[OT] Figured bass numbering practice: +4 / 4+ / 4# / #4
Hello, I'm engraving a work with figured bass numbering: concerti grossi n° 1 - 6 by Geminiani, based on Corelli's op. 5 My problem is that it uses several different numbering that have, for what I now, the same meaning: for instance +4, 4+, #4, 4#. Sometimes, that concertino cello part uses +4, the bass in the grosso (ripieno) shows a 4+ at the same time. Does someone know what could explain the use of different numbering for the same meaning? Could it come from different engravers (the work was publish in 1727 in London, as separate parts, not as a score)? A later version of the same work (published in France 30 years later) show sometimes (not always) the same thing, being perhaps a copy of the original publishing. Philippe -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/OT-Figured-bass-numbering-practice-4-4-4-4-tp176834.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: how to add barre indications to automatic fret diagrams?
On 21.05.2015, at 02:44, Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-05-20 13:16 GMT+02:00 pls p.l.schm...@gmx.de:
Begin forwarded message:
From: pls p.l.schm...@gmx.de
Subject: Re: how to add barre indications to automatic fret diagrams?
Date: 20. Mai 2015 13:12:30 MESZ
To: Stephen MacNeil classicalja...@gmail.com
Hi Stephen,
On 20.05.2015, at 13:02, Stephen MacNeil classicalja...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry forgot one
\version 2.18.2
barre = #(define-music-function (barre location str ) (number?)
#{
\once \override FretBoard.before-line-breaking =
#(lambda (grob)
;(display (ly:grob-property grob 'dot-placement-list))
(ly:grob-set-property! grob 'dot-placement-list
(cons `(barre 6 1 ,str) (ly:grob-property grob 'dot-placement-list
#})
fMajorEShape = { f,-1 c-3 f-4 a-2 c'-1 f'-1 }
gMajorEShape = { \transpose f g { \fMajorEShape } }
\new FretBoards {
\barre #3
\transpose f g { \fMajorEShape }
\barre #4
\gMajorEShape
\barre #3
g,-1 d-3 g-4 b-2 d'-1 g'-1
\set FretBoards.minimumFret = #3
\barre #4
\gMajorEShape
}
Yes, that’s what I was looking for! Thank you very much! I cleaned it up a
little bit to get rid of some unnecessary bits and pieces (and to make it
easier to understand what it does):
\version 2.19.15
barre = #(define-music-function (bend location str ) (number?)
#{
\once \override FretBoard.before-line-breaking =
#(lambda (grob)
;(display (ly:grob-property grob 'dot-placement-list))
(ly:grob-set-property! grob 'dot-placement-list
(cons `(barre 6 1 ,str) (ly:grob-property grob
'dot-placement-list
#})
fMajorEShape = { f,-1 c-3 f-4 a-2 c'-1 f'-1 }
\new FretBoards {
\barre #1
\fMajorEShape
\barre #3
\transpose f g { \fMajorEShape }
\barre #5
\transpose f a { \fMajorEShape }
\barre #7
\transpose f b { \fMajorEShape }
}
Thanks again!
patrick
More automated:
\version 2.19.15
\new FretBoards
\transpose c d
{
\override FretBoard.before-line-breaking =
#(lambda (grob)
(let* ((dots-list (ly:grob-property grob 'dot-placement-list))
(fingered-frets
(filter
(lambda (d)
(and (eq? 'place-fret (car d)) (= (length d) 4)))
dots-list))
;; TODO do better mapping, loop or the like!
(finger-1
(filter
(lambda (f) (and (number? (last f)) (= (last f) 1)))
fingered-frets))
(finger-2
(filter
(lambda (f) (and (number? (last f)) (= (last f) 2)))
fingered-frets))
(finger-3
(filter
(lambda (f) (and (number? (last f)) (= (last f) 3)))
fingered-frets))
(finger-4
(filter
(lambda (f) (and (number? (last f)) (= (last f) 4)))
fingered-frets))
(barre-1
(if ( (length finger-1) 1)
(let* ((strgs
(sort (map cadr finger-1) ))
)
(list 'barre (car strgs) (last strgs) (third (car
finger-1
'()))
(barre-2
(if ( (length finger-2) 1)
(let* ((strgs
(sort (map cadr finger-2) ))
)
(list 'barre (car strgs) (last strgs) (third (car
finger-2
'()))
(barre-3
(if ( (length finger-3) 1)
(let* ((strgs
(sort (map cadr finger-3) ))
)
(list 'barre (car strgs) (last strgs) (third (car
finger-3
'()))
(barre-4
(if ( (length finger-4) 1)
(let* ((strgs
(sort (map cadr finger-4) ))
)
(list 'barre (car strgs) (last strgs) (third (car
finger-4
'()))
(barres
(filter
(lambda (l)
(not (null? l)))
(list barre-1 barre-2 barre-3 barre-4
(ly:grob-set-property! grob 'dot-placement-list
(append
barres
dots-list
f,-1 c-3 f-4 a-2 c'-1 f'-1
\override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
\mark
\markup
\fontsize #-6 \column { transposing this one, will be strange ofc }
a, e-1 a-1 cis'-2 e'
bes,-1 f-2 bes-3 d'-4 f'-1
a,-2 d-2 fis-1 c'-3 e'-3 a'-3
}
Nice! Thanks a lot.
Yes, transposing chords with open strings probably poses a problem. Fingering
information would have to be included automatically in order to decide whether
they should be part of a barre. I’d think it’s safe to assume that transposed
open strings in chords will always be played with the first finger.
Carl has already added a feature request
Re: Fine tuning
Hello Bernhard, some more remarks from me: – Generally, I wouldn’t go for one page at any cost. I understand your wish, but it would be easier to read if the choir were on four staves. And that’s what the great 19th century complete works editions used to do. Also, your current setup throws warnings because of the first bars of soprano and alto: either use \voiceThree and \voiceFour (look for temporary polyphonic section in the NR), or write both soprano parts as chords in one voice (c e), or move the alto parts to the lower staff. – Use R1 instead of r1. – m.9, organ: there is no a,, on all but a very few organs – m.11, bass: is the e, intentional? – m.17, tenor should be one whole note – m.18, inconsistent breathing sign. How about Breathe = \tweak text \markup \musicglyph #scripts.caesura.straight ? – m.19, bass, 2nd note should be e – I’d use only one lyrics context, also for the first line. The differences between voices are small, and through the slurs it’s unambiguous. I think every choir singer should be able to cope with that, and they will, if it’s explained to them :-) – Organ part: use chords wherever possible (instead of two voices), except for what will likely be the pedal part. – m.12, organ: missing \oneVoice here – Experiment with slur direction (i.e. ^( and _( ), e.g. m.18f., organ Am 21.05.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Dr. Bernhard Kleine: Thank you and the other contributors very much, 1.with set-global-staff-size 16 only one page 2.the \tempo solved the other problem 3.however, halign #0.5 does not make the proper horizontal orientation, the four entries sopran , alto, tenor and bass are not vertically aligned. Any idea? Try for example c2-\tweak self-alignment-X 0.8 _\markup Tenor (play with the value). There is no way to really align them, so you’d have to do it manually. But why would you need to? HTH, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: How to avoid a collision?
