Re: Open Sound control?
On Mon 15 Aug 2016 at 18:10:03 (+0200), ander...@notam02.no wrote: > > "D" == David Wright writes: > > D> I've googled around for a file format, but all I find are > D> applications and program fragments. OK, an application might be > D> able to store an OSC protocol stream in a file, but that does not > D> make that a file format. > > OSC has no more need for a special file format than does my TODO list. > > The question was whether OSC could be useful with LY, which it surely > would be. That was question 1. Question 2 was "Can one save osc files like MIDI files?" If one can save OSC files like MIDI files, could you please send me one, and some instructions on how to play it. > Esp. compared to MIDI, where any notation quality apart from > delta-time, coarse pitch values and dynamics are eraded. It's a bit premature for me to try to compare the protocols or the formats as I have no experience with OSC, only MIDI. I have plenty of MIDI files, and to play them I type timidity or audacious (The latter uses a plug-in.) Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Open Sound control?
> "D" == David Wright writes: D> I've googled around for a file format, but all I find are D> applications and program fragments. OK, an application might be D> able to store an OSC protocol stream in a file, but that does not D> make that a file format. OSC has no more need for a special file format than does my TODO list. The question was whether OSC could be useful with LY, which it surely would be. Esp. compared to MIDI, where any notation quality apart from delta-time, coarse pitch values and dynamics are eraded. Cheers, -anders ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Abwesenheitsnotiz
On 2016-08-15 18:57, Simon Albrecht wrote: In case any non-German speaking people might wonder: this is no spam [...] ... and the "Edition Lilienteich" in the mail address means "Edition Lilypond". And they have a logo... ;-) Cheers! On 15.08.2016 18:02, r...@lilienteich.de wrote: Sehr geehrte Dame, sehr geehrter Herr, ich bin bis zum 23.08.2016 im Urlaub und kann Ihre Anfrage leider nicht beantworten. Gerne kümmere ich mich nach meiner Rückkehr um Ihre Wünsche. Ihre eMail wird nicht weitergeleitet. In dringenden Fällen wenden Sie sich bitte an meine Kollegen (edit...@lilienteich.de). Mit freundlichen Grüßen Dennis Ried ___ 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 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:33:44 -0500 David Wright wrote: > My contention there was that the volta construction can produce the > correct score and the correct midi when applied correctly (ie to all > the voices). How do you think I produced correct scores and MIDI for the last 20 years? > I don't understand why you seem reluctant to give credit to what LP > does correctly, and in accordance with the documentation. Your brain seems to be wired differently than mine. That's okay. -- Johan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
David Wright writes: > On Mon 15 Aug 2016 at 17:20:09 (+0200), Johan Vromans wrote: >> >> I change my remark to: "Specifying the structure of a score in >> \global is wonderful, it just doesn't play nice with MIDI, because no >> voice can impose a MIDI repeat structure on any other." > > I don't understand why you seem reluctant to give credit to what LP > does correctly, and in accordance with the documentation. It does not match the workflow he designed around the _graphic_ behavior of unexpanded \repeat volta . He is not scoring correctness but personal convenience. That may be frustrating for the programmers of LilyPond in this case, but most certainly convenience scores high for a program for which the main criticism is the awkwardness of its entry. And there have been a lot of improvements recently (fixing q to become reliable, allowing c2~1~8. for duration entry, the \beamExceptions command, \fixed entry and other stuff) with regard to making input more convenient. I don't see him crossing this not-so-well-definable (in the context of how LilyPond represents music) item from his personal wish list, but I don't see anyone else crossing this item from his personal wish list either. Sometimes what you have is all you'll get. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Ties and retrograde
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes:
> The \retrograde function doesn't seem to handle ties at all, as seen in
> this example, which engraves only one tie:
>
> music = { c'4~ c'8 g'8 }
>
> \new Staff {
> \music
> \retrograde \music
> }
>
> The notation manual mentions that "manual" ties are not handled, and
> suggests that "some" ties can be generated automatically instead, by
> entering longer notes and using automatic note splitting to break them at
> bar lines. But that doesn't work for me, because I have a note made up of
> a quarter and a sixteenth tied together across the middle of a bar, not
> across a bar line. Does someone perhaps have a snippet that will do
> retrograde with correct handling of this kind of tie?
