Augmentation dots reg test

[Carl Sorensen]

I have worked some more on the augmentation dot algorithms, including adding 
the directions (/DotsUp, /DotsDown).

I would like your opinion on whether the attached regression test, which is 
different from the current development regression tests, is correct.  I think 
it is, but I'd like your opinions.

Thanks,

Carl


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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Dan Eble]

On Oct 28, 2016, at 03:51 , David Kastrup  wrote:
> At any rate, does that mean that you are fine with
> 
> << \sopranoI \\ \alto \\ \sopranoII >>
> 
> and
> 
> << \sopranoI \\ \altoII \\ \sopranoII \\ \altoI >>
> 
> because that is what we currently have?

Until I read this thread, I didn’t know that more than two voices were 
supported, so it hasn’t inconvenienced me; however, it does seem 
counterintuitive when you write them that way.
— 
Dan


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

Re: Optional chords

[Herbert Liechti]

Thank you all for the replies. Problem solved.

Best regards
-- 
herbert.liec...@thinx.ch,  ThinX AG,  Bielstrasse 69,  CH-4500 Solothurn
Tel +41 (0)32 623 81 66, Mobile +41 (0)76 334 81 66, http://www.thinx.ch
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Noeck]

Btw, having the new list syntax in mind I wondered whether this would
work in recent development versions:

\compoundMeter 4/4,1/3

But it does not the 4/4 translates to (4 . 4) and not (4 4).
\compoundMeter (4,4),(1,3) does not work either. Can this list syntax be
grouped somehow? I mean in a way that is nicer to write than the scheme
syntax, otherwise nothing is gained.

Cheers,
Joram

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

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[David Wright]

On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 11:22:00 (-0700), Tobin Chodos wrote:
> Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way to
> define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is, the
> measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.

Isn't this just 13/8? Three triplet eighth notes make a quarter note.
So it's 3+3+3+3+1 all over 8, and the notes will be written out as
four dotted quarter notes and an eighth note per measure.
And if you divide your crochet beats in twos, they'll have to be
written out as duplets of eighth notes.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Robert Schmaus]

Am 28/10/16 um 11:01 schrieb David Kastrup:

Robert Schmaus  writes:


Hi everyone,

I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it now.

But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the
code_ to match the vertical arrangement of the _engraved_ notes (and
isn't that also, what Lilypond is all about? You specify the input in
a well-structured way, let lily care about the engraving) I'd find any
input sequence other than 1/2/3/... counterintuitive.


Well, there is still the question of what 1/2/3 should _mean_.
Currently they are connected with \voiceOne, \voiceTwo,
\voiceThree... and the meaning of those is "topmost", "lowest", "below
topmost" ...


I see.

First thing, I mean of course implicit "1" corresponds to explicit 
\voiceOne, "2" to \voiceTwo

But I take it, that this wasn't controversial, though ...

Regarding the meaning of \voiceOne, ...Two, etc, I don't think there 
should be any change. Introducing alternative voice ordering commands - 
such as \secondFromBottom - fine by me, just please don't throw out the 
old ones. They're fine ... they're maybe convention but it's not a big 
deal remembering what they imply. I find them rather intuitive, to be 
honest - it's the most likely sequence I would use to arrange voices in 
a single staff.


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

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Noeck]

> Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way
> to define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is,
> the measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.

Hi Tobin,

this is definitely a valid question for this list!
This snippet will help you, I guess:
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=743

However the additional 1/3 is the length of a triplet half note:
1/3 = 1/2 * 2/3

\version "2.19.36"

\relative c' {
  \compoundMeter #'((4 4) (1 3))
  a4 a a a \tuplet 3/2 { a2 | a a }
}

For a 4/4 measure plus a triplet 8th note, you would need 1/12 if I am
not mistaken:

\relative c' {
  \compoundMeter #'((4 4) (1 12))
  a4 a a a \tuplet 3/2 { a8 | a a }
}


HTH,
Joram

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Urs Liska]

Am 28. Oktober 2016 10:52:08 GMT-07:00, schrieb tisimst 
:
>I just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion here.
>
>I tend to engrave piano music more often than not and I don't mind the
>current syntax. The only thing that I'd rather like seeing improved is
>the
>nesting of the voices rests.
>
>Rests tend to get pushed out of the center and away from the staves,
>when
>we usually think of the notes in those voices being pushed toward the
>center of the staves. I wish the rests followed a similar philosophy,
>at
>least following the contour of their respective voice.
>
>Just a thought.