Am 21.05.2015 um 15:21 schrieb Olivier Vogel: 2015-05-21 13:54 GMT+01:00 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca mailto:kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: May I ask why you’re not using Lilypond’s built-in (and generallly excellent) voice-handling? e.g. In the modified snippet (below), I’m using \voiceOne, \voiceTwo, etc., which eliminates the need for \stemUp, \tieDown, etc., and appears (to my eye) to eliminate all note collisions. Simply because, I'm learning Lilypond since only a few days. Your solution avoids the collision at the third measure, but introduces an horizontal shift at the fourth measure, which I'd like to prevent. Is it possible? p.s. Also note that I abstracted your note code from your score code — it is so much easier to read and debug this way, in my opinion, and it keeps the score block as clean and simple as possible. Thank you very much for your advice. As a beginner, where can I learn how to write a better code? 1. Learning by doing – and by trying yourself how you might improve it, so that it’s more flexible, easy to type and read. 2. Use the templates of Frescobaldi http://frescobaldi.org, which besides is extremely recommendable anyway. 3. Learn from others – look at code examples from experienced users like in the LSR, like on this list, or elsewhere on the web (but there are all sorts of code around, including less elegant or outdated ones…) HTH and keep going :-), Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: How to avoid a collision?
As a relative newcomer myself, I have also found it useful to grab the code that people post here - like this discussion - and dropping it into Frescobaldi and seeing how far I can get in solving the problem, or modifying a good solution to see what happens when I make small changes to perfectly good code. Larry Kent Tampa, FL On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Simon Albrecht simon.albre...@mail.de wrote: Am 21.05.2015 um 15:21 schrieb Olivier Vogel: 2015-05-21 13:54 GMT+01:00 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca : May I ask why you’re not using Lilypond’s built-in (and generallly excellent) voice-handling? e.g. In the modified snippet (below), I’m using \voiceOne, \voiceTwo, etc., which eliminates the need for \stemUp, \tieDown, etc., and appears (to my eye) to eliminate all note collisions. Simply because, I'm learning Lilypond since only a few days. Your solution avoids the collision at the third measure, but introduces an horizontal shift at the fourth measure, which I'd like to prevent. Is it possible? p.s. Also note that I abstracted your note code from your score code — it is so much easier to read and debug this way, in my opinion, and it keeps the score block as clean and simple as possible. Thank you very much for your advice. As a beginner, where can I learn how to write a better code? 1. Learning by doing – and by trying yourself how you might improve it, so that it’s more flexible, easy to type and read. 2. Use the templates of Frescobaldi http://frescobaldi.org http://frescobaldi.org, which besides is extremely recommendable anyway. 3. Learn from others – look at code examples from experienced users like in the LSR, like on this list, or elsewhere on the web (but there are all sorts of code around, including less elegant or outdated ones…) HTH and keep going :-), Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: how to add barre indications to automatic fret diagrams?
On 5/21/15 1:30 AM, pls p.l.schm...@gmx.de wrote:
Nice! Thanks a lot.
Yes, transposing chords with open strings probably poses a problem.
Fingering information would have to be included automatically in order to
decide whether they should be part of a barre. I¹d think it¹s safe to
assume that transposed open strings in chords will always be played with
the first finger.
For right now, transposing chords with open strings will leave the strings
open. Transposing doesn't affect fingering, only pitches.
I'm actually OK with that. An E chord (with open 6, 2, and 1) is a
different shape from an F chord (with barred 6, 2, and 1) in my opinion.
Yes, the pattern on strings 3, 4, and 5 is the same. But the hand pattern
on the chord is different.
I thought about this issue quite a bit when I was creating predefined fret
diagrams. There, we introduced the idea of a chord shape. There is a
function that shifts a chord shape by N frets (offset-fret). At present,
it adds N to the fret number for every dot. I thought about setting the
fret number to N for every open string, but elected not to do it because I
wouldn't know what to do with the finger. I guess it's possible to set it
to 1.
The fundamental issue that causes the problem is that a fingering of 0 not
only sets a finger, but also a fret.
However, you can easily fix this yourself in your chords that request
automatic fret diagrams. Set the finger to 1, and if the automatic
diagram asks for a fret of 0, it will automatically change it to zero.
\new FretBoards {
e,-1 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-1 e'-11
\transpose e f e,-1 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-1 e'-11
f,-1 c-3 f-4 a-2 c'-1 f'-11
\transpose f e f,-1 c-3 f-4 a-2 c'-1 f'-11
}
Thanks,
Carl
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: How to avoid a collision?
Hi Olivier,
In the following example, I don't understand why there is a collision at the
third measure and I don't know how to avoid it.
May I ask why you’re not using Lilypond’s built-in (and generallly excellent)
voice-handling? e.g. In the modified snippet (below), I’m using \voiceOne,
\voiceTwo, etc., which eliminates the need for \stemUp, \tieDown, etc., and
appears (to my eye) to eliminate all note collisions.
If this doesn’t answer your question, please post again.
Hope this helps!
Kieren.
p.s. Also note that I abstracted your note code from your score code — it is so
much easier to read and debug this way, in my opinion, and it keeps the score
block as clean and simple as possible.
