore = #(define-music-function (P L mlist) (list?)
#{
\score {
\allvoices \myvoices
}
#})
%% ---
%% To go into a notation file
%\include myinclude.ly
#(define myvoices '())
\appendVoice \myvoices \relative c' { e f g a }
\appendVoice \myvoices \relative c' { c d e f }
%% THIS WORKS
\score {
\allvoices \myvoices
}
%% THIS DOES NOT
\thescore \myvoices
Cheers,
Mike
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Completely separating notation from output logic
On 1/3/11 1:01 PM, Michael Ellis michael.f.el...@gmail.com wrote: I'm trying to develop an include file with Scheme functions that will allow notation files to contain nothing more than a header block and music for one or more voices. Personally, I think you're going about this exactly backwards. Rather than including the score in a notation file, I think you should include the notation in a score file. That way, you can easily reuse the notation in multiple places. Below is what I've got so far. What I'm finding is that I can easily define a music function that appends voices to a list and a corresponding function that retrieves them in order within the context of a \score block. What doesn't work so far is trying to generate the score block itself. I get an error complaining about Unexpected \score. I'm assuming that's because a \score isn't a music type. Is that right? I think that's right. The Score (capital S) context is created automatically by LilyPond. We used to use \new Score, but we have eliminated that. I think that the cleanest way to do this is to have a notation file for each of the pieces of notation, and then have a score file that includes all of the notation files. HTH, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: testing lilydev
Am 03.01.2011 19:56, schrieb Phil Holmes: If you go to the page above, and look for Advanced tasks you'll find a link in the section indented with Note: I got it. Thanks, Helge ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: testing lilydev
Am 03.01.2011 23:15, schrieb Helge Kruse: Am 03.01.2011 19:56, schrieb Phil Holmes: If you go to the page above, and look for Advanced tasks you'll find a link in the section indented with Note: I got it. Thanks, Is there any good place where to get help to run this in VirtualBox? I think about the screen resolution but don't want to stress the Lilypond mailing list with such questions. Helge ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: testing lilydev
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Helge Kruse helge.kruse-nos...@gmx.net wrote: Am 03.01.2011 23:15, schrieb Helge Kruse: Am 03.01.2011 19:56, schrieb Phil Holmes: If you go to the page above, and look for Advanced tasks you'll find a link in the section indented with Note: I got it. Thanks, Is there any good place where to get help to run this in VirtualBox? I think about the screen resolution but don't want to stress the Lilypond mailing list with such questions. I'd suggest the VirtualBox manual, available from their website. Jon -- Jonathan Kulp http://www.jonathankulp.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Completely separating notation from output logic
Thanks, Carl. I probably should have included some background
information. If I had only one piece of music to worry about, I'd do
it exactly as you suggest. Problem is I've got 404 Bach Chorales on
the Solfege Resources site and expect to eventually have hundreds or
even thousands more from other composers whose work is public domain.
Each one has a separate \book { \score {} \score{} } block to
generate pdf + midi files for all parts together plus each part
individually. There are also some mildly hairy Scheme functions that
invoke the NoteNames engraver and use quoteDuring to add fermatas from
the Soprano part to individual parts.
Having all the output logic in a single include file would:
1. Allow me to define a dead-simple format for contributions of
other public domain transcriptions, e.g
\include common.ly
\head { }
#(define voices '())
\appendVoice \voices { ... } % e.g. Soprano
\appendVoice \voices { ... ) % e.g. Alto
...
\theOutput \voices % all the files for all the voices
2. Make it easy to improve who wanted a to change the formatting
by only requiring them to modify the common.ly
3. Eliminate the need for (or at least greatly simplify) external
scripts to rebuild the world after changes.
I'm not sure how I could do all that by including named files in score files.
Cheers,
Mike
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
Personally, I think you're going about this exactly backwards. Rather than
including the score in a notation file, I think you should include the
notation in a score file. That way, you can easily reuse the notation in
multiple places.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Completely separating notation from output logic
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Michael Ellis michael.f.el...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Make it easy to improve who wanted a to change the formatting by only requiring them to modify the common.ly Meant to say: 2. Make it easy for myself or users to improve the formatting ... ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: testing lilydev
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 23:30 +0100, Helge Kruse wrote: Am 03.01.2011 23:15, schrieb Helge Kruse: Am 03.01.2011 19:56, schrieb Phil Holmes: If you go to the page above, and look for Advanced tasks you'll find a link in the section indented with Note: I got it. Thanks, Is there any good place where to get help to run this in VirtualBox? I think about the screen resolution but don't want to stress the Lilypond mailing list with such questions. Helge ___ I found that the Guest Additions are essential, especially for things like screen resolution. Remember to install them from a root terminal, inside the VM. Colin -- Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. - Lord Acton, historian (1834-1902) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: testing lilydev
On 04/01/11 09:30, Helge Kruse wrote: Am 03.01.2011 23:15, schrieb Helge Kruse: Am 03.01.2011 19:56, schrieb Phil Holmes: If you go to the page above, and look for Advanced tasks you'll find a link in the section indented with Note: I got it. Thanks, Is there any good place where to get help to run this in VirtualBox? I think about the screen resolution but don't want to stress the Lilypond mailing list with such questions. Usually you can just drag the border of the VM window and its display will automatically resize as the window changes size. That works for me with both Windows and Ubuntu VMs. There is also a Disable guest display auto-resize item under the Machine menu of the VM window. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidental and clef change issue
On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Xavier Scheuer wrote:
Hi!
