Usage 1.2, Environment variables: missing conjunction?
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/usage/command_002dline-usage#environment-variables Maybe in **this sentence** something is missing? LILYPOND_GC_YIELD With this variable the memory footprint and performance can be adjusted. **It is a percentage tunes memory management behavior**. With higher values, the program uses more memory, with smaller values, it uses more CPU time. The default value is 70. I mean: 'tunes' should be a verb, right? The percentage tunes memory management..., if I've understood correctly. So it could be: It is a percentage *that* tunes memory management behaviour. I don't know if this is good english, but I can understand it better. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
Am 18.03.2011 02:13, schrieb Graham Percival: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 01:56:05AM +0100, Martin Tarenskeen wrote: But let's stay on-topic: Keep up the good work with your articulate script. Any chance articulate will be an integrated, built-in functionality in Lilypond in the future ? I estimate it would take about 5 hours from a Frog. I've been estimating this for the past few years, but nobody's even attempted to tackle it yet. How whould you like to see the script included? Just adding articulate.ly in ly/ and giving one example in the docs is probably not what you expect ... Regards, Marc So, I guess not much chance. Cheers, - Graham ___ 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: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
On Thu 17 Mar 2011, 18:08 Kieren MacMillan wrote: Unfortunately, lower barrier of entry almost always means more crap to sift through. The more crap -- the lower criteria barrier for what is `crap'?. The more crap will become normal and even good thing. And at some point in the future we all will agree that is it quite good music; why? not `crap', it's great!. And we will be unable to distinguish as great as classical (in modern sense of classical) from as ugly as crap (i don't know what i mean crap, let's say). Well... This is my english... Stanisław Lem in his Summa Technologiae says (i hope i am not too much wrong) that the information *is* the information if and only if here is somebody who can recognize it as such, can accept and understand. Let's say, i *love* J. S. Bach very much (well, let's say), as much as my father and grandfather (etc). So, can i really be sure that i understand his music as good as my grandfather?.. I mean that every Beethoven's symphony contains a piece of information -- can i be sure that i can recognize it as good as my grandfather? Yes, i know this can not be measured at all. Anyway. I mean that at some point in the future people will like our classical music as much as their modern, no problem, they will! -- but the level of understanding will be lower. Because of because of more crap; because of lower barrier of entry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-B4sjUve3E Isn't it rather computer-generated? Regardless of emotions on the face?.. (My friend sent this link as a great performance example or like that.) Sorry, i may be wrong, easily. Oh well... 42. Yes, i know the answer; i don't know what's the question .) -- Dmytro O. Redchuk Bug Squad ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes: Am 18.03.2011 02:13, schrieb Graham Percival: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 01:56:05AM +0100, Martin Tarenskeen wrote: But let's stay on-topic: Keep up the good work with your articulate script. Any chance articulate will be an integrated, built-in functionality in Lilypond in the future ? I estimate it would take about 5 hours from a Frog. I've been estimating this for the past few years, but nobody's even attempted to tackle it yet. How whould you like to see the script included? Just adding articulate.ly in ly/ and giving one example in the docs is probably not what you expect ... I should think the idea would be that nothing at all changes for the user interface (except possibly for additional tweaks and settings becoming available and hopefully documented) except that the MIDI output improves its similarity to the score. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bar check warning
njrees wrote:
I am a new user.
I get a bar check warning from this snippet (Rogers and Hart's Have You
Met Miss Jones?)
If I delete the first bar, I don't get the warning. Is this a bug, or am I
doing something wrong?
(Do I have to represent the rest somehow?)
\relative c'' {
\key f \major
| c1 | r4 d d d |
}
\addlyrics {
| free. | And all at |
}
\version 2.13.23
Processing `/Users//lily/m2.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...
/Users//lily/m2.ly:9:10: warning: barcheck failed at: 0/0
| free.
| And all at |
Preprocessing graphical objects...
Solving 1 page-breaking chunks...[1: 1 pages]
Drawing systems...
Layout output to `m2.ps'...
Converting to `./m2.pdf'...
success: Compilation successfully completed
Thanks for your attention.
i don't think you need barchecks in the lyrics since the association will
happen automagically with \addlyrics - \addlyrics will also recognize rests
which you do not have to code in your lyric voice!
if you really want to insert manual durations with lyrics you probably
should use an explicit lyric voice, e.g.:
\new Lyrics \lyricmode {
| free.1 | \skip4 and4 all4 at4 |
}
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Bar-check-warning-tp31176893p31179384.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: Bar check warning
-Eluze elu...@gmail.com writes:
\relative c'' {
\key f \major
| c1 | r4 d d d |
}
\addlyrics {
| free. | And all at |
}
i don't think you need barchecks in the lyrics since the association
will happen automagically with \addlyrics
Huh? You _never_ need a barcheck since the association with time,
score, voices etc _always_ happens automagically.
Aren't you missing the whole point of barchecks? The idea is to have a
check for the music still being synchronized with the measures, in order
to be able to figure out where one forget or added a beat accidentally
without having to read the whole output score.
That is particularly important when using \addlyrics (I get the lyrics
timing wrong much more often at first try than I get the note timing
wrong).
- \addlyrics will also recognize rests which you do not have to code
in your lyric voice!
if you really want to insert manual durations with lyrics you probably
should use an explicit lyric voice, e.g.:
What makes you think he wants to insert manual durations? He does
_not_, I repeat _not_ insert any manual duration in his example. Which
illustrates a very good point.
\addlyrics should really _store_ all the barchecks, and execute them
_after_ associating the lyrics with a voice, once the timing is
established.
I am surprised that it doesn't, and would count that as a bug.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usage 1.2, Environment variables: missing conjunction?