\version 2.18.2
\paper {
indent = 0\cm
}
global = {
\key c \major
\time 4/4\tempo Allegro vivace
}
theMusic = \relative c' {
c4^Tutti\f r8 \tuplet 3/2 { g16( a b } c4) r8 \tuplet 3/2 { g16( a b } |
c4) r r r8
{ \voiceOne
c'^Strings |
c4. b8 d4. c8 |
g'2( f4)
}
\\
\new Voice
{ \voiceTwo
r8\p |
f, d2 e c |
d b~ d b4 r4
}
\\
\new Voice
{ \voiceThree
s8 |
g1 ~ |
g2 ~ g4
}
r4
}
\score {
\new Staff \global \theMusic
}
Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Finale challenge
I’m not at all experienced with Finale and only have Finale 2012. If that is sufficient for you, I can do it. -- Peter Crighton | Musician Music Engraver based in Mainz, Germany http://www.petercrighton.de 2015-05-21 19:47 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org: Anyone ready for a new Finale challenge? I need someone entering one 6/8 measure of a two-voice piano part in a current Finale vetsion :-/ Best Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Finale challenge
Am 21. Mai 2015 22:56:18 MESZ, schrieb Jacques Menu imj-muz...@bluewin.ch: Hello Urs, Does the attached file (Finale 2014) suit your need? Well, if that's meant as a joke it is a good one. But maybe there's something wrong with your files? In any case it's interesting to see the size of the Finale file ... Urs JM Le 21 mai 2015 à 19:47, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org a écrit : Anyone ready for a new Finale challenge? I need someone entering one 6/8 measure of a two-voice piano part in a current Finale vetsion :-/ Best Urs___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Fine tuning
I have prepared the Sanctus of the Missa in C by Bruckner. There are some
points that need fine tuning.
1. The piece should fit to one page.
2. The markups Ruhig should be on Top of Sanctus
3. The voisce nominator Ten. and Bass in Number 4 should be in front of
the notes and texts, same in 8.
It would be very niece if some could point me to the ways to change these
issues.
Thank you very much
Bernhard
\version 2.19.5
\language deutsch
\header {
title = Messe in C
subtitle = für Chor und Orgel
composer = Anton Bruckner
arranger = bearb. v. Jos. Messner
piece = Sanctus
tagline = \markup {
Gesetzt durch Bernhard Kleine mit
\line { LilyPond \simple #(lilypond-version) (http://lilypond.org/) }
}
}
global = {
\key c \major
\time 4/4
}
soprano = \relative c'' {
\global
\dynamicUp
% Die Noten folgen hier.
e2^\markup { Ruhig }\p e2| d (e) | d h2\rest | f'^\markup { Ten. } e~\ | e4\! e2\ ( d4 |
c2\! d)\ | e\! h\rest | h4.^\markup {Sopr.} h8 h2 | a\ h\! | a2.\ a4 |
gis1\fermata | gis2^-\!\f gis4^- gis^- | a2^- a4 \breathe a | a2 (gis2) |
\override BreathingSign.text = \markup {
\musicglyph #scripts.caesura.straight
} a \breathe a~\ff |
a g4 f | e2 (d) |e4 \breathe e\p e e | f2 g {s4 s4^\markup {\italic rit.} } | f2\pp\ e\! \bar|.
}
sopranoTwo = \relative c'' {
\global
\dynamicUp \shiftOff
\stemUp c2 c2| h (c) | h s2| \stemDown \dynamicDown d2\p \tieDown c~ |c4 \slurDown c2 (h4|
a2 h) | c2 s2
}
alto = \relative c' {
\global
% Die Noten folgen hier.
c2 ( e4) f| g2 (e4 c) \shiftOff g2 s2|
s1*4 |
h4._\markup {Alt} e8 gis2 | e2 e | e2. e4 |
e1 | e2 e4 e4 |e2 e4 e4| e1 | e2 f2~ | f c4 c | c2 (h) | d4 c c c | c2 c2 | c2 c
}
altoTwo = \relative c' {
\global \shiftOff
% Die Noten folgen hier.
g'2 \shiftOn g2| g1| \shiftOff g2
}
tenor = \relative c' {
\global \dynamicUp
% Die Noten folgen hier.
d,1\rest | d1\rest |d1\rest | g1| g2 gis( |
a2. g!8 f) | g2 d2\rest | gis4.^\markup {Tenor} gis8 h2| c2 h | c2. c4 |
h1\fermata | h2 h4 h | c2 a4 \breathe c | h1 | c2 c~|
c h!4 a| g2~ g | g4 \breathe g\ c\! b | a2 g | a g |
}
tenorTwo = \relative c' {
\global \dynamicUp
}
bass = \relative c {
\global
% Die Noten folgen hier.
s1 s1 s1 h2_\markup {Bass}( c4 { s8 s8\} d4)| e2\! e\ ( |
f2.{s4 s4\! s4 } e8\ d) | c2\! s2 | e4._\markup {Bass} e8 e2| a\ gis\! |a2.\ a4 |
e1 {s2. s8 s8\!} e,1 | e'2\f e4 e | e2 e4 c4 e a, | e'1 e, |
\override BreathingSign.text = \markup {
\musicglyph #scripts.caesura.straight
} e' a,2 \breathe f~\ff|
f2 f4 f4 | g2 g,| c4 c\p c c | f2 d |f\pp\ c\!|
}
bassTwo = \relative c' {
\global
}
verse = \lyricmode {
% Liedtext folgt hier.
}
verseSoprano = \lyricmode {
San -- ctus, San -- ctus,
San -- ctus, San -- ctus,
}
verseAlto = \lyricmode {
San -- ctus, San -- ctus,
Do -- mi -- nus De -- us Sa -- ba -- oth.
Ple -- ni sunt coe -- li et ter -- ra glo -- ri -- a tu -- a.
ho -- san -- na in ex -- cel -- sis
}
verseTenor = \lyricmode {
San -- ctus, San -- ctus
}
verseBasso = \lyricmode {
San -- ctus, San -- ctus
}
rightOne = \relative c'' {
\global
\shiftOnn
% Die Noten folgen hier.
h1\rest | h1\rest |h4\rest g,4\pp( h4 d8 e |f2 e4) h'4\rest | h1\rest
h1\rest | h4\rest c,4 ( e\ g8 a\! | h2) h4\rest gis4 | a c, 2 h | a4( c e4. fis8) |
gis1\fermata | h,4\rest e,8\f( gis h4. e8) | h4\rest a8( c e4. a8) | h,4\rest h,8(e gis h e4) |
\override BreathingSign.text = \markup {
\musicglyph #scripts.caesura.straight
} h2\rest \breathe a4 ( c|
f2 c4 a) | g8( a h c d2 | c4) \breathe g ( c b | a f c) g'^\markup { \italic rit.} a8 f a h! c2
}
rightTwo = \relative c' {
\global
\shiftOnn \stemDown
s1|s1|s2 h4 h4| d2 c4 s4 s1|s1 s4 g2 ( c4| e2) s4 e8\mf d8 | s2 e2 | e a |
gis1 | s1 | s1| s1| s2 f2 | a g4 f4 | e2 g4 f4 | e r\p h2\rest | s2. c4~ (| c f e2) |
}
leftOne = \relative c' {
\global
\dynamicUp% Die Noten folgen hier.
