Re: Dashed repeat tie

[Thomas Morley]

2015-10-08 11:21 GMT+02:00  :
> Can I set dash-definition on a RepeatTie?  It appears that the answer is
> "no":  that property is part of tie-interface and RepeatTies instead use
> semi-tie-interface.  So the real question is, how can I get a similar
> effect?
>
> --
> Matthew Skala
> msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before principles.
> http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/



Works here:

\version "2.18.2"

\relative c' {
  \once \override RepeatTie.dash-definition = #'((0 1 0.1 0.2))
  c1\repeatTie
  c1-\tweak dash-definition #'((0 1 0.1 0.2)) \repeatTie
}


Cheers,
  Harm

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Stem-to-stem slurs

[Mats Bengtsson]

Simon Albrecht  mail.de> writes:

> >> Other than adding \shape overrides
> > Why do you want to avoid \shape overrides?
> 
> Because they have to be done for each slur individually?
> At any rate, it would be easier to, say, \override Slur.attachment = 
> #'Stem (as opposed to #'NoteHead).

If you search the mailing list archives, you will find out that LilyPond had
such a feature up to version 2.2, when it was removed as part of a
reimplementation of the slur support. Apart from the technical difficulty of
supporting it with the new implementation, another reason was the intention
that LilyPond should "do the right thing" in a sufficiently large portion of
all cases that the feature was no longer needed. 

/Mats


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Dashed repeat tie

[mskala]

Can I set dash-definition on a RepeatTie?  It appears that the answer is
"no":  that property is part of tie-interface and RepeatTies instead use
semi-tie-interface.  So the real question is, how can I get a similar
effect?

-- 
Matthew Skala
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before principles.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: frescobaldi output file location

[Urs Liska]

Am 08.10.2015 um 12:59 schrieb Gerard McConnell:
> Hello, I've switched to Frescobaldi, it's great.  How do I set up
> where the output files are stored?  The initial setup sends them to a 
> Windows/temp/ folder but I want to change that.
> Thanks for any help,
> Gerard
>

I'm not sure if that's really and finally what you want, but as soon as
you save your input file as XXX.ly the output file will be XXX.pdf in
the same directory.

HTH
Urs

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Dashed repeat tie

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley  writes:

> 2015-10-08 11:21 GMT+02:00  :
>> Can I set dash-definition on a RepeatTie?  It appears that the answer is
>> "no":  that property is part of tie-interface and RepeatTies instead use
>> semi-tie-interface.  So the real question is, how can I get a similar
>> effect?
>
> Works here:
>
> \version "2.18.2"
>
> \relative c' {
>   \once \override RepeatTie.dash-definition = #'((0 1 0.1 0.2))
>   c1\repeatTie
>   c1-\tweak dash-definition #'((0 1 0.1 0.2)) \repeatTie
> }

Does that mean that semi-tie-interface and/or RepeatTie are missing a
reference to dash-definition?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

frescobaldi output file location

[Gerard McConnell]

Hello, I've switched to Frescobaldi, it's great.  How do I set up where the
output files are stored?  The initial setup sends them to a  Windows/temp/
folder but I want to change that.
Thanks for any help,
Gerard
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Using \partial with TACET

[N. Andrew Walsh]

Hi List,

I'm working on a collection of masses, which I've broken up into a tree of
files: each mass is in its own directory, with separate files for each
movement and a master file listing all the \includes. There are also now
separate files for each movement's \score block, so I can have different
layout options per movement (this also seems necessary if I want each
\music block to be contained in a differently-named variable to call up
later when making the parts).

Here's my issue: in the last mass, the tympani part is tacet. I want the
Tympani to show up in the score in the first system only; but in the part,
I would like to have the \header block for that mass over a \markup
declaring TACET in big block letters (potentially over a compressed
rest-bar). I can do this for simple movements, but now I have one with a)
an 8th-note pickup, and b) a meter change in the middle. If I have the
following in the Tympani variable:

VITympanoMusic = \new Voice \relative c {
  \clef bass
  \partial 8 r8 | R2*54^\markup { \center-align TACET }
  R2.*29^\markup { \center-align TACET }
}

Lily throws a barcheck failure (but looks fine in the score). Is there a
better way to do this? am I doing something wrong here, or is this a bug
with Lily herself?

Secondly, is there a way I can replace that whole movement with just a big
all-caps "TACET" without the multi-measure rests?

Cheers,

A
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[Thomas Morley]

2015-10-08 15:40 GMT+02:00 Sven :
> Reading my way through Behind Bars by Elaine Gould, I'm trying to replicate
> some of the examples in LilyPond. One of them contains a tie over a system
> break:
>
> \version "2.18.2"
>
> \relative c'' {
>   r2. fis,4~ | \break
>   fis8 a16 fis r8 r2 \bar "|."
>   }
>
>
> LP puts a sharp in front of the first f# in measure 2 as well as the second
> one. According to Gould repeating an accidental twice in a bar in close
> succession is redundant (and I think I agree with her). To hide the second
> sharp, I've put \once \override Accidental #'transparent = ##t in front of
> it. Is this the preferred way of doing hiding that sharp?
>
> I don't consider this a bug per se, but maybe LP can programmed to avoid
> repeating accidentals in close succession in upcoming versions?
>
> Sven


Is a tied note with Accidental after line-break "in close succession"?
Opinions differ.

Anyway, the documented method to use:

\override Accidental.hide-tied-accidental-after-break = ##t


Cheers,
  Harm

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Repeat with alternatives

[Stan Korzilius]

Dear all,

Thank you all for your help! I think the best solution to my problem, as
someone of you suggested, to start the alternative at the beginnings of
bars and not somewhere in the middle. The only 'problem' then is that the
2nd volta bracket is not closed. It does make it easier to read.

B.t.w., the reason that the automatic volta repeats does not work for me (I
don't think this was clear to everybody) is that the repeat should not
start after the alternative. In my real sheet I have sets of 8 bars that
are repeated, with only the 3rd of 4th bar different.