- Original Message - From: Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com To: lilypond-user mailinglist lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 7:29 AM Subject: Usage 1.2, Environment variables: missing conjunction? http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/usage/command_002dline-usage#environment-variables Maybe in **this sentence** something is missing? LILYPOND_GC_YIELD With this variable the memory footprint and performance can be adjusted. **It is a percentage tunes memory management behavior**. With higher values, the program uses more memory, with smaller values, it uses more CPU time. The default value is 70. I mean: 'tunes' should be a verb, right? The percentage tunes memory management..., if I've understood correctly. So it could be: It is a percentage *that* tunes memory management behaviour. I don't know if this is good english, but I can understand it better. What you're proposing is good English, and makes sense where the original did not. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bar check warning
what an inimical reply - did you report this bug!? -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Bar-check-warning-tp31176893p31179905.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: Bar check warning
-Eluze elu...@gmail.com writes: what an inimical reply - did you report this bug!? The original posting contains a perfectly self-contained illustrative example. I don't see that I can improve on that. Add a subject line like \addlyrics misinterprets barchecks, and you are set. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:14:48AM +0200, Dmytro O. Redchuk wrote: On Thu 17 Mar 2011, 18:08 Kieren MacMillan wrote: Unfortunately, lower barrier of entry almost always means more crap to sift through. The more crap -- the lower criteria barrier for what is `crap'?. The more crap will become normal and even good thing. Has that happened with books? Have stories become total crap over the past 10/50/200 years? I mean, (almost) everybody [in certain countries] can write text. 500 years ago, only priests and the very rich could read and write. 10 years ago, (almost) everybody [in certain countries] has access to computers and the internet. With computers in public libraries, if not their own homes. Does the amount of webfiction (including fanfics and original material) available on the internet mean that we can no longer distinguish between good writing and bad writing? I don't think so. But there's essentially no barrier to entry -- you can get a free blogspot or something account, and start posting your stories immediately. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:17:47AM +0100, Marc Hohl wrote: Just adding articulate.ly in ly/ and giving one example in the docs is probably not what you expect ... Why not? That's certainly how I'd start going about this. I haven't looked at it, so I might notice some problem with that approach when I see a patch. Or other people might notice some problem with the approach. But that's definitely how to begin. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:14:48AM +0200, Dmytro O. Redchuk wrote: On Thu 17 Mar 2011, 18:08 Kieren MacMillan wrote: Unfortunately, lower barrier of entry almost always means more crap to sift through. The more crap -- the lower criteria barrier for what is `crap'?. The more crap will become normal and even good thing. Has that happened with books? Have stories become total crap over the past 10/50/200 years? The average Usenet flame is less edifying to read than, say, Old French fabliaux, or equivalent verbiage like The Miller's Tale in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Mind you, those _are_ actually examples for unbelievably crude trash. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
On Fri 18 Mar 2011, 10:44 Graham Percival wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:14:48AM +0200, Dmytro O. Redchuk wrote: On Thu 17 Mar 2011, 18:08 Kieren MacMillan wrote: Unfortunately, lower barrier of entry almost always means more crap to sift through. The more crap -- the lower criteria barrier for what is `crap'?. The more crap will become normal and even good thing. Has that happened with books? Have stories become total crap over the past 10/50/200 years? :-) I don't know. We can't measure this. Do we have the same sensitivity as our grandfathers? I mean, (almost) everybody [in certain countries] can write text. 500 years ago, only priests and the very rich could read and write. 10 years ago, (almost) everybody [in certain countries] has access to computers and the internet. With computers in public libraries, if not their own homes. Good example! And (almost) everybody makes a huge amount of mistakes (which are not considered as mistakes by those who makes them, of course), which (mistakes) change language(s) (almost) completely! ;O) Ze drem vil finali kum tru! (sorry for my English though) Does the amount of webfiction (including fanfics and original material) available on the internet mean that we can no longer distinguish between good writing and bad writing? I don't think so. Can we measure? Yes, we can distinguish between (relatively) good and (relatively) bad. But can we measure this, indeed? Can we be sure, that our good literature is as good as our grandfather's good literature? And the same for our bad? We can't. But there's essentially no barrier to entry -- you can get a free blogspot or something account, and start posting your stories immediately. And i believe that lowering the barrier makes us believe that our good literature is as good as... but it actually isn't. Augean stables. Everything smells quite good. .O) yes, i agree, we can't measure. This is my assumption only. -- Dmytro O. Redchuk Bug Squad ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Usage 1.2, Environment variables: missing conjunction?
Hello, )-Original Message- )From: lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org )[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] On )Behalf Of Phil Holmes )Sent: 18 March 2011 09:49 )To: Federico Bruni; lilypond-user mailinglist )Subject: Re: Usage 1.2, Environment variables: missing conjunction? ) )- Original Message - )From: Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com )To: lilypond-user mailinglist lilypond-user@gnu.org )Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 7:29 AM )Subject: Usage 1.2, Environment variables: missing conjunction? ) ) ) )http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/usage/command_002dline )-usage#environment-variables ) ) Maybe in **this sentence** something is missing? ) ) LILYPOND_GC_YIELD ) )With this variable the memory footprint and performance can be ) adjusted. **It is a percentage tunes memory management behavior**. )With ) higher values, the program uses more memory, with smaller values, it ) uses more CPU time. The default value is 70. ) ) ) I mean: 'tunes' should be a verb, right? ) The percentage tunes memory management..., if I've understood ) correctly. ) ) So it could be: It is a percentage *that* tunes memory management ) behaviour. ) I don't know if this is good english, but I can understand it better. ) ) )What you're proposing is good English, and makes sense where the )original )did not. ) I'll make a small patch. James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Graham, Has that happened with books? Have stories become total crap over the past 10/50/200 years? Actually, yes: no author made a million dollars writing a Harlequin Romance novel in the 1500s. :) To be clear, I'm not saying -- as many, many music lovers do -- that good music stopped being written when Brahms died. Anyone who knows me well knows it's quite the opposite: 99% of the time, I would rather listen to music of my time than of some past era. What I *am* saying is that just because my neighbour can now write and perform a symphony (quoted for a reason) in his garage does not make it good music. Does the amount of webfiction (including fanfics and original material) available on the internet mean that we can no longer distinguish between good writing and bad writing? I don't think so. I *do* think so -- and recent studies on youth support my belief with evidence. On the music side, consider the fact that recent studies have shown a majority of young people prefer the sound of compressed audio (e.g., low- to medium-bitrate MP3s) to uncompressed audio. [Pause here to fully appreciate the horror of that statement.] Independent of the content of the music itself -- the debate about which is far more subjective -- many listeners can no longer appreciate what music is physically supposed to sound like. A lower barrier of entry by definition allows people to get into the field with less experience, less training, less discipline, less persistence, and so on. Are there some benefits to this? Sure. Does it increase the amount of crap we have to wade through. Absolutely. I have yet to see any field -- athletics, art, construction, law, comedy, whatever -- where a lower barrier of entry doesn't increase the amount of crap. And, unfortunately, I also see in the audience for that field a concomitant decrease in discriminatory powers. C'est la vie, I suppose… But saying it isn't so doesn't MAKE it not so. Cheers, Kieren. p.s. I know I'm generalizing here... but that's what this kind of thread encourages, so if you don't like it, you can take your ball and go home. :) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
