Re: Guitars with capos
On 01/02/14 08:05, Federico Bruni wrote: 2014/2/1 Rachael Thomas Carlson r...@sleeplimited.org mailto:r...@sleeplimited.org Sometimes the standard notation is at sounding pitch and sometimes it is at pitch as if there were no capo. In all books I know (staff + tabstaff) I always see the latter: pitch as if it were no capo. I use transpose in the midi block so it plays at sounding pitch. In all books I know (which are piano score with chord accompaniment) it is written at sounding pitch, with the capo pitch in brackets, eg for capo 2 you might see D(C). I've never seen a dedicated guitar score with capo, so I can't comment on that. I don't think it made it into lilypond (I've still got the code) but I wrote a modification to the chord code that would automatically produce the bracketed notation. If that's wanted, I can dig it up again (life happened, and having got it working I didn't get it into a form acceptable to the maintainers... :-( Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Guitars with capos
On 01/31/2014 09:53 PM, Rachael Thomas Carlson wrote: In standard notation (without tabulature) you will often find that the music is written with the pitch notated as if there wasn't a capo. Very rarely will you find music that is written at sounding pitch with a capo. I'm a classic guitarist. I assure you that in my entire life I've never seen music for guitar (classic) where I was directed to capo at some position but read music written at sounding pitch. That's just nuts. Guitar is NOT a transposing instrument, not in that sense anyway. I have a lot of lute music that is transposed for guitar, and it is usually to be played with a capo in third position (3rd fret), then played as if that were where the nut is - i.e., as if there were no capo. That, of course, turns it into a transposing instrument. When I'm accompanying a singer (say, in a John Dowland song), they are typically in an entirely different key, so that we end up both actually making music in the same key. I hope that clears this up. It's very simple, actually: we place the capo where indicated, and play the music as written. If there's a capo, what we're playing is NOT what is actually heard - because of the capo. But we, as instrumentalists, get to keep our sanity. Over time, this has certain advantages. :) Tom -- ~~~ Tom Cloyd, MS MA (LMHC, WA State) Cedar City / St. George, UT, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332 * t...@tomcloyd.com (email) TomCloyd.com (website) * Sleight of Mind blog: Sleightmind.com (mental health issues) * Trauma Psych blog: http://thetraumapsych.wordpress.com * Trauma! A PTSD blog: http://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/traumaptsdblog/ * Founder: Google+ Trauma and Dissociation Education and Advocacy community ~~~ ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lowering an upper markup on the staff
Thanks, that override works the way I want.
Is there any way to put it in the variable itself so I won't have to repeat
it all along the tune?
I tried a lot of variation around
tic = \once \override TextScript.outside-staff-priority = ##f \once
\override TextScript.Y-offset = #-0.5 \markup { \beam #.5 #2 #.5 }
without finding the right syntax.
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/lowering-an-upper-markup-on-the-staff-tp158718p158743.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lowering an upper markup on the staff
olicha char...@dt.insu.cnrs.fr writes:
Thanks, that override works the way I want.
Is there any way to put it in the variable itself so I won't have to repeat
it all along the tune?
I tried a lot of variation around
tic = \once \override TextScript.outside-staff-priority = ##f \once
\override TextScript.Y-offset = #-0.5 \markup { \beam #.5 #2 #.5 }
without finding the right syntax.
I repeat:
I am not really interested in puzzling fragments together into something
that may or may not correspond to what you are using yourself.
If you want somebody to fill in the blanks, don't hand him an empty
paper.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \partcombine with chordal instruments
Hi,
I've been asked to typeset two guitar parts in an orchestral score. For
the full score the parts could be combined on one staff for which
\partcombine is good except where there are chords involved:
You could do something like:
\version 2.18.0
guitarI = {
\partcombineUnisono
e' a' e''2. r4
\partcombineChords
e' a' e''2. r4
\partcombineAutomatic
}
guitarII = {
e' a' e''2. r4
e' b' e''2. r4
}
\partcombine \guitarI \guitarII
I don't know about the dots in the second chord. To me it seems ok,but I
never play chords myself.
Greetings, Ed
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \partcombine with chordal instruments
Thank you for steering me in the right direction - somehow I must have
glazed over at that point in the documentation. It looks like there is
enough in those commands to do the job at hand.