Again, thank you all and maybe until next time ;)

Kind regards,

Stan

2015-10-01 20:16 GMT+02:00 Brian Barker :

> At 15:22 30/09/2015 +0200, you wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to write a piece that has repeats with alternatives. It seems
>> that "\repeat volta 2" is the way to go with supplying the alternatives in
>> "\alternative". However, this seems to work only for alternative _endings_,
>> while I have alternative _middle parts_.
>>
>
> I think first- and second-time bars do indeed work only for endings - but
> a piece can continue after these alternative endings, which has the effect
> you require. There is no requirement for such endings to be at the end of
> the piece.
>
> But they are indeed called first-time *bars* (= measures), and I think
> your problem is in trying to apply the technique to parts of bars. Surely
> you should start the alternative at the beginning of bar 2, so that the
> first two crotchets (quarter notes) appear in both alternatives. There is
> no reason to wait until the first note that is different and start the
> alternative mid-bar. Wouldn't that solve your problem?
>
> If I understand your intentions correctly, I'd even suggest that the final
> semibreve (whole note) could be included in both alternatives, so that they
> did indeed last to the end of the piece: wouldn't that be easier for
> performers to read? (I do appreciate, though, that your example may be
> artificial.)
>
> Brian Barker - privately
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Accidentals tied over a system break

[Sven]

Reading my way through Behind Bars by Elaine Gould, I'm trying to replicate
some of the examples in LilyPond. One of them contains a tie over a system
break:

\version "2.18.2"

\relative c'' {
  r2. fis,4~ | \break
  fis8 a16 fis r8 r2 \bar "|."
  }


LP puts a sharp in front of the first f# in measure 2 as well as the second
one. According to Gould repeating an accidental twice in a bar in close
succession is redundant (and I think I agree with her). To hide the second
sharp, I've put \once \override Accidental #'transparent = ##t in front of
it. Is this the preferred way of doing hiding that sharp?

I don't consider this a bug per se, but maybe LP can programmed to avoid
repeating accidentals in close succession in upcoming versions?

Sven
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley  writes:

> 2015-10-08 15:40 GMT+02:00 Sven :
>> Reading my way through Behind Bars by Elaine Gould, I'm trying to replicate
>> some of the examples in LilyPond. One of them contains a tie over a system
>> break:
>>
>> \version "2.18.2"
>>
>> \relative c'' {
>>   r2. fis,4~ | \break
>>   fis8 a16 fis r8 r2 \bar "|."
>>   }
>>
>>
>> LP puts a sharp in front of the first f# in measure 2 as well as the second
>> one. According to Gould repeating an accidental twice in a bar in close
>> succession is redundant (and I think I agree with her). To hide the second
>> sharp, I've put \once \override Accidental #'transparent = ##t in front of
>> it. Is this the preferred way of doing hiding that sharp?
>>
>> I don't consider this a bug per se, but maybe LP can programmed to avoid
>> repeating accidentals in close succession in upcoming versions?
>>
>> Sven
>
>
> Is a tied note with Accidental after line-break "in close succession"?
> Opinions differ.
>
> Anyway, the documented method to use:
>
> \override Accidental.hide-tied-accidental-after-break = ##t

Ah, but he was not talking about the tied accidental after the break.
He was talking about the accidental following the tied accidental after
the break.  Namely issue 649.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "Thomas Morley" 

To: "Sven" 
Cc: "lilypond-user" 
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: Accidentals tied over a system break



2015-10-08 15:40 GMT+02:00 Sven :
Reading my way through Behind Bars by Elaine Gould, I'm trying to 
replicate
some of the examples in LilyPond. One of them contains a tie over a 
system

break:

\version "2.18.2"

\relative c'' {
  r2. fis,4~ | \break
  fis8 a16 fis r8 r2 \bar "|."
  }


LP puts a sharp in front of the first f# in measure 2 as well as the 
second

one. According to Gould repeating an accidental twice in a bar in close
succession is redundant (and I think I agree with her). To hide the 
second
sharp, I've put \once \override Accidental #'transparent = ##t in front 
of

it. Is this the preferred way of doing hiding that sharp?

I don't consider this a bug per se, but maybe LP can programmed to avoid
repeating accidentals in close succession in upcoming versions?

Sven



Is a tied note with Accidental after line-break "in close succession"?
Opinions differ.

Anyway, the documented method to use:

\override Accidental.hide-tied-accidental-after-break = ##t



I don't believe the OP is complaining about the sharp after the break: 
rather the sharp on the last sounded note.  That doesn't appear needed, 
since we already have a sharp shown on the first note in the bar.


--
Phil Holmes 



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[Trevor Daniels]

Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, October 08, 2015 3:21 PM

> From: "Thomas Morley" 
> To: "Sven" 
> Cc: "lilypond-user" 
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Accidentals tied over a system break
> 
> 
>> 2015-10-08 15:40 GMT+02:00 Sven :
>>> Reading my way through Behind Bars by Elaine Gould, I'm trying to 
>>> replicate
>>> some of the examples in LilyPond. One of them contains a tie over a 
>>> system
>>> break:
>>>
>>> \version "2.18.2"
>>>
>>> \relative c'' {
>>>   r2. fis,4~ | \break
>>>   fis8 a16 fis r8 r2 \bar "|."
>>>   }
>>>
>>>
>>> LP puts a sharp in front of the first f# in measure 2 as well as the 
>>> second
>>> one. According to Gould repeating an accidental twice in a bar in close
>>> succession is redundant (and I think I agree with her). To hide the 
>>> second
>>> sharp, I've put \once \override Accidental #'transparent = ##t in front 
>>> of
>>> it. Is this the preferred way of doing hiding that sharp?
>>>
>>> I don't consider this a bug per se, but maybe LP can programmed to avoid
>>> repeating accidentals in close succession in upcoming versions?
>>>
>
> I don't believe the OP is complaining about the sharp after the break: 
> rather the sharp on the last sounded note.  That doesn't appear needed, 
> since we already have a sharp shown on the first note in the bar.