David, The average Usenet flame is less edifying to read than, say, Old French fabliaux, or equivalent verbiage like The Miller's Tale in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. That may be the understatement of the year. =) Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Hi Dmytro, I don't know. We can't measure this. Do we have the same sensitivity as our grandfathers? We *can* measure this, and we don't. Studies have been done in visual perception, auditory perception, rate of data absorption, and detail extraction -- and all of them point to a decrease in sensitivity in the past half-century. (Unfortunately, there's no data from before that to compare it to -- but most of these studies agree that the curve has likely continued for a lot longer.) Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Hello, )-Original Message- )From: lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org )[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] On )Behalf Of Kieren MacMillan )Sent: 18 March 2011 11:15 )To: Graham Percival )Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org )Subject: Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music ) ) ... -- and recent studies on youth support my belief with )evidence. On the music side, consider the fact that recent studies have )shown a majority of young people prefer the sound of compressed audio )(e.g., low- to medium-bitrate MP3s) to uncompressed audio. [Pause here )to fully appreciate the horror of that statement.] do you have any reference to those recent studies? Not being inflammatory but am genuinely interested. My own anecdotal evidence is that it depends on the 'depth' and how much you 'study' music as a profession or significant hobby (i.e. amateur conductor/composer) about the quality of the output vs the construction of the melody/music itself. That is it doesn't matter if the music is buzzing out of a tinny radio or £5,000 pound speakers to them, let alone worry about bit rates./compression and whatever it is they do to make everything loud (equalize?). Anyway my point is that I think psychologically in this case it DOES matter what the content is and the fact is some types of music suffer far less with compression than others - to generalise, music that has a lot of quiet parts 'suffers' far more from the music that has a constant volume where overall volume/dynamics are less important. Also I expect that you'd notice less compression in a piece of music if you were very familiar with it simply because your brain would 'fill in' the 'gaps' and compensate for the compression 'failings'. James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
On 18/03/11 22:32, James Lowe wrote: Hello, )-Original Message- )From: lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org )[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] On )Behalf Of Kieren MacMillan )Sent: 18 March 2011 11:15 )To: Graham Percival )Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org )Subject: Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music ) ) ... -- and recent studies on youth support my belief with )evidence. On the music side, consider the fact that recent studies have )shown a majority of young people prefer the sound of compressed audio )(e.g., low- to medium-bitrate MP3s) to uncompressed audio. [Pause here )to fully appreciate the horror of that statement.] do you have any reference to those recent studies? Not being inflammatory but am genuinely interested. My own anecdotal evidence is that it depends on the 'depth' and how much you 'study' music as a profession or significant hobby (i.e. amateur conductor/composer) about the quality of the output vs the construction of the melody/music itself. That is it doesn't matter if the music is buzzing out of a tinny radio or £5,000 pound speakers to them, let alone worry about bit rates./compression and whatever it is they do to make everything loud (equalize?). My observation, from having worked in a recording studio and at an University FM station in my youth, is that there is usually an inverse relationship between people's interest in hifi and how much live music they participate in, whether as performer or listener. In other words, the biggest hifi zealots are usually those who don't listen to much live music, and, except for the mastering of a recording they've just made, musicians aren't too fussed about getting absolute fidelity of reproduction when listening to recordings. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
2011/3/18 Dmytro O. Redchuk brownian@gmail.com On Fri 18 Mar 2011, 10:44 Graham Percival wrote: Has that happened with books? Have stories become total crap over the past 10/50/200 years? :-) I don't know. We can't measure this. Do we have the same sensitivity as our grandfathers? [...] Can we be sure, that our good literature is as good as our grandfather's good literature? And the same for our bad? These are exactly the questions that should be asked! cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \score block as variable/function
Xavier Scheuer wrote:
But actually I'd prefer to use the \score block in a command that
would take only the notes as argument. ;p
Your solution does not work for a \score block within a music function.
\markup {
\column {
\scoreTwo d'1
}
}
Ideas?
Many thanks!
i have attached an example with score + layout definitions which you can
imbed later in markups or scores:
http://old.nabble.com/file/p31180922/test2.ly test2.ly
hope this is what you looked for
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/%5Cscore-block-as-variable-function-tp31147554p31180922.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: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Hi James, do you have any reference to those recent studies? Search Google for study prefer mp3s berger and you'll find the MP3 study. My own anecdotal evidence is that it depends on the 'depth' and how much you 'study' music as a profession or significant hobby Definitely. And -- a propos to this thread -- the average person in, say, 1850, who made it through the sieve into a musical career had a greater depth and more study than the average person today who does the same, because the sieve has larger holes (lower barrier of entry) and is more localized (q.v., the waning influence of AR reps). I think psychologically in this case it DOES matter what the content is and the fact is some types of music suffer far less with compression than others - to generalise, music that has a lot of quiet parts 'suffers' far more from the music that has a constant volume where overall volume/dynamics are less important. True... Furthermore music which is less compressed and/or normalized in mastering suffers less from audio compression, due to its inherently more narrow dynamic and timbral range. I'm not saying that isn't a factor (nor was Berger, for example) -- I'm simply pointing out that the study attempted to control for content. Also I expect that you'd notice less compression in a piece of music if you were very familiar with it simply because your brain would 'fill in' the 'gaps' and compensate for the compression 'failings'. Interesting idea… Berger definitely suggests that students who are more comfortable with compressed audio tend[ed] to prefer it more, e.g., over time the preference grew. Furthermore, there is evidence that many producers are now mastering music to ear buds, which obviously changes the sound versus other options. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Hi Nick, My observation, from having worked in a recording studio and at an University FM station in my youth, is that there is usually an inverse relationship between people's interest in hifi and how much live music they participate in, whether as performer or listener. In other words, the biggest hifi zealots are usually those who don't listen to much live music, and, except for the mastering of a recording they've just made, musicians aren't too fussed about getting absolute fidelity of reproduction when listening to recordings. My experience as composer and CD editor/producer (all anecdotal of course) is the opposite, at least from the classical perspective: people who listen to and/or perform more live music (solos, chamber music, choirs, symphonies, etc.) prefer their recordings to have higher fidelity. I myself have experienced a related effect: the longer I go without hearing live music, the less I appear to be bothered by the digital artifacts in modern recordings. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \score block as variable/function
On 18 March 2011 14:00, -Eluze elu...@gmail.com wrote:
i have attached an example with score + layout definitions which you can
imbed later in markups or scores:
http://old.nabble.com/file/p31180922/test2.ly test2.ly
hope this is what you looked for
My goal is actually _not_ to have to write several
\score {
% ...