See
Tracker issue: 4956 (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4956/)
Rietveld issue: 302470043 (https://codereview.appspot.com/302470043)
Issue description:
Change \retrograde to deal with ties and repeat chords/notes
Consists of commits: Remove warning about ties in \retrograde
Change retrograde-music function to deal with ties Let \retrograde
expand repeat chords/notes Since those lose their point of
reference, expanding them prior to retrograding keeps the results
sane.
You will likely want to pull the definition of retrograde-music from
scm/modal-transforms.scm .
It would be appreciated if you took the opportunity to create a nice
regtest also exercising chord ties.
\retrograde still leaves a lot to be desired, of course. Overrides
should likely _not_ be reversed with the music they apply to, grace
notes are a whole fat problem, things like time signatures are of course
at the wrong side of what they apply to, dynamic spanners would need to
get inverted, repeat ties and laissez-vibrer ties should likely be
exchanged, volta repeats with alternatives become awful and so on and so
on.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
On Mon 15 Aug 2016 at 17:20:09 (+0200), Johan Vromans wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:39:39 -0500 > David Wright wrote: > > > I'm sorry, but your wishlist has nothing to do with the statement > > "Specifying the structure of a score in \global is wonderful, it just > > doesn't work with midi." > > There is something called the principle of least surprise. I can put bars, > rehearsal marks, time signatures, repeats in \global and they all end up > nicely in all staves of the printed output. > > Then it surprises me that they do not all end up nicely in the midi — in > particular, the repeats do not. So my first thought is "something doesn't > work". That there is a good explanation [thanks, David K] why it > doesn't/cannot work as I would have expected it doesn't change the surprise. > > I tried to make clear that I do not consider this to be a bug > but that it would be 'nice to have'. I see nothing wrong with that. > > > If you're going to make a statement like that, and be challenged, > > please supply some evidence or withdraw the remark. > > I change my remark to: "Specifying the structure of a score in \global is > wonderful, it just doesn't play nice with MIDI, because no voice can impose > a MIDI repeat structure on any other." > > > It's not as if this is the first time you've said that writing > > repeats in LP doesn't work in the MIDI output: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00284.html > > In this article I wrote "LilyPond doesn't deal with segno, coda, d.s. etc > either in the MIDI." Apart from being a totally different topic, would > you challenge this? Aand also, I wrote it as a statement, not a complaint > and definitely not "reports of a LP failure." That sentence was in a paragraph within a thread. Looking backwards: ...you wrote "LilyPond doesn't deal with segno, coda, d.s. etc either in the MIDI. The LP generated MIDI only matches the sheet music in most but definitely not all cases." ...commenting on my "This will unnecessarily prevent LilyPond using the \repeat volta construction and so, once again, no MIDI rendition among other concerns," ...where that construction was what I presented as rpt1 in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00260.html and this complete example would give the correct MIDI output. I criticised your suggestion because it would not only produce an unconventional score, but it couldn't handle the MIDI automatically. So implying that LP's MIDI only matches the music in some cases (for reasons that are never spelled out) by throwing in a few distractions (segno, coda, d.s., which are *markings*, not repeats) is a way of tempering my criticism. That's what you just left out of your *full* paragraph above. My contention there was that the volta construction can produce the correct score and the correct midi when applied correctly (ie to all the voices). The repeats are correctly observed in the MIDI. This present thread discusses the same topics: repeats and MIDI. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-08/msg00222.html "For midi, \unfoldRepeats is necessary. Last time I tried, the repeats (in \global) were note applied to the music parts. Specifying the structure of a score in \global is wonderful, it just doesn't work with midi." The words midi and repeats spring to the eye. In fact, I thought you introduced them yourself (I haven't checked) at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-08/msg00216.html I don't understand why you seem reluctant to give credit to what LP does correctly, and in accordance with the documentation. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Abwesenheitsnotiz