s1*2 | d,4\rest g2.~ | g2~ g4 d4\rest |d1\rest |
d1\rest d4\rest e2.( |gis2) d4\rest h'4 a2 gis4 fis8 gis8 | c2 c2|
h1\fermata | d,4\rest \stemDown e8( gis h4. e8) | h4\rest a8( c e4. a8) | h,4\rest h,8(e gis h e4)
\override BreathingSign.text = \markup {
\musicglyph #scripts.caesura.straight
} d,2\rest \breathe \stemUp c'4\ff a | c1 | c2 h c4 \breathe d,4\rest d2\rest | d2\rest d4\rest s4 s1|
}
leftTwo = \relative c {
\global
d1\rest d1\rest d4\rest g2. ( | h,2 c4) s4| s1 |
s1| \break
s4 c2. ( |e,2 ) s4 e4 | a, c e fis8 gis8| a2 a|
e1 s1 s1 s1 | s2 f'2| f1 | g2 g | g c,4 s4 s2 | s2 s4 b e, c4( | a f2 g c,2)|
}
leftThree = \relative c {
\global \stemUp \slurDown \shiftOff
s1*6 s4 c2. (| h2)
}
choirPart = \new ChoirStaff
\new Staff = Frauen \with {
midiInstrument = choir aahs
instrumentName = \markup \center-column { Sopran Alt }
}
\new Voice = soprano{ \voiceOne \soprano }
\new Voice = alto { \voiceTwo \alto }
Re: Fine tuning
1. With this font size, forcing it to one page causes collisions. Look at:
#(set-global-staff-size 16)
\paper {
page-count=1
}
and adjust them to suit.
2. I would set Ruhig as a tempo marking, which then places it appropriately.
3. Place you markup after the spacer rests prior to the music. If you want to
adjust the horizontal position, you can subdivide the rests; e.g.:
s2. s4_Markup
HTH
--
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
From: Dr. Bernhard Kleine
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:15 AM
Subject: Fine tuning
I have prepared the Sanctus of the Missa in C by Bruckner. There are some
points that need fine tuning.
1. The piece should fit to one page.
2. The markups Ruhig should be on Top of Sanctus
3. The voisce nominator Ten. and Bass in Number 4 should be in front of
the notes and texts, same in 8.
It would be very niece if some could point me to the ways to change these
issues.
Thank you very much
Bernhard
--
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: how to add barre indications to automatic fret diagrams?
On 21.05.2015, at 15:10, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
On 5/21/15 1:30 AM, pls p.l.schm...@gmx.de wrote:
Nice! Thanks a lot.
Yes, transposing chords with open strings probably poses a problem.
Fingering information would have to be included automatically in order to
decide whether they should be part of a barre. I¹d think it¹s safe to
assume that transposed open strings in chords will always be played with
the first finger.
For right now, transposing chords with open strings will leave the strings
open. Transposing doesn't affect fingering, only pitches.
I'm actually OK with that. An E chord (with open 6, 2, and 1) is a
different shape from an F chord (with barred 6, 2, and 1) in my opinion.
Yes, the pattern on strings 3, 4, and 5 is the same. But the hand pattern
on the chord is different.
Yes, the hand pattern is slightly different but nevertheless F is an E chord
shape moved up by one fret. The very popular CAGED system claims that there
are only five basic open chord shapes: C, A, G, E, and D. All other chords
shapes can be derived from these five basic shapes.
I thought about this issue quite a bit when I was creating predefined fret
diagrams. There, we introduced the idea of a chord shape. There is a
function that shifts a chord shape by N frets (offset-fret). At present,
it adds N to the fret number for every dot. I thought about setting the
fret number to N for every open string, but elected not to do it because I
wouldn't know what to do with the finger. I guess it's possible to set it
to 1.
I would argue that it would make a lot of sense to set the fret number to N
for every open string” and to automatically add a barre indication when
transposing open chord shapes. Otherwise these resulting diagrams look really
daunting and unplayable.
The fundamental issue that causes the problem is that a fingering of 0 not
only sets a finger, but also a fret.
However, you can easily fix this yourself in your chords that request
automatic fret diagrams. Set the finger to 1, and if the automatic
diagram asks for a fret of 0, it will automatically change it to zero.
\new FretBoards {
e,-1 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-1 e'-11
\transpose e f e,-1 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-1 e'-11
f,-1 c-3 f-4 a-2 c'-1 f'-11
\transpose f e f,-1 c-3 f-4 a-2 c'-1 f'-11
}
Ah, thank you, I didn’t know that. It’s a clever trick but I don’t think I
would really like to use it in practice because it messes with the fingerings
of open chord shapes. In this case I’d rather prefer to use a “manual” \barre
function when transposing fretboards with correct fingerings.
Thanks for your help!
patrick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: How to avoid a collision?
Olivier,
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Olivier Vogel [via Lilypond]
ml-node+s1069038n176852...@n5.nabble.com wrote:
2015-05-21 13:54 GMT+01:00 Kieren MacMillan [hidden email]
http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=176852i=0:
May I ask why you’re not using Lilypond’s built-in (and generallly
excellent) voice-handling? e.g. In the modified snippet (below), I’m using
\voiceOne, \voiceTwo, etc., which eliminates the need for \stemUp,
\tieDown, etc., and appears (to my eye) to eliminate all note collisions.
Simply because, I'm learning Lilypond since only a few days.
Well, keep going! You'll get the hang of things. I'd follow Kieren's advice
in separating the musical *content* from the score *structure*. You'll find
it will pay off. However, there's an unnecessary duplication of identifying
voices in his solution. Let me explain. There are basically two ways to
create simultaneous voices, an implicit way and an explicit way.
*Implicit Voicing:*
... old voice before ...
{ ... first voice stuff ... }
\\
{ ... second voice stuff ... }
\\
{ ... third voice stuff ... }
\\
... etc.
... new voice after ...
In this form, there is no need to include \voiceOne, \voiceTwo, etc. unless
you *really* mean to change the voice, but normally this is not necessary.