Richard
On Sun, 2014-02-02 at 12:37 +0100, Ed Gordijn wrote:
Hi,
I've been asked to typeset two guitar parts in an orchestral score. For
the full score the parts could be combined on one staff for which
\partcombine is good except where there are chords involved:
You could do something like:
\version 2.18.0
guitarI = {
\partcombineUnisono
e' a' e''2. r4
\partcombineChords
e' a' e''2. r4
\partcombineAutomatic
}
guitarII = {
e' a' e''2. r4
e' b' e''2. r4
}
\partcombine \guitarI \guitarII
I don't know about the dots in the second chord. To me it seems ok,but
I never play chords myself.
Greetings, Ed
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New Progressive Rock songbook created with LilyPond
Peter Crighton petecrigh...@googlemail.com writes: 2014-01-29 Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org: Am 29.01.2014 01:52, schrieb Peter Crighton: Hello all, maybe this is of interest for some of you. Over the last months I created the accompanying songbook for Progressive Rock band Transatlantic’s new album Kaleidoscope. Like my last book for Neal Morse it was all done in LilyPond. I think this would warrant a Ponding (forwarding to but-lilypond). But it would be nice if there were at least an example page somewhere. Do I have to do anything in order for it to get into the Pondings? I sent a sample page to Radiant Records, so they could include it on their page, but they seem to have chosen not to do so, or probably they just forgot. However, the Look Inside feature on Amazon is now available, so here you can see some pages: http://www.amazon.com/Kaleidoscope-Songbook-Transatlantic/dp/0615947077/ I like the idea of writing a blog post. I have to see, though, if I can get round to it, at the moment I have to carefully ponder what to spend time on. I think that for media that are licensed proprietarily, this section of the GNU coding standards would apply: URL:https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html#References By contrast, it is ok to refer to journal articles and textbooks in the comments of a program for explanation of how it functions, even though they are non-free. This is because we don’t include such things in the GNU system even if they are free—they are outside the scope of what a software distribution needs to include. Referring to a web site that describes or recommends a non-free program is promoting that program, so please do not make links to (or mention by name) web sites that contain such material. This policy is relevant particularly for the web pages for a GNU package. Regarding the This is because we don’t include such things in the GNU system even if they are free—they are outside the scope of what a software distribution needs to include. angle: there _is_ the Mutopia project loosely affiliated with LilyPond which strives to provide freely redistributable music, so I don't think we should really be advertising proprietary media on our website. This is different to advertising particular _performances_ as those are, as opposed to media, not really in competition with free offers: visiting a commercial performance does not remove the incentive to visit or help create a free performance. So I'd lean against announcing non-free media created with the help of LilyPond on our website. I mean, the GCC website does not list as endorsement various kinds of proprietary software compiled using GCC either. So I'd suggest to use other channels for advertising non-free sheet music. LilyPond explicitly can be used for creating it, but if it is placed outside of the free software and media universe, there is no reason to additionally endorse it. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Scheme: default values?
On Sun, 2014-02-02 at 08:51 +0100, Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 29.01.2014 06:41, schrieb Graham King:
To generate MIDI output, I use a piece of boilerplate lilypond code,
containing:
\midi { \context { \Score tempoWholesPerMinute = #currentTempo }}
where it is expected that:
currentTempo = #(ly:make-moment TACTUS RF)
I would like to generalise the boilerplate code so that it works with
suitable defaults even when these variables have not been defined.
Where do you want to define these variables? If you want to use them
via the command line, you can do it as follows (untested!):
Thanks Marc. Normally, TACTUS and RF would be defined at the top level
of a .ly file that \include's the boilerplate. I'm now wondering
whether Guile's catch and throw mechanism is the way to go. There's
some reading and experimenting ahead...
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: how close are we to having an addAt or insertAt feature?