This has been reported on the French user mailing list.
In the following code the c-natural is not printed if there is a clef
change in the middle of the measure.
\relative c' {
\clef bass cis2 c
\clef tenor cis2 \clef bass c % natural is not printed!!
\clef bass cis2 \clef tenor c
}
I do not know what say references like Ross, Read about this but I do
not think this should be the correct behaviour.
IMHO this is not what a musician (and a user) expect:
if we have a c-sharp and then a c-natural (at the same octave)
_in the same measure_, then the natural __MUST__ be printed!
This is also against what is said in the regtest
‘accidental-clef-change.ly’: Accidentals are reset for clef changes
(note that this regtest works fine but the reported code does not).
Could you investigate this?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Xavier
PS: The only simple workaround is to use
#(set-accidental-style 'piano)
--
Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com
It seems, at least according to section 1.1.3 on accidentals, that this is
intended behavior:
default
This is the default typesetting behavior. It corresponds to eighteenth-century
common practice: accidentals are remembered to the end of the measure in which
they occur and only in their own octave. Thus, in the example below, no natural
signs are printed before the b in the second measure or the last c:
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in 2.13.44-1?
On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:25 PM, James Bailey wrote: I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but this compiled just fine for me on my osx 10.6.5 on an intel iMac: Hmm, well doesn't seem to be a bug. That was my main question. Thanks, guys! ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Completely separating notation from output logic
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 05:41:48PM -0500, Michael Ellis wrote: Thanks, Carl. I probably should have included some background information. If I had only one piece of music to worry about, I'd do it exactly as you suggest. Problem is I've got 404 Bach Chorales on the Solfege Resources site and expect to eventually have hundreds or even thousands more from other composers whose work is public domain. This has been solved a few times. Look in the mailing list archives, and/or look at Reinhold's orchestralily, etc. Personally, I'd just reinvent the wheel and generate score files with python, using some naming scheme for directories and files. But I'd do so knowing that this solution was stupidly reinventing the wheel. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Completely separating notation from output logic
Thanks Graham, I did use python to generate the first set of files
and, being fairly expert with it, python is always my weapon of
choice. The limitation I see in this case is trying to support a
minimal input format for contributors to use. I was able to make it
work for the Greentree files because MuseScore emitted voice name
variables with a recognizable pattern e.g. AAvoiceBA = \relative c''
{ and always ended the music with a closing } on a line by itself,
and so forth.
I don't want to burden contributors with anything that rigid and I
don't want to write a python parser for LilyPond syntax or even adapt
the one that comes with Frescobaldi. That would feel like hunting
flies with an elephant gun.
Hence the reluctant decision to handle it in Scheme. I did find a
thread from 2008 between Reinhold K., Han-Wen, and Nicolas S, but they
are operating with pretty high-level knowledge of Lily internals. It
would be nice to find a well-documented solution that didn't require
combing through the Lily sources. I'll keep looking. This can't be
that hard to do, right?
Cheers,
Mike
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 05:41:48PM -0500, Michael Ellis wrote:
Thanks, Carl. I probably should have included some background
information. If I had only one piece of music to worry about, I'd do
it exactly as you suggest. Problem is I've got 404 Bach Chorales on
the Solfege Resources site and expect to eventually have hundreds or
even thousands more from other composers whose work is public domain.
This has been solved a few times. Look in the mailing list
archives, and/or look at Reinhold's orchestralily, etc.
Personally, I'd just reinvent the wheel and generate score files
with python, using some naming scheme for directories and files.
But I'd do so knowing that this solution was stupidly reinventing
the wheel.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Ottava horizontal shit
Hello all,
This is another perplexing thing. I am trying to figure out how to
shift the ottava indications directly over their corresponding chords.