\layout {}
}
stuffs, but instead to define a _function_ (music-function?) that would
be shorter to write and that would take only the notes as argument.
Instead of having to write
scoreOne = \markup \score {
c'1
\layout {}
}
scoreTwo = \markup \score {
d'1
\layout {}
}
\markup \fill-line {
\scoreOne \scoreTwo
}
I'd like to use a music function in order to be able to write
% writeScore is the music function I want but I was not able to define
one = \writeScore { c'1 }
two = \writeScore { d'1 }
\markup \fill-line {
\one \two
}
Cordialement,
Xavier
--
Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Hello, )-Original Message- )From: lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org )[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] On )Behalf Of Janek Warchol )Sent: 18 March 2011 12:43 )To: Dmytro O. Redchuk; Graham Percival; Kieren MacMillan; lilypond- )u...@gnu.org )Subject: Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music ) )2011/3/18 Dmytro O. Redchuk brownian@gmail.com ) ) On Fri 18 Mar 2011, 10:44 Graham Percival wrote: ) Has that happened with books? Have stories become total crap over ) the past 10/50/200 years? ) :-) ) ) I don't know. We can't measure this. Do we have the same sensitivity ) as our grandfathers? [...] Can we be sure, that our good literature ) is as good as our grandfather's good literature? And the same for )our bad? ) )These are exactly the questions that should be asked! ) And they are, just not as explicitly as some would like here. When you are a 'grandfather' you will know the answer because the 'good' stuff of today will still be around or known and the 'bad' stuff will not (or rather it will be 'somewhere' but everyone will have forgotten about it). I am sure there are some exceptions but they won't be the rule, and of course things like distribution 'back in your grandfather's day' would have made some differences, but this frankly is not a consideration in our linked world today. We are exposed to more good and bad stuff than ever before. That's not to say that I think that all the classical literature (for example) that is still available and didn't die and disappear after its first publication, is 'good' but I do believe it is 'probably, more than likely' better than the stuff that didn't survive or is no longer available. James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Hi James, When you are a 'grandfather' you will know the answer because the 'good' stuff of today will still be around or known and the 'bad' stuff will not (or rather it will be 'somewhere' but everyone will have forgotten about it). Yes, the Sieve of Time is a powerful arbiter of taste. =) We are exposed to more good and bad stuff than ever before. Agreed. And I think this increased exposure is a good thing, in and of itself. That's not to say that I think that all the classical literature (for example) that is still available and didn't die and disappear after its first publication, is 'good' but I do believe it is 'probably, more than likely' better than the stuff that didn't survive or is no longer available. There must be examples in both directions, of course: bad stuff surviving (even thriving!), and good stuff disappearing. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
On 3/18/11, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: Graham, Has that happened with books? Have stories become total crap over the past 10/50/200 years? Actually, yes: no author made a million dollars writing a Harlequin Romance novel in the 1500s. :) Hmm. I'll admit that penny dreadfuls were in the 1800s, not 1500s... but I'm certain that the 1500s still had raunchy, low-class theatrical plays and songs. I don't believe that everybody sat around in their castles writing Nobel-quality poetry to each other. What I *am* saying is that just because my neighbour can now write and perform a symphony (quoted for a reason) in his garage does not make it good music. Of course not! But regardless of quality, it *is* music. It's a human being active, instead of watching American Idol. It's a human being creative. I don't care about the profession of music, be it performers or composers. I don't care about Music, with a capital 'M', being the history and academic study of good music. I consider jazz music to be the most important musical invention in the 20th century; far outweighing 12-tone music, Cage, minimalism, or any innovation in academic music. (the second-most important would be rock/pop music, even though I don't know what the difference between the two -- and note that I don't even like Jazz music, and can't stand most rock and pop music) I care about human creativity. A bunch of teenagers in a grungy basement in Seattle in the 1980s writing songs about how emo they are, using nothing but power chords, is more creative than somebody sitting in their living room listening to a CD or Mozart string quartets. A middle-aged housewife writing homoerotic star trek fan fiction is more creative than somebody listening to a CD of Debussy piano music. I'm not saying that we need to be creative all the time -- sometimes it's good to relax, and of course it's good to listen/read/view a lot of art to get ideas to use in your own works. But I think that creating new art (of any quality) is more creative than looking at existing works. Classical music is no guarantee of high art. I used to play cello in quartets for weddings and dinner banquets. When we played Pachelbel's Canon, I spent most of my time glancing at the neck-lines of women's dresses. Ditto for Mozart divertimento 136. They're both great crowd-favourites, they both have easy cello parts (I memorized them without trying to), and they require virtually no creativity from the cello player. At least, not for the venue of providing background music while people mingle and drink wine. I *do* think so -- and recent studies on youth support my belief with evidence. On the music side, consider the fact that recent