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: Bah. Got only 50% off, and a third of the rest is system time. At least an artificial test case went from 40 seconds to 2, but that is only a 95% reduction, so still a far cry from what I fantasized. And the wortliste still takes more than 6 minutes on my computer: dak@lola:/usr/local/tmp/wortliste$ time ../git/git blame wortliste /dev/null real 6m18.501s user 3m58.104s sys 2m17.880s Which is not even a factor of 3 as compared to previously: dak@lola:/usr/local/tmp/wortliste$ time git blame wortliste /dev/null real 18m28.269s user 15m54.080s sys 2m27.760s Found another worthwhile optimization making a difference (basically, not discarding and regenerating a blob that is going to get analyzed next anyway). In your use case where almost all changes happen in the same large file, this does make a bit of a difference, in particular regarding the system time (probably mostly expended on file reads). dak@lola:/usr/local/tmp/wortliste$ time ../git/git blame wortliste /dev/null real4m18.314s user2m59.460s sys 1m16.784s -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Layout issue when parsing line
well - the collision avoidance behavior of LilyPond may not be optimal here but you can simply -\tweak Glissando.Y-offset #-.5 there might be other solutions (just ask if you're not happy with this) Eluze Maybe he is happy with it. I am not quite, because it shifts the endpoint down, too. This could be solved by some extra-dy value. But in general, what I would want to achieve here is to move the glissando and all following notes to the right or to shorten the glissando on the left. I therefore tried to solve the original question with X-offset, extra-X-extend, X-extend and minimum-X-extend (not fully understanding all of them) but could not find a solution. Is there a way in LP to say: I need more space here between these two objects? Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Dynamics over-lapping with bar-lines
Following the problem I was having with dynamics in a flute part and a piano part not lining up, on the advice of the list I upgraded my LilyPond from v2.14.2 to 2.18.0. Problem of non-alignment solved. But I still find that dynamics often contact or even cross a bar-line. In the flute part of this piece it does not matter, of course, because the bar-line does not extend beyond the stave. But in the piano part it does matter. The problem is the same whether the dynamic marks are added in a Staff context or in a separate Dynamics context. How do I tell LilyPond not to superimpose dynamics and bar-lines? David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Layout issue when parsing line
Noeck wrote well - the collision avoidance behavior of LilyPond may not be optimal here but you can simply -\tweak Glissando.Y-offset #-.5 there might be other solutions (just ask if you're not happy with this) Eluze Maybe he is happy with it. I am not quite, because it shifts the endpoint down, too. This could be solved by some extra-dy value. I was expecting this question But in general, what I would want to achieve here is to move the glissando and all following notes to the right or to shorten the glissando on the left. I therefore tried to solve the original question with X-offset, extra-X-extend, X-extend and minimum-X-extend (not fully understanding all of them) but could not find a solution. so here are some tweaks/overrides: % move the glissando horizontally away from the starting note \override Glissando.bound-details.left.padding = #3 % move the glissando horizontally towards the landing note \override Glissando.bound-details.right.padding = #0 Is there a way in LP to say: I need more space here between these two objects? and for this last question: \override Glissando.minimum-length=15 which only works if you also override springs-and-rods: \override Glissando.springs-and-rods = #ly:spanner::set-spacing-rods I don't know where all these properties are listed systematically, but I assume Internals should be the place to start searching. Eluze -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Layout-issue-when-parsing-line-tp158730p158758.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Layout issue when parsing line
Hi Eluze, thanks a lot! so here are some tweaks/overrides: % move the glissando horizontally away from the starting note \override Glissando.bound-details.left.padding = #3 % move the glissando horizontally towards the landing note \override Glissando.bound-details.right.padding = #0 I have never used bound-details overrides. They seem to be usefult. Thanks for the hint. This already answers what I wanted to ask in the next question: Is there a way in LP to say: I need more space here between these two objects? and for this last question: \override Glissando.minimum-length=15 which only works if you also override springs-and-rods: \override Glissando.springs-and-rods = #ly:spanner::set-spacing-rods That helps to make the Glissando longer but not shorter (or like I put it: more space between the objects (dot and glissando)). But the padding above is fine. Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Layout issue when parsing line
Noeck wrote That helps to make the Glissando longer but not shorter (or like I put it: more space between the objects (dot and glissando)). But the padding above is fine. do you mean the gap as described in http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/internals-big-page.html#glissando ? Eluze -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Layout-issue-when-parsing-line-tp158730p158760.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tempo placement
Marc Hohl wrote
Hi list,
I want the tempo indication to appear at the leftmost edge of the piece
(I know that Gould has a different opinion about this, but I am using
LilyJAZZ, and the Realbook style does not care about these typographic
conventions).