Adding them (which is what Kieren did) won't hurt it, it's just
unnecessary. This syntax can be convenient if the sections are not too
long. However, be aware that this syntax creates COMPLETELY NEW voices and
discards the old ones, so don't use this form when you need to attach lyric
text. The voice it's connected to will be lost once this section starts.
*Explicit Voicing:*
... original voice stuff, neutral direction ...
{ \voiceOne ... continuation of original voice (but now as first) ... }
\new Voice { \voiceTwo ... second voice stuff ... }
\new Voice { \voiceThree ... third voice stuff ... }
\oneVoice
... original voice continues, but without a specified direction ...
Notice that there are no \\ in between the voices here. I tend to prefer
this syntax unless each section is *very* temporary and there are no lyrics
involved. Otherwise, this is the way to go.
In either case, the odd numbered voices move associated elements upwards
(i.e., stems, slurs, ties, articulations, etc.) and move progressively to
the right, away from the primary note column. Even numbered voices move
associated elements downwards and move progressively to the left of the
primary note column.
Your solution avoids the collision at the third measure, but introduces an
horizontal shift at the fourth measure, which I'd like to prevent. Is it
possible?
It's certainly possible, but the real issue that keeps makes it this way
that LilyPond deals with things tied to specific voices. As of now, there
isn't a convenient mechanism that allows you to put a tie across voices. To
*fake it*, there are a couple of options:
1. Use an override similar to what you were using initially (e.g., \override
NoteColumn.force-hshift = #0) for both notes in the connected ties of
the third voice.
2. Use a hidden notehead that connects to the first g1 and create a real
chord in the first voice for the second set of ties.
In your case, after cooking up both options, the first tends to be easier
(when using the voicing that Kieren described) and the second requires the
same force-shift override anyway to put the tie in the right place.
p.s. Also note that I abstracted your note code from your score code — it
is so much easier to read and debug this way, in my opinion, and it keeps
the score block as clean and simple as possible.
Thank you very much for your advice. As a beginner, where can I learn how
to write a better code?
Do you mean syntax structure (e.g., where to put the music vs. structure)
or coding style (e.g., how much to indent, when to start a new line, etc.)?
Regards,
Abraham
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/How-to-avoid-a-collision-tp176849p176855.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: Putting lyrics below its staff?
Kaj,
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Kaj [via Lilypond]
ml-node+s1069038n176837...@n5.nabble.com wrote:
I am working on a piece of choir music. It consists of two parts, the
first of which is written on one staff, and the second two staves. The
upper staff in part two is a continuation of the staff in part one. All the
staves are accompanied with lyrics. My wish is that this lyrics should be
written below its respective staff. However, whatever I do, the lyrics for
the lower staff in part two, which I denote C, is written above the staff,
hence directly below the lyrics for the upper staff (B). I suspect there
should be a simple solution for this, and in the handbook they say that the
lyrics is normally written below the staff. To get it above the staff you
would have to do some overrides.
In the code you can see the commented lines, which are part of all the
tries I have done, but nothing seems to help. To me it almost looks as if
the behaviour is hard coded, just because of putting the lyrics between the
staves is the normal. After an experience like this I feel strengthened in
a thought, grown in my head, that LilyPond will never ever be a tool for
everybody. It is too complicated and inconsistent to be used by anybody
else than the absolute top expert. Which is a pity, as it produces an
excellent result.
This is the result of my efforts so far:
\version 2.18.2
\paper { ragged-right = ##t }
mA = \relative c' { c4 d e f }
mB = \relative c'' { g4 a b c }
mC = \relative c' { c'4 b a8 g f4 }
mAB = \relative c' { c4 d e f g4 a b c }
tA = \lyricmode { A B C D }
tB = \lyricmode { E F G H }
tC = \lyricmode { i j k l m }
tAB = \lyricmode { A B C D E F G H }
xA = { s1*1 \break }
xB = { s1*1 }
xC = { s1*1 }
\score {
\new ChoirStaff
\new Staff = sAB {
\new Voice = vAB { \mAB }
{
\new Voice = vA { \xA }
\new Voice = vB { \xB }
\new Staff = sC {
\new Voice = vC { \mC }
}
}
}
\new Lyrics = lAB \lyricsto vAB { \tAB }
\new Lyrics = lC \with {
% alignBelowContext = #sC
% \override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-affinity = #UP
}
{ \lyricsto vC { \tC } }
\layout { indent = #0 }
}
*which produces this:*
[image: --- (Image from LilyPond) ---]
/Kaj
I think LilyPond is just getting confused by all the nested voices/staves.
As Phil suggested, a little restructuring of your example score can bring a
nice solution to light:
\version 2.18.2
mA = \relative c' {
c4 d e f | \break
g a b c
}
mB = \relative c'' {
s1 |
c4 b a8 g f4
}
tA = \lyricmode { A B C D E F G H }
tB = \lyricmode { i j k l m }
\score {
\new ChoirStaff
\new Staff {
\new Voice = vA \mA
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto vA \tA
\new Staff \with {
\RemoveEmptyStaves
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-first = ##t
}{
\new Voice = vB \mB
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto vB \tB
\layout {
indent = 0
}
}
There are a few things I'd point out:
1. All \new Staff declarations are only within the ChoirStaff
2. Each staff gets its own voice and the second voice gets a spacer rest
before its notes.
3. The second staff's empty measures are removed via two overrides
\RemoveEmptyStaves and \override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-first = ##t
4. Each set of Lyrics is placed immediately after its staff so there is
no need to direct it above or below anything
I hope that this provides a clearer logic to how to construct a score that
is quite obvious to what's happening (to the user) and relatively
mistake-proof in interpretation (for LilyPond).
Regards,
Abraham
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Putting-lyrics-below-its-staff-tp176837p176853.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: How to avoid a collision?
2015-05-21 13:54 GMT+01:00 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: May I ask why you’re not using Lilypond’s built-in (and generallly excellent) voice-handling? e.g. In the modified snippet (below), I’m using \voiceOne, \voiceTwo, etc., which eliminates the need for \stemUp, \tieDown, etc., and appears (to my eye) to eliminate all note collisions. Simply because, I'm learning Lilypond since only a few days. Your solution avoids the collision at the third measure, but introduces an horizontal shift at the fourth measure, which I'd like to prevent. Is it possible? p.s. Also note that I abstracted your note code from your score code — it is so much easier to read and debug this way, in my opinion, and it keeps the score block as clean and simple as possible. Thank you very much for your advice. As a beginner, where can I learn how to write a better code? Olivier ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: how to add barre indications to automatic fret diagrams?