This is a discussion we already had when Daniel Spreadbury discussed Dorico's 
take on this, namely following the voices.

I would love to see this as well, and having rests default to the center of the 
staff even in \voiceOne so there's no extra work when there's nothing in the 
other voice (s).

Urs


>
>--
>Abraham
>
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Changing-voice-order-tp195757p195827.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

-- 
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

compound time signature with non duple denominator

[Tobin Chodos]

Hi all,

Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way to
define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3?  That is, the
measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note.

Thanks.

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[tisimst]

I just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion here.

I tend to engrave piano music more often than not and I don't mind the
current syntax. The only thing that I'd rather like seeing improved is the
nesting of the voices rests.

Rests tend to get pushed out of the center and away from the staves, when
we usually think of the notes in those voices being pushed toward the
center of the staves. I wish the rests followed a similar philosophy, at
least following the contour of their respective voice.

Just a thought.

--
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Changing-voice-order-tp195757p195827.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: Changing voice order...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-10-28 14:52, David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Kobel  writes:


What about \voiceUp and \voiceDown? Where the former are
counted from top to bottom, and the latter from bottom to top?


I prefer it if a LilyPond source is readable without explanations.  That
makes it much easier to learn by example and feel confident about it.
It also makes stuff like Frescobaldi document templates work better.  If
the template appears to make sense, people are more comfortable using it
(and remembering and reproducing it) rather than when there are
strangenesses in it.


+1.


And using numbers that run top to bottom for one
half and bottom to top for the other just are again the kind of
weirdness I wanted to avoid with a different scheme in the first place.


Granted.


So the current \voice becomes \voice ?
Or \FromTop and \FromBottom?


Somewhat better.  But I consider it somewhat inelegant if \twoFromBottom
is for bassoon I and \oneFromBottom for bassoon II.


Ordinal: \secondFromBottom, \firstFromBottom. Even a little bit better 
IMHO. But still not the holy grail, I agree.
I cannot see a better solution right now; but I'm open to pleasant 
surprises...



So does

<< topmost \\ 2nd from top
   \\ { \inner \inner \voiceDown topmost stem-down }
   \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down




Basically you need to only fix those voices not obeying the standard
scheme (usually just one) and the rest will work out.  So I don't really
think that a special syntax is needed.


True. But isn't the point of this shortcut notation that it saves you
the trouble of specifying those directions and voice names on your
own?


Sure, but you talk about a case where one _has_ to specify a direction
and voice name after all because the default does not work.  Admittedly,
yet another shortcut saves you from figuring out what level of \inner
(or whatever) you have to use.


Indeed. By the way: what is intuitive also depends a lot on what music 
you engrave. If you have two-part violin/bassoon/whatever parts, that's 
mostly obvious. In particular, the voices tend to exist over an extended 
range.
If you are talking about, e.g., piano music, it's not at all uncommon 
that voices vanish during the piece or pop up at random moments, or 
voices cross each other, and suddenly the meaning of what's 1st/2nd/3rd 
(or inner, middle and outer) voice as well as the preferred style 
(up/down) changes.
I guess that cannot easily be solved within the regime of that syntax. 
But maybe the construct should not try to optimize for such "hard" 
cases; that could be calling for trouble.


Anyway, the \\\ was a shot in the dark: without any idea about how this 
could be implemented (no idea there at all), and also without thinking 
of the long-term implications. Which leads to your last point...



Coincidentally, that's why I hardly ever use it: I tend to get
lost with the automatic assignment


Well, which is why the automatic assignment should be as predictable and
brainless and useful as possible.