There does not seem to be an obvious solution. So here is the miminmal
example. The end result should have 8va loco. 8va. loco. read in a
single line.
regards
Shane
version 2.13.0
\relative{
\once \override Staff.OttavaBracket #'dash-period = #0 \ottava #1
\barNumberCheck #190 \autoBeamOff
c' f c'8 \ottava #0 c, f c'8 ^loco. \once \override
Staff.OttavaBracket #'dash-period = #0 \ottava #1 c' f c'8
\ottava #0 c, f c'8 ^loco. }
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
tempo and rehearsal juxtaposition
Hello, I know how to write q=ca120, by reassigning rehearsal mark. But in my situation, there's a rehearsal 5 and I'd like to add Adagio (q=ca50). How to do that? Regards Haipeng ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re:Re: tempo and rehearsal juxtaposition
Thanks. However, I said that I know this. My situation is, printing a rehearsal mark \mark \default, and then use the altered tempo marks. I learnt from the list that there can't be two \mark at the same time. So this is not fit my requirement. Regards Haipeeng -原始邮件- 发件人: Shane Brandes sh...@grayskies.net 发送时间: 2011年1月4日 星期二 收件人: 胡海鹏 - Hu Haipeng hhpmu...@163.com 抄送: 主题: Re: tempo and rehearsal juxtaposition you can try this from the snippet repository http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=234 Shane 2011/1/3 胡海鹏 - Hu Haipeng hhpmu...@163.com: Hello, I know how to write q=ca120, by reassigning rehearsal mark. But in my situation, there's a rehearsal 5 and I'd like to add Adagio (q=ca50). How to do that? Regards Haipeng ___ 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: Bug in 2.13.44-1?
On Jan 4, 2011, at 1:23 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:25 PM, James Bailey wrote: I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but this compiled just fine for me on my osx 10.6.5 on an intel iMac: Hmm, well doesn't seem to be a bug. That was my main question. Thanks, guys! I don't know what editor you use, but usually when the error message points to something in init.ly, the culprit is usually a missing brace. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in 2.13.44-1?
On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:44 PM, James Bailey wrote: On Jan 4, 2011, at 1:23 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:25 PM, James Bailey wrote: I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but this compiled just fine for me on my osx 10.6.5 on an intel iMac: Hmm, well doesn't seem to be a bug. That was my main question. Thanks, guys! I don't know what editor you use, Emacs 23, Aquamacs or Fraise (the current form of Smultron). but usually when the error message points to something in init.ly, the culprit is usually a missing brace. For me the same files compile in 2.12.3 and fail in 2.13.4 without any changes to the files. The problem only seems to exist if I am using \chordmode. The error message is consistent, as pasted into previous posts. Seemed odd to me. But maybe it's a local problem somehow, since it doesn't seem to replicate for other folks. Since 2.12.3 works, that's what I'm sticking with. Thanks! ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in 2.13.44-1?
On Jan 4, 2011, at 6:52 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:44 PM, James Bailey wrote: On Jan 4, 2011, at 1:23 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:25 PM, James Bailey wrote: I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but this compiled just fine for me on my osx 10.6.5 on an intel iMac: Hmm, well doesn't seem to be a bug. That was my main question. Thanks, guys! I don't know what editor you use, Emacs 23, Aquamacs or Fraise (the current form of Smultron). but usually when the error message points to something in init.ly, the culprit is usually a missing brace. For me the same files compile in 2.12.3 and fail in 2.13.4 without any changes to the files. The problem only seems to exist if I am using \chordmode. The error message is consistent, as pasted into previous posts. Seemed odd to me. But maybe it's a local problem somehow, since it doesn't seem to replicate for other folks. Since 2.12.3 works, that's what I'm sticking with. Thanks! Given that there's been a paste which was incomplete, can you make a file (which consists of a minimal example), compile it, see that the error occurs, and then paste that entire file? I really would hate to have a bug go unreported because of faulty reporting. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bug in 2.13.44-1?
On Jan 4, 2011, at 6:52 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:44 PM, James Bailey wrote: On Jan 4, 2011, at 1:23 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:25 PM, James Bailey wrote: I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but this compiled just fine for me on my osx 10.6.5 on an intel iMac: Hmm, well doesn't seem to be a bug. That was my main question. Thanks, guys! I don't know what editor you use, Emacs 23, Aquamacs or Fraise (the current form of Smultron). but usually when the error message points to something in init.ly, the culprit is usually a missing brace. For me the same files compile in 2.12.3 and fail in 2.13.4 without any changes to the files. The problem only seems to exist if I am using \chordmode. The error message is consistent, as pasted into previous posts. Seemed odd to me. But maybe it's a local problem somehow, since it doesn't seem to replicate for other folks. Since 2.12.3 works, that's what I'm sticking with. Thanks! oopsie Given that there's been a paste which was incomplete, can you make a file (which consists of a minimal example), compile it, *in the lilypond editor* see that the error occurs, and then paste that entire file? I really would hate to have a bug go unreported because of faulty reporting. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