Furthermore, if the tie is removed the sharp on the final fis
is also removed.  The issue is, without the \break the final fis
needs the sharp as the second fis doesn't have one, being tied
to the first fis.  Adding the \break causes the second fis to
need (and get) a sharp, but the sharp on the third fis, which is
now redundant, is not removed.  Seems to be a bug to me.

Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Using \partial with TACET

[David Kastrup]

"N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:

> Hi List,
>
> I'm working on a collection of masses, which I've broken up into a tree of
> files: each mass is in its own directory, with separate files for each
> movement and a master file listing all the \includes. There are also now
> separate files for each movement's \score block, so I can have different
> layout options per movement (this also seems necessary if I want each
> \music block to be contained in a differently-named variable to call up
> later when making the parts).
>
> Here's my issue: in the last mass, the tympani part is tacet. I want the
> Tympani to show up in the score in the first system only; but in the part,
> I would like to have the \header block for that mass over a \markup
> declaring TACET in big block letters (potentially over a compressed
> rest-bar). I can do this for simple movements, but now I have one with a)
> an 8th-note pickup, and b) a meter change in the middle. If I have the
> following in the Tympani variable:
>
> VITympanoMusic = \new Voice \relative c {
>   \clef bass
>   \partial 8 r8 | R2*54^\markup { \center-align TACET }
>   R2.*29^\markup { \center-align TACET }
> }
>
> Lily throws a barcheck failure (but looks fine in the score). Is there a
> better way to do this? am I doing something wrong here, or is this a bug
> with Lily herself?

I don't see any meter change.  I don't see a minimal example one could
compile.  I don't even see a version number.

How do you suppose anybody is going to analyze your problem without
knowledge about the actual corresponding LilyPond file and the actual
corresponding LilyPond binary?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[Simon Albrecht]

On 08.10.2015 16:38, Trevor Daniels wrote:

Furthermore, if the tie is removed the sharp on the final fis
is also removed.  The issue is, without the \break the final fis
needs the sharp as the second fis doesn't have one, being tied
to the first fis.  Adding the \break causes the second fis to
need (and get) a sharp, but the sharp on the third fis, which is
now redundant, is not removed.  Seems to be a bug to me.


And, just as David said, one that is long known and being tracked: 
. There has been 
some discussion, but at any rate it’s nonsense to have both accidentals, 
and IMO the second should be left out.


Yours, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Tweaking a footnote

[David Sumbler]

Thanks for the response.  It hadn't occurred to me to look in \paper
variables for 'footnote-separator-markup', though it probably should
have done.

Similarly, it hadn't occurred to me simply to put the asterisk into the
footnote string, even though this should have been an obvious solution!
I think I was mystified by that fact that Lilypond prints its default
mark in the text, but if you change that default, it doesn't.  Somehow
that stopped me seeing the obvious.

Thanks again.

David


On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 17:04 +0200, Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> 
> Try:
> 
> \version "2.18.2"
> #(set-default-paper-size "a6")
> 
> \paper {
>   tagline = ##f
>   footnote-separator-markup = ##f 
> }
> 
> {
>   \override Score.FootnoteItem.annotation-line = ##f
>   \footnote "*" #'(0 . 3) \markup \fill-line { "*Theme by Louis
> Drouet" }
>   c'4
> }
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pierre
> 
> 
> 2015-10-06 16:43 GMT+02:00 David Sumbler :
> I want to annotate a particular passage with a footnote.
> 
> So far I have managed to get what I want in the music itself
> with:
> 
> \override Score.FootnoteItem.annotation-line = ##f
> \footnote "*" #'(0 . 3) "Theme by Louis Drouet"
> 
> This produces an asterisk over the first note of the relevant
> passage,
> which is exactly what I want.
> 
> But there are 3 things about the footnote itself which I would
> like to
> alter.
> 
> 1) If I don't specify a mark, Lilypond puts a "1" by the grob
> and by the
> footnote.  But if I do specify a mark, the footnote itself
> does not show
> it, i.e. it has no asterisk (in this case) by it.  I want the
> footnote
> to display the asterisk, otherwise it will not be clear why
> there is an
> asterisk in the score.
> 
> 2) Lilypond produces a horizontal line separating the footnote
> area from
> the main part of the page.  I would prefer not to have this -
> assuming
> that I can get the asterisk to be displayed next to the
> footnote, there
> is no ambiguity about what the footnote is there for.
> 
> 3) I would like this footnote centred, rather than
> left-aligned on the
> page, but I haven't figured out how to do this.  No doubt it
> involves
> normal markup commands, but I can't work out how to apply them
> in this
> case.  (I have never used footnotes before.)
> 
> Thanks for any suggestions.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> ___
> 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: Using \partial with TACET

[Jacques Menu]

Hello A,

\version "2.19.28"

VITympanoMusic = \new Voice \relative c {
  \clef bass
  \partial 8
  r8 |
  R2*54^\markup { \center-align TACET }
  R2.*29^\markup { \center-align TACET }
}

{
\VITympanoMusic
}

This has 29 times three quater notes, so if you use the default 4/4, then you 
get:

warning: barcheck failed at: 3/4

But has DK says, we don’t know how you use this...