I think that the proposal in its current form is significantly better
than what we started with.  But obviously we don't want to have such
shakeups occur more often than absolutely necessary, so we should not
just get something that's better what we started with but also not worse
than anything else we can think of at the moment.


+1.


Cheers,
Alexander

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Kobel  writes:

> What about \voiceUp and \voiceDown? Where the former are
> counted from top to bottom, and the latter from bottom to top?

I prefer it if a LilyPond source is readable without explanations.  That
makes it much easier to learn by example and feel confident about it.
It also makes stuff like Frescobaldi document templates work better.  If
the template appears to make sense, people are more comfortable using it
(and remembering and reproducing it) rather than when there are
strangenesses in it.  And using numbers that run top to bottom for one
half and bottom to top for the other just are again the kind of
weirdness I wanted to avoid with a different scheme in the first place.

> So the current \voice becomes \voice ?
> Or \FromTop and \FromBottom?

Somewhat better.  But I consider it somewhat inelegant if \twoFromBottom
is for bassoon I and \oneFromBottom for bassoon II.

That gets soon into the realm of "repulsive" that Dan called a mismatch
of voice numbers and style numbers.

>> So does
>>
>> << topmost \\ 2nd from top
>>\\ { \inner \inner \voiceDown topmost stem-down }
>>\\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down

>>
>> Basically you need to only fix those voices not obeying the standard
>> scheme (usually just one) and the rest will work out.  So I don't really
>> think that a special syntax is needed.
>
> True. But isn't the point of this shortcut notation that it saves you
> the trouble of specifying those directions and voice names on your
> own?

Sure, but you talk about a case where one _has_ to specify a direction
and voice name after all because the default does not work.  Admittedly,
yet another shortcut saves you from figuring out what level of \inner
(or whatever) you have to use.

> Coincidentally, that's why I hardly ever use it: I tend to get
> lost with the automatic assignment

Well, which is why the automatic assignment should be as predictable and
brainless and useful as possible.

I think that the proposal in its current form is significantly better
than what we started with.  But obviously we don't want to have such
shakeups occur more often than absolutely necessary, so we should not
just get something that's better what we started with but also not worse
than anything else we can think of at the moment.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Optional chords

[Robin Bannister]

Herbert Liechti wrote:

In Jazz notation you find often chords symbol in parenthesis (see the
attached picture for an example). It this case it indicates what to play
when doing a turnaround in other cases it indicates an alternative to the
standard chords.


For a quick pointer to an old function, look up stencilCN.ly in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-09/msg00183.html

Copy over the besideCN definition and run it through convert-ly.py.
The example for your case is in bar 2 of the demo, i.e.
   \besideCN #LEFT "(" g2:m7  \besideCN #RIGHT ")" c2:7


The code is a bit clumsy because it harks from when you couldn't 
usefully override the text property.
But it does leave the chord name in its original position, which some 
other methods don't.



Cheers,
Robin

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,

> On 10/27/2016 4:38 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
>> have been from the start.
> 
> DAYMAKER!

Agreed. I love this.  =)

As for the voice order, I think if possible it should be "top-down”. I’m 
mulling over the precise naming, but wondering if something like “\voiceUp.1” 
and \voiceDown.1" might work? So the name of the function determines direction, 
and the suffix determines “shift”?

Cheers,
Kieren.


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: Changing voice order...

[Karlin High]

On 10/27/2016 4:38 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
> have been from the start.

DAYMAKER!

I'm watching this voice-order discussion closely. I have no position on 
how LilyPond should work with this. I've been using it for less than 2 
years, often in cargo-cult mode, and really need to get around to 
reading the manuals the whole way through.