studies have shown a majority of young people prefer the sound of compressed audio (e.g., low- to medium-bitrate MP3s) to uncompressed audio. [Pause here to fully appreciate the horror of that statement.] What am I supposed to be horrified by? Listening to music produces a subjective feeling in humans. Suppose I receive the most aural pleasure by listening to Shostakovich music, passed through a low-pass filter at 50 Hz. (for non-engineers: this means I can hear some muffled boom noises, and no chance at melody or anything like that). So what? Tastes change, trends change. Am I supposed to be horrified by the clothing fashion in the 1960s and 1970s? They look ridiculous now, but (presumably) back then people thought they were trendy. Maybe 30 years from now, real audio (i.e. not compressed, not lossy) recordings will be all the rage. Maybe not. I don't see either one as a problem. A lower barrier of entry by definition allows people to get into the field with less experience, less training, less discipline, less persistence, and so on. Are there some benefits to this? Sure. Does it increase the amount of crap we have to wade through. Absolutely. Of course! That's why reviewers -- be they humans, or computer recommendation systems (which is a big area of research) -- are becoming more important. The most famous computer recommendation system is google, of course. Given 1234 trillion websites (or whatever), you ask it ubuntu pulseaudio not working, and it recommends a list of 10 websites it thinks you want to see. It's not perfect, of course... but given the number of websites out there, and how certain people try to 'game' the ranking... I think that google is pretty fantastic at this particular recommendation task. Other people are working on music recommendation. If you like music A, B, and C, then which tracks out of all 297,814 tracks on Jamendo (free and legal downloads) will appeal to you? In the grand scheme of things, 300,000 pieces of music is only a drop in the bucket of all music recordings... but it's a useful place to work on such recommendation systems. Other people do this with youtube, doing the machine learning on audio and video signals. (some of these systems
Re: Roman numerals in my number sequence
fancy-format becomes the name for the ice-9 format function. format becomes the name for ergonomic-simple-format. So you can see that format is redefined to be simple-format. Thanks Carl. All is clearer. So, by default, you should use format and reserve fancy-format for specific uses (ie for advanced developpers who know what they do). For those who want more infos about format, here are 2 links (no so easy to find, for me at least) : simple-format : http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/guile.html#Writing format : http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/guile.html#Formatted-Output Gilles ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
On 3/18/11, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: Yes, the Sieve of Time is a powerful arbiter of taste. =) IMO, it is the *only* arbiter of (general population) taste. While the *only* arbiter of your personal taste is you. There must be examples in both directions, of course: bad stuff surviving (even thriving!), and good stuff disappearing. WTM does it mean for bad stuff to thrive? IMO, If something thrives, then it's good stuff. I might not personally like it (I wouldn't shed a tear if all rap music vanished), but I don't have any reason or evidence to call it bad stuff. (unless I'm going for a post-modern ironic yeah, gangsta rap is bad, dude! It's so bad it's, like, nasty and gnarly!) We've inevitably reached this point: do you have an objective definition of good music? If so, share it. If not, then accept that Elvis[1] produced better music than John Cage. [1] NB: by Elvis, I mean the collection of people who wrote/composed/arranged the music that Elvis sang, which quite possibly include German folk songs from four centuries ago. I'm quite aware that (unfortunately) modern pop music ignores the work of almost everybody other than the main star, or possibly stars in a rock band. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Kieren MacMillan wrote Friday, March 18, 2011 1:23 PM There must be examples in both directions, of course: bad stuff surviving (even thriving!), and good stuff disappearing. Didn't Bach's compositions vanish from the wider public for c. 100 years until Mendelssohn discovered and revived his St Matthew Passion? Of course, we can't know about good stuff that vanished and has not been rediscovered :) Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
Am 2011-03-18 um 11:47 schrieb Graham Percival: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:17:47AM +0100, Marc Hohl wrote: Just adding articulate.ly in ly/ and giving one example in the docs is probably not what you expect ... Why not? That's certainly how I'd start going about this. I haven't looked at it, so I might notice some problem with that approach when I see a patch. Or other people might notice some problem with the approach. But that's definitely how to begin. I wouldn’t make articulate default – I try it with every song I typeset and like the result not always. E.g. chords get shortened, that sounds ugly, esp. with organ or the like. Or would I’ve to mark all chords tenuto? Of course I can \articulate only some voices - but therefore it must not be default. Didn’t check: Does articulate handle fermatas/ritardandos? 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: Suppress NoteNames output on ties ?
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Michael Ellis
michael.f.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible to tell the NoteNames engraver to print the name for
only the first note of a sequence of tied notes?
mymusic = { c'4 c' ~ c'2 }
\score {
\new Voice \mymusic
\context NoteNames \mymusic
}
Didn't get any replies. Does anyone know the answer to this?