JM


> Le 8 oct. 2015 à 16:12, David Kastrup  a écrit :
> 
> "N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:
> 
>> Hi List,
>> 
>> I'm working on a collection of masses, which I've broken up into a tree of
>> files: each mass is in its own directory, with separate files for each
>> movement and a master file listing all the \includes. There are also now
>> separate files for each movement's \score block, so I can have different
>> layout options per movement (this also seems necessary if I want each
>> \music block to be contained in a differently-named variable to call up
>> later when making the parts).
>> 
>> Here's my issue: in the last mass, the tympani part is tacet. I want the
>> Tympani to show up in the score in the first system only; but in the part,
>> I would like to have the \header block for that mass over a \markup
>> declaring TACET in big block letters (potentially over a compressed
>> rest-bar). I can do this for simple movements, but now I have one with a)
>> an 8th-note pickup, and b) a meter change in the middle. If I have the
>> following in the Tympani variable:
>> 
>> VITympanoMusic = \new Voice \relative c {
>>  \clef bass
>>  \partial 8 r8 | R2*54^\markup { \center-align TACET }
>>  R2.*29^\markup { \center-align TACET }
>> }
>> 
>> Lily throws a barcheck failure (but looks fine in the score). Is there a
>> better way to do this? am I doing something wrong here, or is this a bug
>> with Lily herself?
> 
> I don't see any meter change.  I don't see a minimal example one could
> compile.  I don't even see a version number.
> 
> How do you suppose anybody is going to analyze your problem without
> knowledge about the actual corresponding LilyPond file and the actual
> corresponding LilyPond binary?
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup
> 
> ___
> 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: frescobaldi output file location

[Urs Liska]

Am 08.10.2015 um 18:09 schrieb Edward Ardzinski:
> I'm in the same boat, and was confused.  Actually it seems that you can save
> the PDF when you do a preview also.  For the midi files after I've played it
> in Windows Media Player I open the file folder up and copy the file to where
> I want.  Opening the folder this way gets me access tot he PDF to do the
> same if I want.

You have the menu option Lilypond->Generated files. From there you can
open even the PDF in the temp directory in an external PDF viewer. From
there you can save it wherever you want.

>
> I have not found that the output path is editable...it's not a deal breaker
> to me.

I think you can tell that inside the LilyPond file (although I don't
recall what that was).

But I think it could be considered adding a preference to Frescobaldi to
have an explicit temp folder.
I've added an issue to discuss this:
https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/issues/769

Urs

>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/frescobaldi-output-file-location-tp182142p182162.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


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[Urs Liska]

Am 08.10.2015 um 15:40 schrieb Sven:
> Reading my way through Behind Bars by Elaine Gould, I'm trying to
> replicate some of the examples in LilyPond. One of them contains a tie
> over a system break:
>
> \version "2.18.2"
>
> \relative c'' {
>   r2. fis,4~ | \break 
>   fis8 a16 fis r8 r2 \bar "|."
>   }
>
>
> LP puts a sharp in front of the first f# in measure 2 as well as the
> second one. According to Gould repeating an accidental twice in a bar
> in close succession is redundant (and I think I agree with her). To
> hide the second sharp, I've put \once \override Accidental
> #'transparent = ##t in front of it. Is this the preferred way of doing
> hiding that sharp?
>

Actually I'm not sure about the proper solution or whether it's a bug
(as David Kastrup suggested).
But to hide the accidental manually you should use \once \omit
Accidental instead of overriding #'transparent. Setting an object
transparent will hide it but keep the space in place (so you'll probably
see an unwanted gap instead.

\hide is an alias for what you did, and \omit is an alias for \override
Accidental #'stencil = ##f.

HTH
Urs

> I don't consider this a bug per se, but maybe LP can programmed to
> avoid repeating accidentals in close succession in upcoming versions?
>
> Sven
>
>
> ___
> 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: frescobaldi output file location

[Noeck]

Hi Gerard and Edward,

I guess the reasoning is: if you don't save the input ly file, you are
probably not doing something persistent but just an interactive test.
Then the pdf is stored in /tmp because it needs to be stored somewhere
to be displayed in Frescobaldi. Both the input and the output only exist
as long as the program is open.

If it is meant to be persistent, you probably save the ly file in order
to be able to modify the score later. And then you get the pdf in the
same place by default.

I never had the need for something in between these two options, but you
seem to. Urs' mail was probably more helpful, I just wanted to add this.

Cheers,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Using \partial with TACET

[Jacques Menu]

\markup{\huge\bold TACET}

solves you second question.


> Le 8 oct. 2015 à 18:04, Jacques Menu  a écrit :
> 
> Hello A,
> 
> \version "2.19.28"
> 
> VITympanoMusic = \new Voice \relative c {
>  \clef bass
>  \partial 8
>  r8 |
>  R2*54^\markup { \center-align TACET }
>  R2.*29^\markup { \center-align TACET }
> }
> 
> {
> \VITympanoMusic
> }
> 
> This has 29 times three quater notes, so if you use the default 4/4, then you 
> get:
> 
>   warning: barcheck failed at: 3/4
> 
> But has DK says, we don’t know how you use this...
> 
> JM
> 
> 
>> Le 8 oct. 2015 à 16:12, David Kastrup  a écrit :
>> 
>> "N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:
>> 
>>> Hi List,
>>> 
>>> I'm working on a collection of masses, which I've broken up into a tree of
>>> files: each mass is in its own directory, with separate files for each
>>> movement and a master file listing all the \includes. There are also now
>>> separate files for each movement's \score block, so I can have different
>>> layout options per movement (this also seems necessary if I want each
>>> \music block to be contained in a differently-named variable to call up
>>> later when making the parts).
>>> 
>>> Here's my issue: in the last mass, the tympani part is tacet. I want the
>>> Tympani to show up in the score in the first system only; but in the part,
>>> I would like to have the \header block for that mass over a \markup
>>> declaring TACET in big block letters (potentially over a compressed
>>> rest-bar). I can do this for simple movements, but now I have one with a)
>>> an 8th-note pickup, and b) a meter change in the middle. If I have the
>>> following in the Tympani variable:
>>> 
>>> VITympanoMusic = \new Voice \relative c {
>>> \clef bass
>>> \partial 8 r8 | R2*54^\markup { \center-align TACET }
>>> R2.*29^\markup { \center-align TACET }
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Lily throws a barcheck failure (but looks fine in the score). Is there a
>>> better way to do this? am I doing something wrong here, or is this a bug
>>> with Lily herself?
>> 
>> I don't see any meter change.  I don't see a minimal example one could
>> compile.  I don't even see a version number.
>> 
>> How do you suppose anybody is going to analyze your problem without
>> knowledge about the actual corresponding LilyPond file and the actual
>> corresponding LilyPond binary?
>> 
>> -- 
>> David Kastrup
>> 
>> ___
>> 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: frescobaldi output file location

[Edward Ardzinski]

I'm in the same boat, and was confused.  Actually it seems that you can save
the PDF when you do a preview also.  For the midi files after I've played it
in Windows Media Player I open the file folder up and copy the file to where
I want.  Opening the folder this way gets me access tot he PDF to do the
same if I want.