Just before the discussion started, I discovered the voice-order issue 
while trying to typeset the SSATTBB anthem "Prayer of Thankful Praise" 
by Hal Hopson.
(This thing: hopepublishing.com/media/pdf/HH3905.pdf , 
https://youtu.be/N5PWE_uHkR4 )
I happily entered Soprano I on top, Soprano II below it, and Alto at the 
bottom. It didn't do what I expected. I gave up and tried entering 
chords for  which then introduced me to \oneVoice 
temporary voices at the end, where each of the song's 7 voices has 
differing durations.
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

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

Re: Optional chords

[Richard Shann]

On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 11:56 +0100, Richard Shann wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 10:43 +0200, Herbert Liechti wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > 
> > In Jazz notation you find often chords symbol in parenthesis (see the
> > attached picture for an example). It this case it indicates what to
> > play when doing a turnaround in other cases it indicates an
> > alternative to the standard chords.
> > 
> > 
> > Is there a way to do that in lilypond? If found no hints in the
> > snippets and documentation. I use this quite often.
> 
> \parenthesize 4
> 
> I got this from Denemo's output for the "Parenthesize Chord" command...

That doesn't do several chords in one parenthesis, I looked at
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=902 and cooked up this example:

startParenthesis = {
  \once \override ParenthesesItem.stencils = #(lambda (grob)
(let ((par-list (parentheses-item::calc-parenthesis-stencils grob)))
  (list (car par-list) point-stencil )))
}

endParenthesis = {
  \once \override ParenthesesItem.stencils = #(lambda (grob)
(let ((par-list (parentheses-item::calc-parenthesis-stencils grob)))
  (list point-stencil (cadr par-list
} 

%% Example:
\new ChordNames  {
  \override ParenthesesItem.font-size = #5
  \startParenthesis \parenthesize 
  d' e' f'
  \endParenthesis \parenthesize g'
} 

HTH

Richard





> 
> Richard
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks and best regards
> > herbert
> > -- 
> > herbert.liec...@thinx.ch,  ThinX AG,  Bielstrasse 69,  CH-4500
> > Solothurn
> > Tel +41 (0)32 623 81 66, Mobile +41 (0)76 334 81 66,
> > http://www.thinx.ch
> > 
> > ___
> > 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: Optional chords

[Klaus Blum]

Hi Herbert, 

several years ago, someone in the German lilypond forum posted a solution: 
http://www.lilypondforum.de/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=54

This can easily be adjusted to draw parentheses only on the left or right
side: 

%
-
#(define (parenthesis-ignatzek-chord-names in-pitches bass inversion
context)
(markup #:line ( "(" (ignatzek-chord-names in-pitches bass inversion
context) ")" )))

#(define (left-parenthesis-ignatzek-chord-names in-pitches bass inversion
context)
(markup #:line ( "(" (ignatzek-chord-names in-pitches bass inversion
context) )))

#(define (right-parenthesis-ignatzek-chord-names in-pitches bass inversion
context)
(markup #:line ( (ignatzek-chord-names in-pitches bass inversion context)
")" )))

paren = #(define-music-function (parser location griffe) (ly:music?)
#{
\set chordNameFunction = #parenthesis-ignatzek-chord-names
$griffe
\set chordNameFunction = #ignatzek-chord-names
#})

leftParen = #(define-music-function (parser location griffe) (ly:music?)
#{
\set chordNameFunction = #left-parenthesis-ignatzek-chord-names
$griffe
\set chordNameFunction = #ignatzek-chord-names
#})

rightParen = #(define-music-function (parser location griffe) (ly:music?)
#{
\set chordNameFunction = #right-parenthesis-ignatzek-chord-names
$griffe
\set chordNameFunction = #ignatzek-chord-names
#})

\new ChordNames \chordmode {
  \paren f1:maj7   \leftParen g2:m7  \rightParen c2:7
}
%
-

Cheers, 
Klaus



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Optional-chords-tp195806p195817.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: Changing voice order...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-10-28 12:31, David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Kobel  writes:


On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote:

The majority tends to be silent.


Minority report out of the silent majority:
I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you
internalized the meaning of \voice.


Well, walking on your hands is totally natural once you internalized
being upside down.