I reply to all questions of 'sprechen sie' with a firm 'nein'!! On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Urs Liska wrote: > > > Am 15.08.2016 um 18:57 schrieb Simon Albrecht: > > In case any non-German speaking people might wonder: this is no spam > > (for what I can tell), but an automatic reply informing us that Herr > > Ried is on vacation and won’t answer. Ideally, Dennis, you might set > > up the absence note so that it isn’t sent to mailing lists – I hope > > that’s possible. > > Probably Dennis won't be able to do so as he's probably away already. > Let's wait a few more emails, hopefully the autoresponder is set up to > reply only once to each sender. Otherwise I know who these "Kollegen" > are and ask if someone has access to the mail server. > > Urs > > > > > Best, Simon > > > > > > On 15.08.2016 18:02, r...@lilienteich.de wrote: > >> Sehr geehrte Dame, sehr geehrter Herr, ich bin bis zum 23.08.2016 im > >> Urlaub und kann Ihre Anfrage leider nicht beantworten. Gerne kümmere > >> ich mich nach meiner Rückkehr um Ihre Wünsche. Ihre eMail wird nicht > >> weitergeleitet. In dringenden Fällen wenden Sie sich bitte an meine > >> Kollegen (edit...@lilienteich.de). Mit freundlichen Grüßen Dennis Ried > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> 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 > > > ___ > 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: Abwesenheitsnotiz
Am 15.08.2016 um 18:57 schrieb Simon Albrecht: > In case any non-German speaking people might wonder: this is no spam > (for what I can tell), but an automatic reply informing us that Herr > Ried is on vacation and won’t answer. Ideally, Dennis, you might set > up the absence note so that it isn’t sent to mailing lists – I hope > that’s possible. Probably Dennis won't be able to do so as he's probably away already. Let's wait a few more emails, hopefully the autoresponder is set up to reply only once to each sender. Otherwise I know who these "Kollegen" are and ask if someone has access to the mail server. Urs > > Best, Simon > > > On 15.08.2016 18:02, r...@lilienteich.de wrote: >> Sehr geehrte Dame, sehr geehrter Herr, ich bin bis zum 23.08.2016 im >> Urlaub und kann Ihre Anfrage leider nicht beantworten. Gerne kümmere >> ich mich nach meiner Rückkehr um Ihre Wünsche. Ihre eMail wird nicht >> weitergeleitet. In dringenden Fällen wenden Sie sich bitte an meine >> Kollegen (edit...@lilienteich.de). Mit freundlichen Grüßen Dennis Ried >> >> >> ___ >> 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 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Abwesenheitsnotiz
In case any non-German speaking people might wonder: this is no spam (for what I can tell), but an automatic reply informing us that Herr Ried is on vacation and won’t answer. Ideally, Dennis, you might set up the absence note so that it isn’t sent to mailing lists – I hope that’s possible. Best, Simon On 15.08.2016 18:02, r...@lilienteich.de wrote: Sehr geehrte Dame, sehr geehrter Herr, ich bin bis zum 23.08.2016 im Urlaub und kann Ihre Anfrage leider nicht beantworten. Gerne kümmere ich mich nach meiner Rückkehr um Ihre Wünsche. Ihre eMail wird nicht weitergeleitet. In dringenden Fällen wenden Sie sich bitte an meine Kollegen (edit...@lilienteich.de). Mit freundlichen Grüßen Dennis Ried ___ 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: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
Johan Vromans writes:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:39:39 -0500
> David Wright wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but your wishlist has nothing to do with the statement
>> "Specifying the structure of a score in \global is wonderful, it just
>> doesn't work with midi."
>
> There is something called the principle of least surprise. I can put bars,
> rehearsal marks, time signatures, repeats in \global and they all end up
> nicely in all staves of the printed output.
Bars, rehearsal marks, time signatures are all isolated events. A
repeat _structures_ its governed material. How could you expect to
transfer a _structure_ to flat music?
How would you expect to have the following R1*9 be expanded into R1*13 ?
\score {
\compressMMRests
\new StaffGroup
<< \new Staff
\repeat volta 3 { R1*2 }
\alternative { { d'1 e'1 } { R1*2 } { R1*3 } }
\new Staff R1*9
>>
}
> Then it surprises me that they do not all end up nicely in the midi — in
> particular, the repeats do not.
There is no typeset material repeated in the typesetting either. All
you have is consistent bars. If the bars were to make it into the Midi,
they would likely be consistent as well.
> So my first thought is "something doesn't work". That there is a good
> explanation [thanks, David K] why it doesn't/cannot work as I would
> have expected it doesn't change the surprise.
The surprise is rather that repeat bars bleed into parts missing the
specification of repeats in the PDF.