I have not found that the output path is editable...it's not a deal breaker
to me.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/frescobaldi-output-file-location-tp182142p182162.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: Handling of objects near barlines

[David Sumbler]

Thanks to Harm and Simon for their responses, which were much as I
expected.  I still can't see why others don't think my idea is a good
one, since it makes some things easier to do and makes nothing more
difficult than it is currently - unless Simon is really being serious
when he says he doesn't know where clef signs etc. should go.

But, ho hum, as I said the response was only what I expected.  I can
live with that!  And I can live with the occasional ungainly overrides
too.  Lilypond is still a fantastic program.

David


On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 23:30 +0200, Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2015-10-05 19:49 GMT+02:00 David Sumbler :
> > For a while I have been thinking about something which I feel could be a
> > useful modification of Lilypond's behaviour.
> >
> > Lilypond defaults to standard choices for musical notation, which
> > generally saves a lot of work - for instance, it assumes that when we
> > write c4 we want a standard crotchet to appear on the page.  It saves a
> > lot of time not having to specify that that is what we want, yet we can
> > still change the appearance of the note into something else if we want
> > to, with a bit of extra work.
> >
> > However, I have had a few problems with items near barlines lately, some
> > of which I had help with from the list, and it occurs to me that
> > Lilypond is being unnecessarily "helpful" in this area.
> >
> > Lilypond defaults to putting clef-change signs before the barline, key-
> > and time-signature after the barline regardless of whether they are
> > before or after a possible bar check marking.  For instance, the clef,
> > key signature and time signature changes in the following all appear in
> > their conventional positions, even though they are (perversely) written
> > in reverse order, and with a bar check between two of the items.
> >
> > \version "2.19.24"
> >
> > \relative c'
> > \displayMusic {
> >   \key g \major c1 \time 3/4 \key f \major |
> >   \clef "bass" c2. |
> > }
> >
> > Even when we write the opposite, Lilypond still conforms to the standard
> > practice - which is very nice of it, but unnecessary.  Lilypond is a
> > practical tool, not an educational one, and people using it know the
> > conventions and can just as easily type a key change etc. before or
> > after the bar check.  Lilypond's insistence on orthodoxy does not save
> > us any effort whatsoever.
> >
> > Now I realise that the bar checks are not generally required in
> > Lilypond, and they don't really represent barlines anyway, even if they
> > look like them.  But I think it would be useful if we could use them to
> > aid the positioning of these various items.
> >
> > What I am suggesting is that if you don't use a bar check, then Lilypond
> > would sensibly put items in their conventional positions.  But if you do
> > use a bar check, and put the time change or whatever on the
> > unconventional side of it, then Lilypond should respect that.  It would
> > increase the versatility of the program without losing anything useful.
> >
> > And it is not necessarily because we are being perverse that we need to
> > do these apparently strange things: sometimes it is to cope with a
> > situation which is unusual but which Lilypond doesn't currently cope
> > with.  For instance, one of my recent problems concerned a clef change
> > during the "first-time bar" section of a repeated passage; this meant
> > that at the start of the "second-time" bar it was necessary to have a
> > clef sign to avoid ambiguity - but it made no sense to have it before
> > the bar line (i.e. at the end of the first-time section): of necessity
> > it needed to come after the barline, at the start of the second-time
> > section.  If Lilypond had understood that
> >
> > | \clef "bass"
> >
> > meant that the clef sign should come after the barline, it would have
> > saved me having to type
> >
> > \once \override Score.BreakAlignment #'break-align-orders =
> > #(make-vector 3 '(staff-bar clef key-signature)) \clef "bass"
> >
> > I think it would also be useful, at least for those of us perverse
> > enough to want to do such things, if we could actually anchor items to
> > barlines, simply by attaching them to the bar check - I am thinking
> > particularly about such things as dynamics (notably the \! to end a
> > hairpin) and fermataMarkup.
> >
> > Perhaps this feature could be considered for a future version of
> > Lilypond.  It would not inconvenience those users who don't see the
> > desirability for it in any way.
> >
> > David
> 
> A BarCheck is per default nothing else than (make-music 'BarCheck).
> You suggest that LilyPond depending on your typed order and the
> presence or absence of a BarCheck should order items on the fly.
> 
> I've no idea, whether it's possible at all. But please consider that
> some items have and should have _different_ order at line-end and
> line-begin. How to deal with this situation, if the order should
> depend on your typing? I can't see any 

Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht  writes:

> On 08.10.2015 16:38, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> Furthermore, if the tie is removed the sharp on the final fis
>> is also removed.  The issue is, without the \break the final fis
>> needs the sharp as the second fis doesn't have one, being tied
>> to the first fis.  Adding the \break causes the second fis to
>> need (and get) a sharp, but the sharp on the third fis, which is
>> now redundant, is not removed.  Seems to be a bug to me.
>
> And, just as David said, one that is long known and being tracked:
> . There has been
> some discussion, but at any rate it’s nonsense to have both
> accidentals, and IMO the second should be left out.

I don't think there's much of a disagreement on that.  It's just that
it's quite tricky to do.  The "remove tied accidental unless after line
break" is somewhat easy to do: the accidental in its final phase of
typesetting checks whether there is a tie leading to it and whether that
tie is just a broken-off part of a tie.  If it is, the accidental is
killed.