Also, walking on your hands is easier than standing on them. I'm still 
waiting for that... ;-)



The problem I have is that all of the the s
in \voice stop making sense as soon as _one_  moves past
Two.


I wouldn't say that it stops making sense at all, but it's a different 
sense than the one you expect from a musical point of view. So, yes, I 
get your point.



I agree with you that these names are semantically suboptimal. On the
other hand, I find something like \inner \VoiceUp etc. slightly too
verbose; I'll get used to it, but I can't say I'm too fond of it.


Better proposals welcome.  My first idea was \voiceUpUp but that does
not work since additional voices are inner voices.  And \voiceUpDown and
\voiceUpDownDown would again be rather confusing.  So the idea with
\inner as a modifier.  Replacing \inner \inner with \innermost suffers
from the problem that the innermost level might be either further out or
in.


What about \voiceUp and \voiceDown? Where the former are 
counted from top to bottom, and the latter from bottom to top? So the 
current \voice becomes \voice ?

Or \FromTop and \FromBottom?


I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
have been from the start.


If that's the goal: I again agree with you that top-to-bottom makes
the most sense IMHO; but either the << ... \\ ... \\ ... >> just
assigns names, not styles, or you should also think about some
syntactic sugar to specify the boundary between "up" and "down"
voices. Something like
  <<
topmost \\ 2nd from top
\\\ % note the three backslashes
topmost stem-down \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down
  >>
which would translate to << 1 \\ 3 \\ 6 \\ 4 \\ 2 >>...


So does

<< topmost \\ 2nd from top
   \\ { \inner \inner \voiceDown topmost stem-down }
   \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down




Basically you need to only fix those voices not obeying the standard
scheme (usually just one) and the rest will work out.  So I don't really
think that a special syntax is needed.


True. But isn't the point of this shortcut notation that it saves you 
the trouble of specifying those directions and voice names on your own? 
- Coincidentally, that's why I hardly ever use it: I tend to get lost 
with the automatic assignment and prefer more (manual) verbosity here, 
but I'm mostly setting vocal music where I need to assign lyrics and 
stuff later.



Cheers,
Alexander

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

Re: Optional chords

[Richard Shann]

On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 10:43 +0200, Herbert Liechti wrote:
> Hi
> 
> 
> In Jazz notation you find often chords symbol in parenthesis (see the
> attached picture for an example). It this case it indicates what to
> play when doing a turnaround in other cases it indicates an
> alternative to the standard chords.
> 
> 
> Is there a way to do that in lilypond? If found no hints in the
> snippets and documentation. I use this quite often.

\parenthesize 4

I got this from Denemo's output for the "Parenthesize Chord" command...

Richard

> 
> 
> Thanks and best regards
> herbert
> -- 
> herbert.liec...@thinx.ch,  ThinX AG,  Bielstrasse 69,  CH-4500
> Solothurn
> Tel +41 (0)32 623 81 66, Mobile +41 (0)76 334 81 66,
> http://www.thinx.ch
> 
> ___
> 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: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Kobel  writes:

> On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote:
>> The majority tends to be silent.
>
> Minority report out of the silent majority:
> I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you
> internalized the meaning of \voice.

Well, walking on your hands is totally natural once you internalized
being upside down.  The problem I have is that all of the the s
in \voice stop making sense as soon as _one_  moves past
Two.

> I agree with you that these names are semantically suboptimal. On the
> other hand, I find something like \inner \VoiceUp etc. slightly too
> verbose; I'll get used to it, but I can't say I'm too fond of it.

Better proposals welcome.  My first idea was \voiceUpUp but that does
not work since additional voices are inner voices.  And \voiceUpDown and
\voiceUpDownDown would again be rather confusing.  So the idea with
\inner as a modifier.  Replacing \inner \inner with \innermost suffers
from the problem that the innermost level might be either further out or
in.

>> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
>> have been from the start.
>
> If that's the goal: I again agree with you that top-to-bottom makes
> the most sense IMHO; but either the << ... \\ ... \\ ... >> just
> assigns names, not styles, or you should also think about some
> syntactic sugar to specify the boundary between "up" and "down"
> voices. Something like
>   <<
> topmost \\ 2nd from top
> \\\ % note the three backslashes
> topmost stem-down \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down
>   >>
> which would translate to << 1 \\ 3 \\ 6 \\ 4 \\ 2 >>...

So does

<< topmost \\ 2nd from top
   \\ { \inner \inner \voiceDown topmost stem-down }
   \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down
>>

Basically you need to only fix those voices not obeying the standard
scheme (usually just one) and the rest will work out.  So I don't really
think that a special syntax is needed.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

"Mark Stephen Mrotek"  writes:

> David,
>
> If " Generally users don't know the proper order of voice arranging
> commands" would that not be the fault of those who do not read the
> manual?

Well, I write the manual more than I read it.  Nevertheless I prefer it
if reading the manual is a reward more than a punishment.  LilyPond does
not have a graphic interface to woo its users; it talks to them using
its manuals.  So I prefer it if it does not have its entrails sticking
all over it while trying to be friendly.
 (I apologize to those not
in command of the German language, but the graphical content speaks for
itself).

> Those who have created Lilypond have my sincere respect. Lilypond is
> totally beyond my ken (FORTRAN was my Master's requirement for a
> foreign language!).  As I mentioned, I can follow directions, and I
> assume that other uses can do likewise.

My father, like other German boys his age, was drafted in the final
stages of WWII.  He taught me and my siblings that directions should
make sense and that respect is not commanded but earned.  I am grateful
for the respect you express for those continuing to create LilyPond.  As
an early adopter you stand to having to relearn some things occasionally
and your feedback is important for figuring out how to keep this to a
minimum.

> I cannot conceive of the rationality of changing anything because some
> are too busy to read the manual.

Well, as a musician we often are in the situation of "this is how your
instrument works, suck it up".  And one has minor cheats loosening the
fundamental limitations of your instrument, like piano players using key
vibrato (a rather subtle effect which should not work at all) or
accordion players using various forms of vibrato (at least there the
means of propagation via bellows pressure is more obvious) or
half-pressed buttons or half-stopped registers.

The uncompromising anatomy of a violin is made more palatable using
shoulder and chin rests.

My own accordion spells rebellion against the musical limitations
dictated by a fixed chord octave: I have a slider allowing me to select
the chord octave among 20 different possibilities.

So even musicians question the status quo defined by their instruments.
LilyPond is easier to change than most instruments are, and in contrast
to physical instruments it has a lot of players and we try not just
accommodating the established masters of it.

I like Bach's solo violin pieces because in spite of their partly
tremendous challenges they don't contain gratuitous difficulty: they
aren't etudes: there is good musical reason and payoff for what they
demand from the player.  They are written for violin, not against it.
Fingering instructions are unnecessary in the harder passages because
there is just one obvious and physically and musically possible way to
play anyway.

And I like my software to make sense of its own without fingering
instructions as well.  Let the players save their energy for that which
is musically rewarding.  We have enough necessary complications that it
is worth trying to minimize the unnecessary ones.

Dan called some consequences I explicated "repulsive" but they were sort
of inherent in the current design and name choice.  I have to agree and
would like to get rid of that noodle if feasible without becoming too
disruptive.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Robert Schmaus  writes:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it 
> now. 
>
> But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the
> code_ to match the vertical arrangement of the _engraved_ notes (and
> isn't that also, what Lilypond is all about? You specify the input in
> a well-structured way, let lily care about the engraving) I'd find any
> input sequence other than 1/2/3/... counterintuitive.

Well, there is still the question of what 1/2/3 should _mean_.
Currently they are connected with \voiceOne, \voiceTwo,
\voiceThree... and the meaning of those is "topmost", "lowest", "below
topmost" ...