Thanks,
Mike
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
2011/3/18 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca: On 3/18/11, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: Graham, Has that happened with books? Have stories become total crap over the past 10/50/200 years? Actually, yes: no author made a million dollars writing a Harlequin Romance novel in the 1500s. :) Hmm. I'll admit that penny dreadfuls were in the 1800s, not 1500s... but I'm certain that the 1500s still had raunchy, low-class theatrical plays and songs. I don't believe that everybody sat around in their castles writing Nobel-quality poetry to each other. On the other hand, those people (watching low-class plays and singing low-class songs) usually had no choice nor opportunities to learn how to sing or act better. I mean, the problem is that today the good stuff isn't much more expensive than crap (i mean good art, not musical instruments for example), so people are not restricted to crap because of money problems, but still they choose crap. 200 years ago if you wanted to watch beautiful paintings, you had to be rich and buy some. Today you can buy a decent reproduction almost for free. I care about human creativity. A bunch of teenagers in a grungy basement in Seattle in the 1980s writing songs about how emo they are, using nothing but power chords, is more creative than somebody sitting in their living room listening to a CD or Mozart string quartets. A middle-aged housewife writing homoerotic star trek fan fiction is more creative than somebody listening to a CD of Debussy piano music. I'm not saying that we need to be creative all the time -- sometimes it's good to relax, and of course it's good to listen/read/view a lot of art to get ideas to use in your own works. But I think that creating new art (of any quality) is more creative than looking at existing works. As long as you don't say that creativity is the most important aspect of human existence, i think i agree. Classical music is no guarantee of high art. I used to play cello in quartets for weddings and dinner banquets. When we played Pachelbel's Canon, I spent most of my time glancing at the neck-lines of women's dresses. Ditto for Mozart divertimento 136. They're both great crowd-favourites, they both have easy cello parts (I memorized them without trying to), and they require virtually no creativity from the cello player. At least, not for the venue of providing background music while people mingle and drink wine. I remember! You wrote a Revenge-Of-Cellist-Bored-By-Playing-Pachelbel's-Canon! Unfortunately it's not available on your webpage now... I *do* think so -- and recent studies on youth support my belief with evidence. On the music side, consider the fact that recent studies have shown a majority of young people prefer the sound of compressed audio (e.g., low- to medium-bitrate MP3s) to uncompressed audio. [Pause here to fully appreciate the horror of that statement.] What am I supposed to be horrified by? Listening to music produces a subjective feeling in humans. Suppose I receive the most aural pleasure by listening to Shostakovich music, passed through a low-pass filter at 50 Hz. (for non-engineers: this means I can hear some muffled boom noises, and no chance at melody or anything like that). So what? I think the problem is what exactly were they questioned about? Was is which one do you like better listening to? (a question about taste, to which your above example correspons good) or which one is better quality/is more similar to 'live audio'? (a technical question about perception and hearing abilities). A lower barrier of entry by definition allows people to get into the field with less experience, less training, less discipline, less persistence, and so on. Are there some benefits to this? Sure. Does it increase the amount of crap we have to wade through. Absolutely. Of course! That's why reviewers -- be they humans, or computer recommendation systems (which is a big area of research) -- are becoming more important. +1 cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Bar check warning
I am a new user.
I get a bar check warning from this snippet (Rogers and Hart's Have You Met
Miss Jones?)
If I delete the first bar, I don't get the warning. Is this a bug, or am I
doing something wrong?
(Do I have to represent the rest somehow?)
\relative c'' {
\key f \major
| c1 | r4 d d d |
}
\addlyrics {
| free. | And all at |
}
\version 2.13.23
Processing `/Users//lily/m2.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...
/Users//lily/m2.ly:9:10: warning: barcheck failed at: 0/0
| free.
| And all at |
Preprocessing graphical objects...
Solving 1 page-breaking chunks...[1: 1 pages]
Drawing systems...
Layout output to `m2.ps'...
Converting to `./m2.pdf'...
success: Compilation successfully completed
Thanks for your attention.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Bar-check-warning-tp31176893p31176893.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: \score block as variable/function
Xavier Scheuer wrote:
I'd like to use a music function in order to be able to write
% writeScore is the music function I want but I was not able to define
one = \writeScore { c'1 }
two = \writeScore { d'1 }
\markup \fill-line {
\one \two
}
then you should try this (contributed by Nicolas Sceaux
http://old.nabble.com/%5Cscore-inside-define-markup-command-ts22153506.html
http://old.nabble.com/%5Cscore-inside-define-markup-command-ts22153506.html
)
which seems nearly what you're looking for!
\version 2.13.54
#(define-markup-command (testmusic layout props music) (ly:music?)
(let ((score (ly:make-score music))
(score-layout (ly:output-def-clone $defaultlayout)))
;; possibly, change some settings in the \layout block
(ly:output-def-set-variable! score-layout 'indent 0)
;; add the \layout block to the score
(ly:score-add-output-def! score score-layout)
(interpret-markup layout props (markup #:vcenter #:score score
music = {a' b' c'' d''}
one = \markup { \testmusic ##{ \music #} }
two = \markup { \testmusic ##{ \music #} }
three = \markup { \testmusic ##{ \music #} }
\markup \fill-line {
\one
\two
\three
}
cheers
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/%5Cscore-block-as-variable-function-tp31147554p31181636.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: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
On Fri 18 Mar 2011, 13:31 Graham Percival wrote: But regardless of quality, it *is* music. It's a human being active, instead of watching American Idol. It's a human being creative. :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_RVLOsUW6U Those who programmed it, are *very* creative. They did it for money, they did it just for fun --- doesn't matter. They've got a lot of fun, i guess. Those musicians are creative, too, of course. What about those, who are listening and watching this just another idol? Isn't it just the same fun (as if watching Americal Idol)? Can't imagine how many issues they could fix instead of that waste of time... =:O] Seriously --- our creativity can make other people more active or make them watching just another idol. The lower the barrier --- the more crap. The more crap --- the more just another idols and the less of creativity. I think so. It is not a bad thing. It is the law :O) Seriously --- we can not change this. -- Dmytro O. Redchuk Bug Squad ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Graham (et al.), I'll admit that penny dreadfuls were in the 1800s, not 1500s Actually, some of those penny dreadfuls were far from it! =) but I'm certain that the 1500s still had raunchy, low-class theatrical plays and songs. I don't believe that everybody sat around in their castles writing Nobel-quality poetry to each other. True -- I've never argued that. I don't care about the profession of music, be it performers or composers. I don't care about Music, with a capital 'M', being the history and academic study of good music. I care [quite deeply] about Music, as distinct from 'the history and academic study of good music'. I consider jazz music to be the most important musical invention in the 20th century I do, too -- but there was (and is) better and worse jazz, judged from all sorts of standards: historical importance, technical significance, popular appeal, etc. I don't even like Jazz music, and can't stand most rock and