However, keeping track of the complex relation between this kind of
line-break related killed accidental and the following one is rather
harder to pin down since the following one needs to have no vicinity to
either tie or line break.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: frescobaldi output file location

[tisimst]

Gerard and Edward,

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Noeck [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n182166...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> Hi Gerard and Edward,
>
> I guess the reasoning is: if you don't save the input ly file, you are
> probably not doing something persistent but just an interactive test.
> Then the pdf is stored in /tmp because it needs to be stored somewhere
> to be displayed in Frescobaldi. Both the input and the output only exist
> as long as the program is open.
>
> If it is meant to be persistent, you probably save the ly file in order
> to be able to modify the score later. And then you get the pdf in the
> same place by default.
>

I just wanted to echo what Urs and Joram have said. If you don't push
"Save" before compiling, then all files are put in your "temp" folder. If
you do save it, then the files are put in the same directory as the file
you just compiled. This can be very nice since it allows you to try out
some things without messing with a previously saved version, but if that
isn't useful, then there is another convenient option in the "Edit" >
"Preferences" window. Under the "LilyPond Preferences" menu, there's a
radio button called "Save document if possible". This will take care of
saving the file for you so you no longer have to think about where the
files are going and you don't have to hunt them down. Here's a screenshot
in case my instructions were not clear:

[image: Inline image 1]

Happy Engraving!

- Abraham


image.png (74K) 





--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/frescobaldi-output-file-location-tp182142p182171.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: Accidentals tied over a system break

[Sven]

Sorry, I didn't know this is a known issue.

And thanks for correcting me on how to actually remove the second sharp,
Urs: \once \omit Accidental get's rid of the bugger, while \once \hide
Accidental makes it transparent, leaving its space in tact.

Sven

2015-10-08 19:14 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :

> Simon Albrecht  writes:
>
> > On 08.10.2015 16:38, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> >> Furthermore, if the tie is removed the sharp on the final fis
> >> is also removed.  The issue is, without the \break the final fis
> >> needs the sharp as the second fis doesn't have one, being tied
> >> to the first fis.  Adding the \break causes the second fis to
> >> need (and get) a sharp, but the sharp on the third fis, which is
> >> now redundant, is not removed.  Seems to be a bug to me.
> >
> > And, just as David said, one that is long known and being tracked:
> > . There has been
> > some discussion, but at any rate it’s nonsense to have both
> > accidentals, and IMO the second should be left out.
>
> I don't think there's much of a disagreement on that.  It's just that
> it's quite tricky to do.  The "remove tied accidental unless after line
> break" is somewhat easy to do: the accidental in its final phase of
> typesetting checks whether there is a tie leading to it and whether that
> tie is just a broken-off part of a tie.  If it is, the accidental is
> killed.
>
> However, keeping track of the complex relation between this kind of
> line-break related killed accidental and the following one is rather
> harder to pin down since the following one needs to have no vicinity to
> either tie or line break.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Using \partial with TACET

[N. Andrew Walsh]

duh, I am A Idiot, sorry. That needed some extra code to work. Here's a
more comprehensive version:

\version "2.19.28"
\time 2/4
VITympanoMusic = \new Voice \relative c {
  \clef bass
  \partial 8
  r8 |
  R2*54^\markup { \center-align TACET }
  R2.*29^\markup { \center-align TACET }
}

VIsystembreaks = \new Voice {
   \partial 8 s8 | s2*32 | \break
   s4 s8
   \tempo \markup {\sans \medium \fontsize #4 "Adagio" } s8 |
   s2*21 \bar "||" \break
   \time 3/4
   s2.*29 \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.break-visibility =
#begin-of-line-invisible
   \mark \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.ufermata" } \bar "||" \pageBreak
%% End Credo, Bar 83

   }

and then inside a \score block:
\VITympanoMusic \VIsystembreaks

I resolved the issue with the barcheck: there was a mismatch between the
number of rests given by systembreaks and that in TympanoMusic, but I got
confused because it said the barcheck failed *before* the measure with the
"R2*54" code.

Anyway, the matter is resolved for the barcheck, but I still have a
problem: how do I show an entire set of movements as tacet in the part, but
still have the tympani (with whole-measure rests) show up on the first line
of each movement? I can't use the "R2*X" formula because there's a \time
change in the middle. Is there a code to give that sets an instrument as
tacet for an entire, say, \book block?

Sorry about the sub-working example.

A

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Jacques Menu  wrote:

> \markup{\huge\bold TACET}
>
> solves you second question.
>
>
> > Le 8 oct. 2015 à 18:04, Jacques Menu  a écrit :
> >
> > Hello A,
> >
> > \version "2.19.28"
> >
> > VITympanoMusic = \new Voice \relative c {
> >  \clef bass
> >  \partial 8
> >  r8 |
> >  R2*54^\markup { \center-align TACET }
> >  R2.*29^\markup { \center-align TACET }
> > }
> >
> > {
> > \VITympanoMusic
> > }
> >
> > This has 29 times three quater notes, so if you use the default 4/4,
> then you get:
> >
> >   warning: barcheck failed at: 3/4
> >
> > But has DK says, we don’t know how you use this...
> >
> > JM
> >
> >
> >> Le 8 oct. 2015 à 16:12, David Kastrup  a écrit :
> >>
> >> "N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:
> >>
> >>> Hi List,
> >>>
> >>> I'm working on a collection of masses, which I've broken up into a
> tree of
> >>> files: each mass is in its own directory, with separate files for each
> >>> movement and a master file listing all the \includes. There are also
> now
> >>> separate files for each movement's \score block, so I can have
> different
> >>> layout options per movement (this also seems necessary if I want each
> >>> \music block to be contained in a differently-named variable to call up
> >>> later when making the parts).
> >>>
> >>> Here's my issue: in the last mass, the tympani part is tacet. I want
> the
> >>> Tympani to show up in the score in the first system only; but in the
> part,
> >>> I would like to have the \header block for that mass over a \markup
> >>> declaring TACET in big block letters (potentially over a compressed
> >>> rest-bar). I can do this for simple movements, but now I have one with
> a)
> >>> an 8th-note pickup, and b) a meter change in the middle. If I have the
> >>> following in the Tympani variable:
> >>>
> >>> VITympanoMusic = \new Voice \relative c {
> >>> \clef bass
> >>> \partial 8 r8 | R2*54^\markup { \center-align TACET }
> >>> R2.*29^\markup { \center-align TACET }
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Lily throws a barcheck failure (but looks fine in the score). Is there
> a
> >>> better way to do this? am I doing something wrong here, or is this a
> bug
> >>> with Lily herself?
> >>
> >> I don't see any meter change.  I don't see a minimal example one could
> >> compile.  I don't even see a version number.
> >>
> >> How do you suppose anybody is going to analyze your problem without
> >> knowledge about the actual corresponding LilyPond file and the actual
> >> corresponding LilyPond binary?
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Kastrup
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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