On 21.05.2015, at 21:06, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
On 5/21/15 8:39 AM, pls p.l.schm...@gmx.de wrote:
I thought about this issue quite a bit when I was creating predefined
fret
diagrams. There, we introduced the idea of a chord shape. There is a
function that shifts a chord shape by N frets (offset-fret). At
present,
it adds N to the fret number for every dot. I thought about setting the
fret number to N for every open string, but elected not to do it
because I
wouldn't know what to do with the finger. I guess it's possible to set
it
to 1.
I would argue that it would make a lot of sense to set the fret number
to N for every open string² and to automatically add a barre indication
when transposing open chord shapes. Otherwise these resulting diagrams
look really daunting and unplayable.
There is a difference between transposing and shape shifting.
Shape shifting is done on chord shapes, rather than music. It would be
trivial to set the fret to N and the finger to 1 when shifting a chord
shape. I think that probably makes sense to do.
Transposing doesn't work on chord shapes. Transposing works on notes.
The automatic fretboard creator looks at the notes and creates a
fretboard. At that point, it has no knowledge of a chord shape, so we
can't do the shape shifting algorithm there.
Ah, ok, now I’m beginning to understand the problem. The line between
transposing and shape shifting is sometimes very thin, though. (The notes of)
Some chord structures like e.g. 1.3.5.8.10.15 (G shape) or 1.5.8.10.12.15 (E
shape) cannot be transposed without also shifting and thus keeping their
shapes. Transposing the notes of other chord structures like 1.5.8.10 could
mean using either the same shape (shape shifting) or switching to at least one
(sometimes two) alternative shape(s) (A shape, D shape, E shape)
Do you represent an E chord as
e, b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b e'
or
e,-0 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-0 e'-c ?
If the latter, you will get a warning when you try to transpose the chord,
because you're asking for open strings, and the transposed notes don't
work on open strings. It makes for an incorrect diagram, with the finger
listed as 0 and a dot on the fret corresponding to the transposition.
\new FretBoards {
e,-0 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-0 e'-01
\transpose e f e,-0 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-0 e'-01
}
If you use the former notation, you get an incomplete fretboard when you
transpose the code,
because you:
1) Don't have the barre indicator
2) Don't have the finger listed for the barred notes
However, you don't get the warning, and you don't have the inconsistency
of asking for an open string and showing a dot simultaneously.
\new FretBoards {
e, b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b e'1
\transpose e f e, b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b e'1
}
Hm, I’d either use e,-0 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-0 e’-0 or (even more likely) e,-0
b,-2 e-3 gis-1 b-0 e’-0, the latter making it even more complicated! When
transposing this open chord to a barred chord all fingers would have to be
raised by 1.
It would be possible to employ some code like the following:
If (some notes have fingers given) and
(there is more than one dot on the lowest fret in the diagram)
then
make a barre on the lowest fret and set the fingering of all the dots
on the lowest fret to 1
Or alternatively
If (some notes have fingers given) and
(a note has a finger of 0 and a fret = 1)
then
give that note a finger of 1
If (we have more than one note with the same finger)
then
make a barre from the lowest note to the highest note on that finger
Do you think either of these algorithms would do what you want?
They both sound fine to me! Are they mutually exclusive? I’d suggest another
condition:
if we make a barre on the lowest fret and set the fingering of all the dots on
the lowest fret to 1, the other fingers should be automatically raised by one.
Does that make sense? I will probably need some more time to think about it
myself...
Thanks for your help and your detailed explanations!
patrick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Finale challenge
Hello Urs, Sorry, no joke intended actually… I just don’t know what a Finale challenge is! Here are the sizes: menu@macbookprojm:~/Documents/LaTeX/PartitionsLilypond ltt *Finale* -rw-r--r--@ 1 menu admin 36302 May 21 22:55:52 2015 PianoScoreForFinaleChallenge.pdf -rw-r--r--@ 1 menu admin 86554 May 21 22:54:19 2015 PianoScoreForFinaleChallenge.musx JM Le 21 mai 2015 à 23:32, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org a écrit : Am 21. Mai 2015 22:56:18 MESZ, schrieb Jacques Menu imj-muz...@bluewin.ch: Hello Urs, Does the attached file (Finale 2014) suit your need? Well, if that's meant as a joke it is a good one. But maybe there's something wrong with your files? In any case it's interesting to see the size of the Finale file ... Urs JM Le 21 mai 2015 à 19:47, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org a écrit : Anyone ready for a new Finale challenge? I need someone entering one 6/8 measure of a two-voice piano part in a current Finale vetsion :-/ Best Urs___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Re: Putting lyrics below its staff?
On 2015-05-21 15:30, tisimst wrote:
Kaj,
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Kaj [via Lilypond] [hidden email]
/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=176853i=0 wrote:
I am working on a piece of choir music. It consists of two parts,
the first of which is written on one staff, and the second two
staves. The upper staff in part two is a continuation of the staff
in part one. All the staves are accompanied with lyrics. My wish
is that this lyrics should be written below its respective staff.
However, whatever I do, the lyrics for the lower staff in part
two, which I denote C, is written above the staff, hence directly
below the lyrics for the upper staff (B). I suspect there should
be a simple solution for this, and in the handbook they say that
the lyrics is normally written below the staff. To get it above
the staff you would have to do some overrides.
In the code you can see the commented lines, which are part of all
the tries I have done, but nothing seems to help. To me it almost
looks as if the behaviour is hard coded, just because of putting
the lyrics between the staves is the normal. After an experience
like this I feel strengthened in a thought, grown in my head, that
LilyPond will never ever be a tool for everybody. It is too
complicated and inconsistent to be used by anybody else than the
absolute top expert. Which is a pity, as it produces an excellent
result.