pop music I love good music of all genres. I care about human creativity. As do I. For example, to me, the most important to note about the Bible (full disclosure: I'm a devout a-theist) is that the first and most important sentence is about an act of creation. Everything after that is downhill, in my opinion. And, when I painfully stretch the analogy, I always argue that God created us in his own image is code for We are built to create. A bunch of teenagers in a grungy basement in Seattle in the 1980s writing songs about how emo they are, using nothing but power chords, is more creative than somebody sitting in their living room listening to a CD or Mozart string quartets. A middle-aged housewife writing homoerotic star trek fan fiction is more creative than somebody listening to a CD of Debussy piano music. [...] But I think that creating new art (of any quality) is more creative than looking at existing works. I'm baffled how you turned this thread into a comparison of active creation versus passive consumption... I would never in a million years argue that consumption is more important or valid or useful than creation -- I'm pretty sure most sane people would agree. Rather, I'm railing against the following [possibly inevitable, but still disheartening] reality: In the 1940s, a barometer of popular taste was Frank Sinatra (who could sing/croon/perform, but not really write lyrics or music) singing/performing/crooning songs written by others (who *could* write lyrics and/or music, but not sing/croon/perform). In the 1960s, the barometer was Bob Dylan (who can write great lyrics, and good music, but can't sing to save his life) singing his own songs. Today, the barometer is people who can do none of the above, doing *all* of the above -- heavily assisted by AutoTune™, AutoCorrect™, and all the other AutoCrutches™ creators have come to rely on, and (more unfortunately) consumers have come to accept (or even prefer). Classical music is no guarantee of high art. I never said it was. (Aside: Kramer's Why Classical Music Still Matters is an interesting and worthwhile read, even if I don't agree with everything he writes.) What am I supposed to be horrified by? You can choose to be (or not be) horrified by whatever you want. I continue to be horrified by the creative apathy which (IMO) feeds the drive towards consumptive apathy you claim to dislike. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Hi Graham, IMO, it is the *only* arbiter of (general population) taste. Not true -- like it or not, there are forces beyond general population taste which apply to the Sieve of Time. While the *only* arbiter of your personal taste is you. Agreed. IMO, If something thrives, then it's good stuff. You and I have very different philosophies on persistence. do you have an objective definition of good music? If so, share it. I have a definition which includes non-subjective criteria. But purely objective? Of course not -- I can't imagine there could ever be such a thing. accept that Elvis[1] produced better music than John Cage. Elvis's best music *is* better than Cage's best music -- what's your point? =) Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Janek: I think the problem is what exactly were they questioned about? Was is which one do you like better listening to? (a question about taste, to which your above example correspons good) or which one is better quality/is more similar to 'live audio'? (a technical question about perception and hearing abilities). +1 We are [continuously] losing our ability to fully perform the very task we claim to be doing (i.e., listening to music) -- or even be aware of the fact that we're losing that ability. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Hi Trevor, There must be examples in both directions, of course: bad stuff surviving (even thriving!), and good stuff disappearing. Didn't Bach's compositions vanish from the wider public for c. 100 years until Mendelssohn discovered and revived his St Matthew Passion? Yes. Of course, we can't know about good stuff that vanished and has not been rediscovered :) Have you ever heard Mozart's son's piano music? There are some pieces (especially the Mazurkas) which are clearly superior in construction and emotional depth to many of the more popular -- and thus, by Graham's definition, better -- pieces of other composers. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Dmytro, our creativity can make other people more active or make them watching just another idol. The lower the barrier --- the more crap. The more crap --- the more just another idols and the less of creativity. I couldn't have put it better myself. It is not a bad thing. It is the law Also true. =) Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
2011/3/18 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:17:47AM +0100, Marc Hohl wrote:
Just adding articulate.ly in ly/ and giving one example in the docs
is probably not what you expect ...
Why not? That's certainly how I'd start going about this. I
haven't looked at it, so I might notice some problem with that
approach when I see a patch. Or other people might notice some
problem with the approach. But that's definitely how to begin.
The attached patch includes and documents the Articulate script.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com
From 783b15d3ff1d45cda9856b68cc80aa13a397d90b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Francisco Vila francisco.v...@hispalinux.es
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:52:31 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Include and document the Articulate script by Peter Chubb.
---
Documentation/notation/input.itely | 57 +++-
ly/articulate.ly | 668
2 files changed, 724 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 ly/articulate.ly
diff --git a/Documentation/notation/input.itely b/Documentation/notation/input.itely
index 131b445..1a4afab 100644
--- a/Documentation/notation/input.itely
+++ b/Documentation/notation/input.itely
@@ -1686,6 +1686,10 @@ what was entered. This is convenient for checking the music; octaves
that are off or accidentals that were mistyped stand out very much
when listening to the MIDI output.
+Standard MIDI oputput is somewhat crude; optionally, an enhanced and
+more realistic MIDI output is available by means of the Articulate
+script.
+
@c TODO Check this
The midi output allocates a channel for each staff, and one for global
settings. Therefore the midi file should not have more than 15 staves
@@ -1908,6 +1912,13 @@ within a score block defined with a @code{\score} command.
@cindex MIDI, chord names
@cindex Rhythms in MIDI
@cindex MIDI, Rhythms
+@cindex Articlulate scripts
+@cindex MIDI, articulations
+@cindex articulations in MIDI
+@cindex trills in MIDI
+@cindex turns in MIDI
+@cindex rallentando in MIDI
+@cindex accelerando in MIDI
@c TODO etc
The following items of notation are reflected in the MIDI output:
@@ -1926,11 +1937,22 @@ player that supports pitch bend.)
@item Lyrics
@end itemize
+Using the Articulate script, a number of items are added to the above
+list:
+
+@itemize
+@item Articulations (slurs, staccato, etc)
+@item Trills, turns
+@item Rallentando and accelerando
+@end itemize
+
+
@unnumberedsubsubsec Unsupported in MIDI
@c TODO index as above
-The following items of notation have no effect on the MIDI output:
+The following items of notation have no effect on the MIDI output,
+except those enabled by the Articulate script when it is used:
@itemize
@item Rhythms entered as annotations, e.g. swing
@@ -2273,4 +2295,37 @@ set.
Because the general MIDI standard does not contain rim shots, the
sidestick is used for this purpose instead.
+@node The Articulate script
+@subsection The Articulate script
+
+A more realistic MIDI output is possible when using the Articulate
+script. It tries to take articulations (slurs, staccato, etc) into
+account, by replacing notes with sequential music of suitably
+time-scaled note plus skip. It also tries to unfold trills turns
+etc., and take rallentendo and accelerando into account.
+
+@unnumberedsubsubsec Using the Articulate script
+
+To use the Articulate script, you have to include it at the top of
+your input file,
+
+@example
+\include articulate.ly
+@end example
+
+and in the @code{\score} section do
+
+@example
+\unfoldRepeats \articulate
+ all the rest of the score...