lyrics placement change from 2.18 to 2.19 ?

[Johannes Waldmann]

Hi.

The following snippet is interpreted
differently by 2.18.* and 2.19.* :

\score {
<<
\new Staff { \key a \minor \relative c'' {
  a1   \new Voice { c2 d2 } e1
}}
\addlyrics  { foo bar }
>>
}

notes are displayed identically,
but lyrics placement is changed:

with 2.18.2,  foo -> a1, bar -> e1,
with 2.19.27, foo -> a1, bar -> c2.

This breaks a bunch of my scores (so I don't like it).
Is this a bug? Or a bug-fix?
What is the relevant section of documentation?

Thanks - J.W.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

New Music-Engraving Forum

[Abraham Lee]

All,

Prompted by some discussions on the Finale user forums, a new
software-agnostic forum has been created to discuss general practice music
notation/engraving issues and questions. As far as I'm aware, all users are
welcome, regardless of what their software of choice is for music
engraving.

Here's the link for anyone interested in registering: http://notat.io

Happy Engraving!
- Abraham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Dashed repeat tie

[Thomas Morley]

2015-10-08 12:39 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley  writes:
>
>> 2015-10-08 11:21 GMT+02:00  :
>>> Can I set dash-definition on a RepeatTie?  It appears that the answer is
>>> "no":  that property is part of tie-interface and RepeatTies instead use
>>> semi-tie-interface.  So the real question is, how can I get a similar
>>> effect?
>>
>> Works here:
>>
>> \version "2.18.2"
>>
>> \relative c' {
>>   \once \override RepeatTie.dash-definition = #'((0 1 0.1 0.2))
>>   c1\repeatTie
>>   c1-\tweak dash-definition #'((0 1 0.1 0.2)) \repeatTie
>> }
>
> Does that mean that semi-tie-interface and/or RepeatTie are missing a
> reference to dash-definition?
>
> --
> David Kastrup

yep

Cheers,
  Harm

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: lyrics placement change from 2.18 to 2.19 ?

[Simon Albrecht]

Hello Johannes, and welcome to the list.

On 09.10.2015 00:02, Johannes Waldmann wrote:

Hi.

The following snippet is interpreted
differently by 2.18.* and 2.19.* :

\score {
<<
\new Staff { \key a \minor \relative c'' {
   a1   \new Voice { c2 d2 } e1
}}
\addlyrics  { foo bar }
}

notes are displayed identically,
but lyrics placement is changed:

with 2.18.2,  foo -> a1, bar -> e1,
with 2.19.27, foo -> a1, bar -> c2.

This breaks a bunch of my scores (so I don't like it).
Is this a bug? Or a bug-fix?


Most likely so. I suspect the fix for issue 2010 
 or something in 
that context.



What is the relevant section of documentation?


It’s relevant that \addlyrics has never been working reliably with any 
but the _most_ simple situations. So you were on shifting ground anyway. 
And if you start creating new contexts within the music expression to 
which \addlyrics is applied, it’s most certainly better to use \lyricsto 
and named contexts.
If you have further, more specific questions, feel free to post code 
examples and ask again.


Yours, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: New to Lilypond - including score in LaTeX

[Br. Samuel Springuel]

You have three options:

1) lilypond-book: This is a script that comes with LilyPond which 
enables you to pseudo-include lilypond scores into TeX documents.  It 
preprocesses the document to extract the lilypond relavent bits, runs 
them through lilypond, and then creates a new TeX document where the 
lilypond relavent bits have been replaced by \includegraphics commands.


For more information see:

http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/usage/lilypond_002dbook

If going this route and using TeXShop or TeXworks (on Linux or Mac) you 
might find the LilyPond engines for TeXShop useful for streamlining your 
workflow:


https://users.dimi.uniud.it/~nicola.vitacolonna/software/lilypond-texshop/

2) lyluatex: This is a luatex package which duplicates the basic 
functionality (but not all features) of lilypond-book.  Unlike 
lilypond-book, this is not a preprocessor, but rather uses Lua scripts 
to shunt lilypond scores off to lilypond on the fly and then include 
them back into the original TeX document.


For more information see:

https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex

3) manual method: You can also simply run lilypond as normal (or 
possibly with settings that result in png output instead of pdf) on 
input files and then include the resulting scores in your TeX documents 
using packages like pdfpages (for full page inclusions) or graphix (for 
including smaller images).


Personally, I use method 2.

✝
Br. Samuel, OSB
(R. Padraic Springuel)

PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: How to get X/Y-extent of a bezier-curve?

[Thomas Morley]

2015-10-07 14:08 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :

> The code in my initial mail uses coord-rotate (not
> ly:stencil-rotate-absolute as in Jans suggestion)
> What do you think about this method?
>
> Ofcourse it was heavily simplified, maybe best to put up a patch to
> have the full code for more detailed discussion.

I have to postpone uploading the patch, there are some glitches ...