This seems to give false expectations. Maybe we should flag a warning
or error instead.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Abwesenheitsnotiz
Sehr geehrte Dame, sehr geehrter Herr, ich bin bis zum 23.08.2016 im Urlaub und kann Ihre Anfrage leider nicht beantworten. Gerne kümmere ich mich nach meiner Rückkehr um Ihre Wünsche. Ihre eMail wird nicht weitergeleitet. In dringenden Fällen wenden Sie sich bitte an meine Kollegen (edit...@lilienteich.de). Mit freundlichen Grüßen Dennis Ried ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Open Sound control?
On Sun 14 Aug 2016 at 13:02:08 (+0200), ander...@notam02.no wrote: > b> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Sound_Control is sayed to > b> replace MIDI. Is this something usefull for lilypond? > > It should be. Storing and sending/receiving arbitrary data is > straightforward in OSC, in MIDI you'll have to build and parse sysex for > any non-standard (e.g. rhythms, beams, slurs, offsets, markups...). > > b> Can one save osc files like MIDI files? > > Yes. All information in any .ly file could be encoded in OSC format and > saved to files or sent along to other apps. SuperCollider and OpenMusic > are examples of apps supporting OSC as one possible score-file format. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Sound_Control I can't see any reference to a file format. At the bottom, there's a link "Music notation file formats" which takes you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_notation_file_formats which contains a link "Open Sound Control" under the heading Pages in category "Music notation file formats" and that nicely completes the circle with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Sound_Control The list which contains "Open Sound Control" also contains "MIDI file" which suggests the error is wiki's, not mine. So would I be right in thinking OSC is only a Protocol and not a File Format? > http://opensoundcontrol.org/files/OSC-Demo.pdf I'm not sure what I'm missing seeing in this page by not having "language pack for 'Adobe-Japan1' mapping" available. > https://www.midi.org/articles/white-paper-comparison-of-midi-and-osc One of the comparisons here is Standard File Format: MIDI: yesOSC: an implied negative. I've googled around for a file format, but all I find are applications and program fragments. OK, an application might be able to store an OSC protocol stream in a file, but that does not make that a file format. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:39:39 -0500 David Wright wrote: > I'm sorry, but your wishlist has nothing to do with the statement > "Specifying the structure of a score in \global is wonderful, it just > doesn't work with midi." There is something called the principle of least surprise. I can put bars, rehearsal marks, time signatures, repeats in \global and they all end up nicely in all staves of the printed output. Then it surprises me that they do not all end up nicely in the midi — in particular, the repeats do not. So my first thought is "something doesn't work". That there is a good explanation [thanks, David K] why it doesn't/cannot work as I would have expected it doesn't change the surprise. I tried to make clear that I do not consider this to be a bug but that it would be 'nice to have'. I see nothing wrong with that. > If you're going to make a statement like that, and be challenged, > please supply some evidence or withdraw the remark. I change my remark to: "Specifying the structure of a score in \global is wonderful, it just doesn't play nice with MIDI, because no voice can impose a MIDI repeat structure on any other." > It's not as if this is the first time you've said that writing > repeats in LP doesn't work in the MIDI output: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00284.html In this article I wrote "LilyPond doesn't deal with segno, coda, d.s. etc either in the MIDI." Apart from being a totally different topic, would you challenge this? Aand also, I wrote it as a statement, not a complaint and definitely not "reports of a LP failure." -- Johan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
On Mon 15 Aug 2016 at 09:18:57 (+0200), Johan Vromans wrote: > On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:45:51 -0500 > David Wright wrote: > > > This is true, they are not. In fact, I don't quite understand what > > you mean by "applying" \global "to the music parts". All the Voices > > are just Voices, aren't they? > > > > Anyway, the repeat structure has to be in all the parts > > as summarised by David K in > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-07/msg00427.html > > > > > Specifying the structure of a score in \global is wonderful, it just > > > doesn't work with midi. > > > > Which suggests that you haven't copied repeats into all the parts. > > ... > > But what "doesn't work" for you exactly? (We need to be told before > > we can start looking at a problem.) > > First of all, it isn't as much a problem (as in 'bug') but —for me, at > least— a 'nice to have'. I'm sorry, but your wishlist has nothing to do with the statement "Specifying the structure of a score in \global is wonderful, it just doesn't work with midi." If you're going to make a statement like that, and be challenged, please supply some evidence or withdraw the remark. It's not as if this is the first time you've said that writing repeats in LP doesn't work in the MIDI output: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00284.html Sorry to be blunt, but saying something doesn't work and then providing no evidence is asking volunteers to expend time and energy looking into what could be just a wild-goose chase. And please don't muddy the waters by trying to turn your wishlist into reports of a LP failure. > I find it very confusing that (see example t1) the repeats from > \global are *shown* in all staffs, but not effective in the midi. > The fact that they are shown gives the impression that they are effective, > as in example t2. If that is the case, perhaps you could suggest patches for §3.5.6 in NM, "Using repeats with MIDI". Perhaps "When using multiple voices, each of the voices must contain completely unfolded repeats for correct MIDI output." is too bald. It could be mentioned that no voice can impose a repeat structure on any other. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Open Sound control?
b> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Sound_Control is sayed to b> replace MIDI. Is this something usefull for lilypond? It should be. Storing and sending/receiving arbitrary data is straightforward in OSC, in MIDI you'll have to build and parse sysex for any non-standard (e.g. rhythms, beams, slurs, offsets, markups...). b> Can one save osc files like MIDI files? Yes. All information in any .ly file could be encoded in OSC format and saved to files or sent along to other apps. SuperCollider and OpenMusic are examples of apps supporting OSC as one possible score-file format. OSC has absolute hi-resolution time tagging as part of its protocol (aka "bundles") making OSC useable as a score-file format by itself. Like MIDI Track Events, arbitrary OSC messages may contain delta time values. MIDI does not support absolute time as part of the protocol, instead relying on an application layer (transport, driver) to store or deliver the message at the right time based on these delta time values. http://opensoundcontrol.org/files/OSC-Demo.pdf https://www.midi.org/articles/white-paper-comparison-of-midi-and-osc Cheers, -anders ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
Mark Knoop writes: > At 10:32 on 15 Aug 2016, Johan Vromans wrote: >>On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:22:14 +0200 >>David Kastrup wrote: >> >>> That's not really surprising. The "repeats are shown" just by >>> changing the bar line type, ... >> >>That is the explanation of the current behaviour. >> >>What I want to say is that it would be nice if instead it would >>be like the repeats were actually present in the individual staffs, >>just as the printed output shows it. > > So the request is perhaps for \unfoldRepeats (or a new command) to work > across voices/staves: How is \unfoldRepeats going to know which voices/staves are controlled by the same Default_bar_line_engraver? Because that's what's governing the "proliferation" of repeat bars to unrepeated contexts in the graphical output. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
Johan Vromans writes: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:22:14 +0200 > David Kastrup wrote: > >> That's not really surprising. The "repeats are shown" just by changing >> the bar line type, ... > > That is the explanation of the current behaviour. > > What I want to say is that it would be nice if instead it would > be like the repeats were actually present in the individual staffs, > just as the printed output shows it. The printed output shows that Default_bar_line_engraver (responsible for coordinating the system-wide bar line shapes) lives at Score context usually. The printed output does not show a repetition of elements. Calculation of the length of music depends on knowing which parts are repeated and which not. If the music does not contain any repeat expressions but only gets typeset in parallel to music which does, there is just no way to reset its playback to the respective locations it had been without every single music iterator getting a way to rewind to an arbitrary location. Even if it turns out that the location does not even correspond to an actual note event (like when notes are split using the Completion_heads_engraver). With an actual repeat expression, at least the music structure follows the repetition, giving reliable points to restart the iteration. So in short: extending this "repeat bars appear across all contexts governed by the same Default_bar_line_engraver" effect to actual unfoldings of repeats is not likely to happen. In Midi, a special performer just replicating some timed part of the finished Midi stream (rather than replaying everything) would be sort-of imaginable but it would also be a recipe for notes started but not ended and vice versa. And the effect would be limited to Midi. So I also consider this pretty far into the "not going to happen" realm. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
At 10:32 on 15 Aug 2016, Johan Vromans wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:22:14 +0200
>David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> That's not really surprising. The "repeats are shown" just by
>> changing the bar line type, ...
>
>That is the explanation of the current behaviour.