This is the result of my efforts so far:
\version 2.18.2
\paper { ragged-right = ##t }
mA = \relative c' { c4 d e f }
mB = \relative c'' { g4 a b c }
mC = \relative c' { c'4 b a8 g f4 }
mAB = \relative c' { c4 d e f g4 a b c }
tA = \lyricmode { A B C D }
tB = \lyricmode { E F G H }
tC = \lyricmode { i j k l m }
tAB = \lyricmode { A B C D E F G H }
xA = { s1*1 \break }
xB = { s1*1 }
xC = { s1*1 }
\score {
\new ChoirStaff
\new Staff = sAB {
\new Voice = vAB { \mAB }
{
\new Voice = vA { \xA }
\new Voice = vB { \xB }
\new Staff = sC {
\new Voice = vC { \mC }
}
}
}
\new Lyrics = lAB \lyricsto vAB { \tAB }
\new Lyrics = lC \with {
% alignBelowContext = #sC
% \override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-affinity = #UP
}
{ \lyricsto vC { \tC } }
\layout { indent = #0 }
}
/which produces this:/
/Kaj
I think LilyPond is just getting confused by all the nested
voices/staves. As Phil suggested, a little restructuring of your
example score can bring a nice solution to light:
\version 2.18.2
mA = \relative c' {
c4 d e f | \break
g a b c
}
mB = \relative c'' {
s1 |
c4 b a8 g f4
}
tA = \lyricmode { A B C D E F G H }
tB = \lyricmode { i j k l m }
\score {
\new ChoirStaff
\new Staff {
\new Voice = vA \mA
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto vA \tA
\new Staff \with {
\RemoveEmptyStaves
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-first = ##t
}{
\new Voice = vB \mB
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto vB \tB
\layout {
indent = 0
}
}
There are a few things I'd point out:
1. All \new Staff declarations are only within the ChoirStaff
2. Each staff gets its own voice and the second voice gets a spacer
rest before its notes.
3. The second staff's empty measures are removed via two overrides
\RemoveEmptyStaves and \override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-first = ##t
4. Each set of Lyrics is placed immediately after its staff so there
is no need to direct it above or below anything
I hope that this provides a clearer logic to how to construct a score
that is quite obvious to what's happening (to the user) and relatively
mistake-proof in interpretation (for LilyPond).
Regards,
Abraham
View this message in context: Re: Putting lyrics below its staff?
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Putting-lyrics-below-its-staff-tp176837p176853.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html at Nabble.com.
Phil and Abraham
Thank you for your comments, and for the example showing a solution to
my problem. At least it solves this much simplified example. However I
get an impression it being a fix for just this, so I made an, a wee
more complicated, but never the less much realistic example. Sorry, of
course it will occupy a lot of valuable space on this mailing list, but
to illustrate my thought I see no other way to go. It shows a case with
several regions with note systems containing more than one staff, but
with regions between them with just one staff. Generally there could of
course also be a base system with a number of staves, more than one,
which is expanded with excess staves. It follows a quite simple
algorithm, inspired
Re: Finale challenge
Am 22.05.2015 um 00:45 schrieb Jacques Menu:
Hello Urs,
Sorry, no joke intended actually… I just don’t know what a Finale challenge is!
I think the point was about typesetting some complicated music, which
Urs will send to anyone interested.
Here are the sizes:
menu@macbookprojm:~/Documents/LaTeX/PartitionsLilypond ltt *Finale*
-rw-r--r--@ 1 menu admin 36302 May 21 22:55:52 2015
PianoScoreForFinaleChallenge.pdf
-rw-r--r--@ 1 menu admin 86554 May 21 22:54:19 2015
PianoScoreForFinaleChallenge.musx
And here the point was that a Lilypond file for the same music is around
two hundred times smaller… :-) I made the test.
The .pdfs are virtually the same size, though.
Cheers, Simon
\version 2.19.20
\header {
title = Piano Score
subtitle = For Finale challenge
piece = Score
copyright = ©
tagline = ##f
}
\paper {
ragged-right = ##f
}
global = {
\tempo Ad libitum 4=120
\key d \major
\time 6/8
s2.
\bar |.
}
right = \new Voice
\global
{ R2. }
left = \new Voice
\global
{ R2. }
\score {
\new PianoStaff \with {
instrumentName = Piano
}
\right
\left
}
ly-beats-musx.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Finale challenge
Hi Simon, both assumption are correct but it would have been great to have that file available in a presentatipn ;-/ Urs Am 22. Mai 2015 01:39:10 MESZ, schrieb Simon Albrecht simon.albre...@mail.de: Am 22.05.2015 um 00:45 schrieb Jacques Menu: Hello Urs, Sorry, no joke intended actually… I just don’t know what a Finale challenge is! I think the point was about typesetting some complicated music, which Urs will send to anyone interested. Here are the sizes: menu@macbookprojm:~/Documents/LaTeX/PartitionsLilypond ltt *Finale* -rw-r--r--@ 1 menu admin 36302 May 21 22:55:52 2015 PianoScoreForFinaleChallenge.pdf -rw-r--r--@ 1 menu admin 86554 May 21 22:54:19 2015 PianoScoreForFinaleChallenge.musx And here the point was that a Lilypond file for the same music is around two hundred times smaller… :-) I made the test. The .pdfs are virtually the same size, though. Cheers, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: how to add barre indications to automatic fret diagrams?