However, changing the break-align-symbols property does not seem to
have *any* effect:
\version 2.19.0
melLeftEdge = {
\override Score.MetronomeMark.break-align-symbols = #'(left-edge)
\tempo Slowly 4 = 60
c'4
}
\score { \new Staff { \melLeftEdge } }
melClef = {
\override Score.MetronomeMark.break-align-symbols = #'(clef)
\tempo Slowly 4 = 60
c'4
}
\score { \new Staff { \melClef } }
melKey = {
\override Score.MetronomeMark.break-align-symbols = #'(key-signature)
\tempo Slowly 4 = 60
c'4
}
\score { \new Staff { \melKey } }
How can I achieve a left-aligned tempo indication?
that sounds like a sophisticated problem!
instead of MetronomeMark try
\override Score.RehearsalMark.break-align-symbols = #'(left-edge)
then, quoting the NR:
Using the break-alignable-interface
Rehearsal marks and bar numbers may be aligned with notation objects other
than bar
lines. These objects include ambitus, breathing-sign, clef, custos,
staff-bar, left-edge,
key-cancellation, key-signature, and time-signature.
Each type of object has its own default reference point, to which rehearsal
marks are aligned
you'll have to determine the reference point you like.
hth - a bit
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Tempo-placement-tp158722p158761.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Layout issue when parsing line
Eluze wrote Sunday, February 02, 2014 10:37 PM \override Glissando.minimum-length=15 which only works if you also override springs-and-rods: \override Glissando.springs-and-rods = #ly:spanner::set-spacing-rods I don't know where all these properties are listed systematically, but I assume Internals should be the place to start searching. These properties are mentioned in http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/spanners#using-the-spanner_002dinterface together with an explicit example for the glissando. Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Adding markup to percent repeat sign
Hello all,
I'm writing a kind of minimalist piece that has a lot of repeated
measures that I would like to notate using the percent repeat symbol
with text above it like 8x or any other arbitrary text.
The built-in functionality does not seem to allow for this unless I'm
missing something. I found a snippet to generate a percent repeat
sign:
makePercent =
#(define-music-function (parser location note) (ly:music?)
Make a percent repeat the same length as NOTE.
(make-music 'PercentEvent
'length (ly:music-length note)))
But this does not allow me to add \markup to it like:
\version 2.19.1
\score {
c e g c | \makePercent s1^\markup{8x}
}
The normal \repeat percent 8 {blah} approach does not work because it
creates a lot of measures with the repeat sign and I just want the one
measure.
I've seen solutions for spanning a selection with a spanner like
--3x-- but that's not what I want nor do I want to use voltas
(and I believe I saw a solution for putting the 8x over the bar line
which is not what I want either).
I'm fairly certain I've seen this notation before in other scores.
Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Set LilyPond to begin page numbering several pages into a book
I wish to have the initial pages of a score book not show page numbers, with page numbers beginning on the first page of content. As so: ___ [no page #] COVER ___ [no page #] INNER COVER ___ [no page #] TABLE OF CONTENTS ___ [no page #] TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont...) ___ [right-aligned page number]: 1 FIRST PAGE OF CONTENT ___ [left-aligned page number]: 2 SECOND PAGE OF CONTENT One solution involving scheme function dates from 2008: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-01/msg00741.html It works. Just wondered if this is still current, and I'm not missing a native setting for this purpose. Javier Ruiz-Alma___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Adding markup to percent repeat sign
David Bellows wrote
Hello all,
I'm writing a kind of minimalist piece that has a lot of repeated
measures that I would like to notate using the percent repeat symbol
with text above it like 8x or any other arbitrary text.
The built-in functionality does not seem to allow for this unless I'm
missing something. I found a snippet to generate a percent repeat
sign:
makePercent =
#(define-music-function (parser location note) (ly:music?)
Make a percent repeat the same length as NOTE.
(make-music 'PercentEvent
'length (ly:music-length note)))
But this does not allow me to add \markup to it like:
\version 2.19.1
\score {
c e g c | \makePercent s1^\markup{8x}
}
The normal \repeat percent 8 {blah} approach does not work because it
creates a lot of measures with the repeat sign and I just want the one
measure.
I've seen solutions for spanning a selection with a spanner like
--3x-- but that's not what I want nor do I want to use voltas
(and I believe I saw a solution for putting the 8x over the bar line
which is not what I want either).
I'm fairly certain I've seen this notation before in other scores.
Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Hi,
you can prepend your percent repeats with this:
s1*0^\markup text
I think this should give you the output you're looking for.
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Adding-markup-to-percent-repeat-sign-tp158763p158766.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