I find this both disturbing and hard to remember and so for me the
question is what the most satisfactory way to change that would be in
the long term.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

Dan Eble  writes:

> On Oct 27, 2016, at 09:54 , David Kastrup  wrote:
>> 
>> << \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceThree ...
>>   \context Voice = "2" \with \voiceOne ...
>>   \context Voice = "3" \with \voiceTwo ...
>>   \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceFour ...
>
> I’m not sure whether this thread has progressed beyond the need to
> mention this (forgive me if it has), but this is repulsive.

Well, it is actually more like

<< \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceOne ...
   \context Voice = "2" \with \voiceThree ...
   \context Voice = "3" \with \voiceFour ...
   \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceTwo ... >>

because I misremembered the order.  But I assume that your qualification
would still apply.

> I mean that in as friendly a way as possible.

Well, I did mention that I was also for retiring \voiceOne...\voiceFour.

My current proposal would be more like

<< \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceUp ...
   \context Voice = "2" \with \inner \voiceUp ...
   \context Voice = "3" \with \inner \voiceDown ...
   \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceDown ... >>


At any rate, does that mean that you are fine with

<< \sopranoI \\ \alto \\ \sopranoII >>

and

<< \sopranoI \\ \altoII \\ \sopranoII \\ \altoI >>

because that is what we currently have?

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Changing voice order...

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote:

The majority tends to be silent.


Minority report out of the silent majority:
I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you 
internalized the meaning of \voice. Hardly use it, though, but 
that's a different story.


I agree with you that these names are semantically suboptimal. On the 
other hand, I find something like \inner \VoiceUp etc. slightly too 
verbose; I'll get used to it, but I can't say I'm too fond of it.



I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
have been from the start.


If that's the goal: I again agree with you that top-to-bottom makes the 
most sense IMHO; but either the << ... \\ ... \\ ... >> just assigns 
names, not styles, or you should also think about some syntactic sugar 
to specify the boundary between "up" and "down" voices. Something like

  <<
topmost \\ 2nd from top
\\\ % note the three backslashes
topmost stem-down \\ middle stem-down \\ bottom stem-down
  >>
which would translate to << 1 \\ 3 \\ 6 \\ 4 \\ 2 >>...


Cheers,
Alexander

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

Optional chords

[Herbert Liechti]

Hi

In Jazz notation you find often chords symbol in parenthesis (see the
attached picture for an example). It this case it indicates what to play
when doing a turnaround in other cases it indicates an alternative to the
standard chords.

Is there a way to do that in lilypond? If found no hints in the snippets
and documentation. I use this quite often.

Thanks and best regards
herbert
-- 
herbert.liec...@thinx.ch,  ThinX AG,  Bielstrasse 69,  CH-4500 Solothurn
Tel +41 (0)32 623 81 66, Mobile +41 (0)76 334 81 66, http://www.thinx.ch
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Changing voice order...

[Robert Schmaus]

Hi everyone,

I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it now. 

But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the code_ to 
match the vertical arrangement of the _engraved_ notes (and isn't that also, 
what Lilypond is all about? You specify the input in a well-structured way, let 
lily care about the engraving) I'd find any input sequence other than 1/2/3/... 
counterintuitive. 

Best,
Robert

__

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon 
insufficient evidence. 
-- William Kingdon Clifford


> On 27 Oct 2016, at 13:40, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> 
> This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
> 
> If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
> 
> 1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
> 
> while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
> bottom, assignments should be more like
> 
> 1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...
> 
> namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.  Now I am
> sort of afraid that changing this is likely to end pretty disruptive to
> existing scores.  Even though I don't know how many really use the
> original ordering unchanged as well as intentionally.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -- 
> 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: Changing voice order...

[Michael Gerdau]

> > I respect your right to disagree.
> > Yet,1, 2, 3 stem up, 2, 4, 6 stem down? Not, as they say, rocket
> > science.
> 
> Actually 1, 3, 5 stem up.
> 
> So not rocket science, but tricky to remember :-)

Which kind of prooves the point I was trying to make :-)

Kind regards,
Michael
-- 
 Michael Gerdau   email: m...@qata.de
 GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user