On 5/21/15 4:42 PM, pls p.l.schm...@gmx.de wrote: On 21.05.2015, at 21:06, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote: Transposing doesn't work on chord shapes. Transposing works on notes. The automatic fretboard creator looks at the notes and creates a fretboard. At that point, it has no knowledge of a chord shape, so we can't do the shape shifting algorithm there. Ah, ok, now I¹m beginning to understand the problem. The line between transposing and shape shifting is sometimes very thin, though. (The notes of) Some chord structures like e.g. 1.3.5.8.10.15 (G shape) or 1.5.8.10.12.15 (E shape) cannot be transposed without also shifting and thus keeping their shapes. Transposing the notes of other chord structures like 1.5.8.10 could mean using either the same shape (shape shifting) or switching to at least one (sometimes two) alternative shape(s) (A shape, D shape, E shape) Actually, this is not what I meant. I am now speaking solely in LilyPond internals terms. When \transpose is applied to a chord, it changes the pitches of the chord, but does not change the fingerings. And there is no reasonable system I can imagine that would allow \transpose to do the right thing on both chords and single notes, relative to fingerings. So \transpose is almost guaranteed *not* to work effectively on automatically-generated fret diagrams. That is *why* there is a predefined fretboard capability defined in LilyPond. You are free to define the set of chords you want to work with, complete with fingerings. And if you do that, the predefined fretboards will work *exactly* the way you want them to work when you transpose. As part of the predefined fretboard code, to make it easy to define fretboards, we have the concept of a chord shape (e.g. E-shape, A-shape, D-shape). And we can define other chords as these shapes shifted by a certain number of frets. That is what I meant by shape shifting. Not changing shapes, but moving a shape along the fretboard by a given number of frets. I apologize for my lack of clarity. In the current usage of predefined-guitar-fretboards, we actually don't use E-shape, because it is missing the barre. So we use F-shape (which has the barre) and then slide it along the fretboard wherever we want to go, to get F#, G, G#, etc. Same with A-shape. We use bes-shape (because it has the barre) and then slide it along the fretboard. The predefined fretboards are really quite robust to LilyPond transposition, meaning you can apply \transpose to a music expression going to a FretBoards context, and it will give you what you want. The only problem is if you don't like the predefined fretboards, you'll have to make your own predefined fret diagram table, but that is a one-time thing. Hm, I¹d either use e,-0 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-0 e¹-0 Yes, that is what I meant to type -- the other was a typo. or (even more likely) e,-0 b,-2 e-3 gis-1 b-0 e¹-0, This is my most often played E-chord. But if this is used with automatic (not predefined) fretboards, it will not be transposable. the latter making it even more complicated! When transposing this open chord to a barred chord all fingers would have to be raised by 1. Yes, and this rule would apply in the case of E, but would not apply in the case of A if you are playing the A as a barre on fret 2. And I can imagine no straightforward means of configuring the transposition if you don't like the default output. That's why we have predefined fret diagrams. They both sound fine to me! Are they mutually exclusive? I¹d suggest another condition: if we make a barre on the lowest fret and set the fingering of all the dots on the lowest fret to 1, the other fingers should be automatically raised by one. It does make sense, but I can find some counterexamples, so I don't think that rule should be implemented. I've made some changes to the automatic fret diagram generator code that will add barres, as long as you have fingerings listed in the diagram. I've attached it to this email. If you would like to try it out, copy translation-functions.scm to the scm/ subdirectory of your lilypond installation. Make a copy of the original, of course. Thanks, Carl translation-functions.scm Description: translation-functions.scm automatic-fretboards-barre.ly Description: automatic-fretboards-barre.ly ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Finale challenge
Here's another non-single measure one in 6/8 time: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/527ae92fe4b0febeee4f40d2/t/52a265f0e4b08d7f85fde3e5/1386374655454/02.png On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Urs Liska [via Lilypond] ml-node+s1069038n176869...@n5.nabble.com wrote: Hi Simon, both assumption are correct but it would have been great to have that file available in a presentatipn ;-/ Urs Am 22. Mai 2015 01:39:10 MESZ, schrieb Simon Albrecht [hidden email] http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=176869i=0: Am 22.05.2015 um 00:45 schrieb Jacques Menu: Hello Urs, Sorry, no joke intended actually… I just don’t know what a Finale challenge is! I think the point was about typesetting some complicated music, which Urs will send to anyone interested. Here are the sizes: menu@macbookprojm:~/Documents/LaTeX/PartitionsLilypond ltt *Finale* -rw-r--r--@ 1 menu admin 36302 May 21 22:55:52 2015 PianoScoreForFinaleChallenge.pdf -rw-r--r--@ 1 menu admin 86554 May 21 22:54:19 2015 PianoScoreForFinaleChallenge.musx And here the point was that a Lilypond file for the same music is around two hundred times smaller… :-) I made the test. The .pdfs are virtually the same size, though. Cheers, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list [hidden email] http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=176869i=1 https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user -- If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Finale-challenge-tp176856p176869.html To start a new topic under User, email ml-node+s1069038n...@n5.nabble.com To unsubscribe from Lilypond, click here http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_codenode=2code=dGlzaW1zdC5saWx5cG9uZEBnbWFpbC5jb218Mnw4MzU3Njg3MDU= . NAML http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewerid=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.namlbase=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespacebreadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Finale-challenge-tp176856p176872.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: how to add barre indications to automatic fret diagrams?
On 5/21/15 8:39 AM, pls p.l.schm...@gmx.de wrote:
I thought about this issue quite a bit when I was creating predefined
fret
diagrams. There, we introduced the idea of a chord shape. There is a
function that shifts a chord shape by N frets (offset-fret). At
present,
it adds N to the fret number for every dot. I thought about setting the
fret number to N for every open string, but elected not to do it
because I
wouldn't know what to do with the finger. I guess it's possible to set
it
to 1.
I would argue that it would make a lot of sense to set the fret number
to N for every open string² and to automatically add a barre indication
when transposing open chord shapes. Otherwise these resulting diagrams
look really daunting and unplayable.
There is a difference between transposing and shape shifting.
Shape shifting is done on chord shapes, rather than music. It would be
trivial to set the fret to N and the finger to 1 when shifting a chord
shape. I think that probably makes sense to do.
Transposing doesn't work on chord shapes. Transposing works on notes.
The automatic fretboard creator looks at the notes and creates a
fretboard. At that point, it has no knowledge of a chord shape, so we
can't do the shape shifting algorithm there.
Do you represent an E chord as
e, b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b e'
or
e,-0 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-0 e'-c ?
If the latter, you will get a warning when you try to transpose the chord,
because you're asking for open strings, and the transposed notes don't
work on open strings. It makes for an incorrect diagram, with the finger
listed as 0 and a dot on the fret corresponding to the transposition.
\new FretBoards {
e,-0 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-0 e'-01
\transpose e f e,-0 b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b-0 e'-01
}
If you use the former notation, you get an incomplete fretboard when you
transpose the code,
because you:
1) Don't have the barre indicator
2) Don't have the finger listed for the barred notes
However, you don't get the warning, and you don't have the inconsistency
of asking for an open string and showing a dot simultaneously.
\new FretBoards {
e, b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b e'1
\transpose e f e, b,-3 e-4 gis-2 b e'1
}
It would be possible to employ some code like the following:
If (some notes have fingers given) and
(there is more than one dot on the lowest fret in the diagram)
then
make a barre on the lowest fret and set the fingering of all the dots
on the lowest fret to 1
Or alternatively
If (some notes have fingers given) and
(a note has a finger of 0 and a fret = 1)
then
give that note a finger of 1
If (we have more than one note with the same finger)
then
make a barre from the lowest note to the highest note on that finger
Do you think either of these algorithms would do what you want?
Thanks,
Carl
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Finale challenge
Anyone ready for a new Finale challenge? I need someone entering one 6/8 measure of a two-voice piano part in a current Finale vetsion :-/ Best Urs___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