>
>What I want to say is that it would be nice if instead it would
>be like the repeats were actually present in the individual staffs,
>just as the printed output shows it.
So the request is perhaps for \unfoldRepeats (or a new command) to work
across voices/staves:
\version "2.19.46"
withrepeat = { c'1 \repeat volta 2 { d'2 e' } f'1 }
withoutrepeat = { a1 bes1 f }
desired = { a1 bes1 1 f }
\score { << \withrepeat \withoutrepeat >> }
\markup "current \unfoldRepeats"
\score { \unfoldRepeats << \withrepeat \withoutrepeat >> }
\markup "desired \unfoldRepeats in all staves"
\score { \unfoldRepeats << \withrepeat \desired >> }
--
Mark Knoop
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:22:14 +0200 David Kastrup wrote: > That's not really surprising. The "repeats are shown" just by changing > the bar line type, ... That is the explanation of the current behaviour. What I want to say is that it would be nice if instead it would be like the repeats were actually present in the individual staffs, just as the printed output shows it. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
Johan Vromans writes: > On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:45:51 -0500 > David Wright wrote: > >> This is true, they are not. In fact, I don't quite understand what >> you mean by "applying" \global "to the music parts". All the Voices >> are just Voices, aren't they? >> >> Anyway, the repeat structure has to be in all the parts >> as summarised by David K in >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-07/msg00427.html >> >> > Specifying the structure of a score in \global is wonderful, it just >> > doesn't work with midi. >> >> Which suggests that you haven't copied repeats into all the parts. >> ... >> But what "doesn't work" for you exactly? (We need to be told before >> we can start looking at a problem.) > > First of all, it isn't as much a problem (as in 'bug') but —for me, at > least— a 'nice to have'. > > I find it very confusing that (see example t1) the repeats from > \global are *shown* in all staffs, but not effective in the midi. That's not really surprising. The "repeats are shown" just by changing the bar line type, there is no actual repetition of the graphical content. If you use \expandRepeats on the graphical representation, the effect will be just as with the Midi, causing a repeat only in the actual music containing the repeat instructions. > The fact that they are shown gives the impression that they are > effective, as in example t2. They are just as effective as a \mark called "D.C. al fine". -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rehearsal marks: separate from content encoding and display above strings
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:45:51 -0500
David Wright wrote:
> This is true, they are not. In fact, I don't quite understand what
> you mean by "applying" \global "to the music parts". All the Voices
> are just Voices, aren't they?
>
> Anyway, the repeat structure has to be in all the parts
> as summarised by David K in
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-07/msg00427.html
>
> > Specifying the structure of a score in \global is wonderful, it just
> > doesn't work with midi.
>
> Which suggests that you haven't copied repeats into all the parts.
> ...
> But what "doesn't work" for you exactly? (We need to be told before
> we can start looking at a problem.)
First of all, it isn't as much a problem (as in 'bug') but —for me, at
least— a 'nice to have'.
I find it very confusing that (see example t1) the repeats from
\global are *shown* in all staffs, but not effective in the midi.
The fact that they are shown gives the impression that they are effective,
as in example t2.
\version "2.19.45"
global = {
s1 \bar "||" \repeat volta 2 { s1 } s1 \bar "|."
}
one = {
c'4 e' g' c'' |
c'4 e' g' c'' |
c'4 e' g' c'' |
}
two = {
g4 c' e' g' |
g4 c' e' g' |
g4 c' e' g' |
}
music = {
<<
\new Staff << \global \one >>
\new Staff << \global \two >>
>>
}
\score {
% Note that the repeat symbols (from \global) appear on all staffs.
\music
}
\score {
% Note that the music does not repeat.
\unfoldRepeats \music
\midi{}
}
\version "2.19.45"
global = {
s1 \bar "||" s1*2 \bar "|."
}
one = {
c'4 e' g' c'' |
\repeat volta 2 {
c'4 e' g' c'' |
}
c'4 e' g' c'' |
}
two = {
g4 c' e' g' |
\repeat volta 2 {
g4 c' e' g' |
}
g4 c' e' g' |
}
music = {
<<
\new Staff << \global \one >>
\new Staff << \global \two >>
>>
}
\score {
% Note that the repeat symbols appear on all staffs.
\music
}
\score {
% Note that the music does repeat.
\unfoldRepeats \music
\midi{}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