And one thing which has driven me crazy, before I found the culprit:
`coord-rotate' has a problem which can be demonstrated with:

(display (coord-rotate '(10 . 0) (/ PI 2)))

Expected:   (0 . 10)
Actually:  (6.12323399573677e-16 . 10.0)

What's the best method to get the zero?
Using simple `round' will not work, because I don't want to get
integers for other fractions of PI.
And I don't know how to identify such a value.

Simply ignoring looks not like an option, I had examples where
rounding errors cumulated up to visible changes in the final pdf.


Cheers,
  Harm

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Tweaking a footnote

[Simon Albrecht]

On 08.10.2015 18:58, David Sumbler wrote:

Thanks for the response.  It hadn't occurred to me to look in \paper
variables for 'footnote-separator-markup', though it probably should
have done.


Don’t worry. The footnote engine is not well documented.



Similarly, it hadn't occurred to me simply to put the asterisk into the
footnote string, even though this should have been an obvious solution!
I think I was mystified by that fact that Lilypond prints its default
mark in the text, but if you change that default, it doesn't.


There’s much room for improvement in the footnote implementation.

Yours, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

New to Lilypond - including score in LaTeX

[Felix Yeung]

Dear All,

I’m very new to Lilypond, currently typesetting a document with plainsong 
notation (with gregorio) and with occasional modern music.  I am wondering if 
you there’s any way to incorporate lilypond scores into my document?

Many thanks for your help!

Felix Yeung


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: New to Lilypond - including score in LaTeX

[Nick Payne]

On 09/10/2015 11:57, Br. Samuel Springuel wrote:

You have three options:

1) lilypond-book: This is a script that comes with LilyPond which 
enables you to pseudo-include lilypond scores into TeX documents. It 
preprocesses the document to extract the lilypond relavent bits, runs 
them through lilypond, and then creates a new TeX document where the 
lilypond relavent bits have been replaced by \includegraphics commands.


For more information see:

http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/usage/lilypond_002dbook

If going this route and using TeXShop or TeXworks (on Linux or Mac) 
you might find the LilyPond engines for TeXShop useful for 
streamlining your workflow:


https://users.dimi.uniud.it/~nicola.vitacolonna/software/lilypond-texshop/ 



2) lyluatex: This is a luatex package which duplicates the basic 
functionality (but not all features) of lilypond-book.  Unlike 
lilypond-book, this is not a preprocessor, but rather uses Lua scripts 
to shunt lilypond scores off to lilypond on the fly and then include 
them back into the original TeX document.


For more information see:

https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex

3) manual method: You can also simply run lilypond as normal (or 
possibly with settings that result in png output instead of pdf) on 
input files and then include the resulting scores in your TeX 
documents using packages like pdfpages (for full page inclusions) or 
graphix (for including smaller images).


There is also Lyx (http://www.lyx.org/), a GUI front end to TeX/LaTeX, 
where you can insert Lilypond code in the document and when the document 
is processed Lyx calls lilypond-book to process the code. It comes with 
a sample document lilypond.lyx (in /usr/share/lyx/examples) 
demonstrating the insertion of Lilypond code in a document.


Nick

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Using \partial with TACET

[David Kastrup]

"N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:

> duh, I am A Idiot, sorry. That needed some extra code to work. Here's a
> more comprehensive version:
>
> \version "2.19.28"
> \time 2/4
[...]

Uh, this will set one score containing nothing but the time signature
change.  But this change will not propagate in any way to other scores.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Accidentals tied over a system break

[Urs Liska]

Am 8. Oktober 2015 19:59:57 MESZ, schrieb Sven :
>Sorry, I didn't know this is a known issue.
>
>And thanks for correcting me on how to actually remove the second
>sharp,
>Urs: \once \omit Accidental get's rid of the bugger, while \once \hide
>Accidental makes it transparent, leaving its space in tact.

Well, it's "correct", but still it is a hack. Maybe you inferred it from he 
discussion: you get rid of the redindant accidental - but if your line breaking 
should ever cjange it won't automatically come back.

Urs
>
>Sven
>
>2015-10-08 19:14 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>
>> Simon Albrecht  writes:
>>
>> > On 08.10.2015 16:38, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> >> Furthermore, if the tie is removed the sharp on the final fis
>> >> is also removed.  The issue is, without the \break the final fis
>> >> needs the sharp as the second fis doesn't have one, being tied
>> >> to the first fis.  Adding the \break causes the second fis to
>> >> need (and get) a sharp, but the sharp on the third fis, which is
>> >> now redundant, is not removed.  Seems to be a bug to me.
>> >
>> > And, just as David said, one that is long known and being tracked:
>> > . There has
>been
>> > some discussion, but at any rate it’s nonsense to have both
>> > accidentals, and IMO the second should be left out.
>>
>> I don't think there's much of a disagreement on that.  It's just that
>> it's quite tricky to do.  The "remove tied accidental unless after
>line
>> break" is somewhat easy to do: the accidental in its final phase of
>> typesetting checks whether there is a tie leading to it and whether
>that
>> tie is just a broken-off part of a tie.  If it is, the accidental is
>> killed.
>>
>> However, keeping track of the complex relation between this kind of
>> line-break related killed accidental and the following one is rather
>> harder to pin down since the following one needs to have no vicinity
>to
>> either tie or line break.
>>
>> --
>> David Kastrup
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>___
>lilypond-user mailing list
>lilypond-user@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Using \partial with TACET

[N. Andrew Walsh]

correct. Each movement has its own \score block, in which the starting
meter is set with a single \time command at the top. Subsequent meter
changes are handled by the \systembreaks variable.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:32 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:

> "N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:
>
> > duh, I am A Idiot, sorry. That needed some extra code to work. Here's a
> > more comprehensive version:
> >
> > \version "2.19.28"
> > \time 2/4
> [...]
>
> Uh, this will set one score containing nothing but the time signature
> change.  But this change will not propagate in any way to other scores.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user