+
+@end example
+
+After altering your input file this way, the visual output is heavily
+altered, but the standard @code{\midi} block will produce a better
+MIDI file.
+
+@knownissues
+Articulate shortens chords and some music (esp. organ music) could
+sound worse.
diff --git a/ly/articulate.ly b/ly/articulate.ly
new file mode 100644
index 000..3e98c8e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ly/articulate.ly
@@ -0,0 +1,668 @@
+%
+% Copyright (C) 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 NICTA
+% Author: Peter Chubb peter.chubb AT nicta.com.au
+% $Id: articulate.ly,v 1.6 2011-03-15 22:46:11 peterc Exp $
+%
+%
+% This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+% it under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2,
+% as published by the Free Software Foundation.
+%
+% This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+% but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+% MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+% See the GNU General Public License for more details. It is
+% available in the Lilypond source tree, or at
+% http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
+%
+% This script tries to make MIDI output from LilyPond a little more realistic.
+% It tries to take articulations (slurs, staccato, etc) into account, by
+% replacing notes
Re: New version of articulate available
Francisco Vila wrote Friday, March 18, 2011 3:54 PM The attached patch includes and documents the Articulate script. Looks pretty good! My only comment is that it might be better to suggest two \score blocks, one for printing without \articulate and \midi, and one for playback with \articulate and \midi and without \layout. Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 04:54:12PM +0100, Francisco Vila wrote:
The attached patch includes and documents the Articulate script.
Looks pretty good, but I'd like to have a rietveld issue for
easier commenting.
+and in the @code{\score} section do
+
+@example
+\unfoldRepeats \articulate
+ all the rest of the score...
+
+@end example
Is this necessary to use articulate.ly ? I kind-of assumed that
this would only be necessary if you wanted to, umm, unfold the
repeats?
+After altering your input file this way, the visual output is heavily
+altered, but the standard @code{\midi} block will produce a better
+MIDI file.
Maybe we should beef up the use a separate score block for midi
stuff... but that's something that we can work on after getting
the initial patch accepted.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bar check warning
David Kastrup wrote: The original posting contains a perfectly self-contained illustrative example. I don't see that I can improve on that. Add a subject line like \addlyrics misinterprets barchecks, and you are set. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Thanks for the feedback. I have posted it to the bugs forum -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Bar-check-warning-tp31176893p31184410.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
Transposing chords
Hi,
As part of a teaching aid, I have the C major scale and the seven main chords
that I then want to transpose to other keys.
The code I have so far works well, but I'm having difficulty getting Lilypond
to
keep the transposed chords in the right range. For instance, in C major the
first two chords I have are C and F, with the F chord higher than the C. But
when it is transposed to G major, the G chord is in the right range, but the C
goes up to the next octave instead of down. I understand this is standard
Lilypond behaviour, but is there any way of overriding it? I've tried \relative
commands in various places but to no avail. A minimal example of what I have is
here:
\version 2.12.3
thechords = \chordmode {
c2 f
}
scale = \relative c' {
\clef treble
\key c \major
\time 4/4
c4 d e f g a b c \chordmode {\thechords}
}
\score {
\new Staff {
\scale
\transpose c g {\scale}
}
}
\layout{ }
What I want is the last C chord to be the same as the first. Is this possible?
I
did think about writing each chord sequence manually but that sort of defeats
the point...
-John
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
2011/3/18 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 04:54:12PM +0100, Francisco Vila wrote: The attached patch includes and documents the Articulate script. Looks pretty good, but I'd like to have a rietveld issue for easier commenting. I will try to do that, I've never done it. Gimme some time -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Transposing chords
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:24 PM, John Donovan mersey.vik...@gmail.com wrote:
\version 2.12.3
thechords = \chordmode {
c2 f
}
scale = \relative c' {
\clef treble
\key c \major
\time 4/4
c4 d e f g a b c \chordmode {\thechords}
}
\score {
\new Staff {
\scale
\transpose c g {\scale}
}
}
Hi John,
I've run into essentially the same problem transposing sets of
exercises into different keys. What's needed -- I think -- is a
scheme function that takes an absolute pitch range as one of its
arguments and alters the octave of the target pitch it if falls
outside the range. This would not be too terribly difficult to
program but getting it right could be a bit fussy because right is
somewhat subjective. For instance, do you want the scale to always
ascend without wrapping notes but keep the chord pitches within a
certain range? Is it ok to change the chord inversions?
I ended up doing it manually because I only had a few example forms to
transpose to all keys. If you have hundreds examples, it might be
worthwhile to write a scheme function. Hopefully someone has already
created something in the LSR that you might be able to adapt. I
wrote some code a few of months ago to do modal transpositions and
inversions. You might be able to scavenge some of procedures as a
starting point. For example, here's a function that takes some music
as input and applies a converter function to each pitch. If you can
figure out how to define an appropriate converter function to pass as
an argument you might be halfway there.
(define-public (change-pitches music converter)
Recurse through music, applying converter to pitches.
Converter is typically a transposer or an inverter as
defined above in this module, but may be user-defined.
The converter function must take a single pitch as its
argument and return a new pitch. These are LilyPond
scheme pitches, e.g. (ly:make-pitch 0 2 0).
(let ((elements (ly:music-property music 'elements))
(element (ly:music-property music 'element))
(pitch (ly:music-property music 'pitch)))
(cond
((ly:pitch? pitch)
(ly:music-set-property! music 'pitch (converter pitch)))
((pair? elements)
(map (lambda (x) (change-pitches x converter)) elements))
((ly:music? element)
(change-pitches element converter)
HTH,
Mike
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: Dmytro, our creativity can make other people more active or make them watching just another idol. The lower the barrier --- the more crap. The more crap --- the more just another idols and the less of creativity. I couldn't have put it better myself. The crap that disturbs me the most is when great art is put to petty ends to sell product. The reason most musicians despise the Pachelbel Canon has nothing to do with the quality of the composition. They're just sick of it, largely because it became so popular in the late '70s that it was the background of choice for commercials selling everything from luxury cars to baby powder. In a similar vein, I really love Carmina Burana but if I hear one more football or monster truck ad blaring O Fortuna I may be put off of it forever. Cheers, Mike ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
