date:20161103

This particular score has a peculiar spacing issue. I used the recommended
proportional spacing code given in the Lilypond manual, and I've fiddled
with the make-moment values, but notes that should be exactly evenly spaced
are still distinctly crimped up.  Unless I haven't understood the
proportional spacing code in the Lilypond manual, which is always a
possibility.

The spacing of the notes on the first staff is fine, exactly as it should
be. On the second staff there are no tuplets, so logically you would expect
that the spacing should be precisely even on the eighth notes and sixteenth
notes since we're using the proportional spacing code from the snippet
library. But instead, on the second staff, the third sixteenth note in the
first group is all squished and one of the eighth notes in the fifth group
of eighth notes on the second staff is squashed together.

What I want here is for eighth notes to take the same amount of space on the
page each time they occur. The tuplets should get squished and expanded as
necessary, but the regular eighth notes and sixteenth should always take up
the same amount space relative to one another on the page. But that's not
what's happening, so presumably I'm doing something wrong.

The same problem recurs on the third staff. Notice that the eighth notes are
all standard plain-vanilla eighth notes in the third staff. Only the rests
are tuplets in the third staff -- the eighth notes on the third staff never
vary in duration, so logically the eighth notes should all be spaced evenly
relative to one another. But that isn't happening, and I can't figure out
why.

Any suggestions?

\version "2.18.2"

\header { 
  tagline = ""  % removed 
} 

#(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape)
indent=0
\layout{

  \context {
  \Score
 \override SpacingSpanner.uniform-stretching = ##t  
 \omit Score.BarLine
   }
  % \override Score.SpacingSpanner.strict-note-spacing = ##t
   \context {
  \Score
  proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 3/20)  
}
  
  \context {
\type Engraver_group
% Add elements that _can_ be printed
\consists "Timing_translator"
\consists "Time_signature_engraver"
   
\alias "Staff"  
  }
  \context {
\Score
%\accepts "TimeLine"

\override TupletNumber.text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  }
  \context {
\Staff
\consists "Timing_translator"  
  }
}

{

<<
%  \new TimeLine {\time 48/8}

\new Staff { \clef "treble"
  \time 48/8   

% 14 x 7:4 eighths = 8 eighths
% 10 x 5:3 eighths = 6 eighths
% 6 x 3:2 eighths = 4 eighths
% 15 x 1/4 =30 eighths
% Total = 30 + 4 + 6 + 8 = 48/8
{

\relative c'' {c4 \tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]}  c4 \tuplet 5/3 {c8[ c8]} r4
\tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]} c4 \tuplet 3/2{c8[ c8]} c4 
\tuplet 7/4 {c8[  c8 c8]} c4 \tuplet 5/3{c8[ c8]} r4 
\tuplet 7/4{c8[ c8]} c4 \tuplet 3/2{c8[ c8]} c4 
\tuplet 7/4{c8[ c8]} r4 \tuplet 5/3{c8[ c8]} c4 
\tuplet 7/4{c8[ c8 c8]} c4 \tuplet 5/3{c8[ c8]}  c4 
\tuplet 3/2{c8[ c8]} r4 \tuplet 5/3{c8[ c8]}  
}
\relative c'' {c4 \tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]}  c4 \tuplet 5/3 {c8[ c8]} r4
\tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]} c4 \tuplet 3/2{c8[ c8]} c4 
\tuplet 7/4 {c8[  c8 c8]} c4 \tuplet 5/3{c8[ c8]} r4 
\tuplet 7/4{c8[ c8]} c4 \tuplet 3/2{c8[ c8]} c4 
\tuplet 7/4{c8[ c8]} r4 \tuplet 5/3{c8[ c8]} c4 
\tuplet 7/4{c8[ c8 c8]} c4 \tuplet 5/3{c8[ c8]}  c4 
\tuplet 3/2{c8[ c8]} r4 \tuplet 5/3{c8[ c8]}  
}

}

}  

\new Staff { \clef "treble"
  \time 44/8   
{
% 8x r8 + 8x3 c8 + 8x3 c16 = 8 + 24 + 12 = 44/8

\relative c''{r8 c8[ c8 c8 c16 c16 c16]} 
\relative c''{r8 c8[ c8 c8 c16 c16 c16]}
\relative c''{r8 c16[ c16 c16 c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{r8 c8[ c8 c8 c16 c16 c16]}
\relative c''{r8 c8[ c8 c8 c16 c16 c16]} 
\relative c''{r8 c16[ c16 c16 c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{r8 c16[ c16 c16 c8 c8 c8]} 
\relative c''{r8 c16[ c16 c16 c8 c8 c8]} 


\relative c''{r8 c8[ c8 c8 c16 c16 c16]} 
\relative c''{r8 c8[ c8 c8 c16 c16 c16]}
\relative c''{r8 c16[ c16 c16 c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{r8 c8[ c8 c8 c16 c16 c16]}
\relative c''{r8 c8[ c8 c8 c16 c16 c16]} 
\relative c''{r8 c16[ c16 c16 c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{r8 c16[ c16 c16 c8 c8 c8]} 
\relative c''{r8 c16[ c16 c16 c8 c8 c8]} 
}

}

\new Staff { \clef "treble"
   \time 30/8
{
% 24 eighths + 3 x 3:2 = 2 eighths + 5 x 5:4 eighths = 4 eighths
% So the total is 24 + 4 + 2 = 30/8 time.

\relative c''{\tuplet 5/4{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]} 
\relative c''{\tuplet 3/2{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{\tuplet 5/4{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{\tuplet 3/2{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{\tuplet 5/4{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]} 
\relative c''{\tuplet 3/2{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{\tuplet 5/4{r8 r8}}

\relative c''{\tuplet 5/4{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]} 
\relative c''{\tuplet 3/2{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{\tuplet 5/4{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{\tuplet 3/2{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{\tuplet 5/4{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]} 
\relative c''{\tuplet 3/2{r8} c8[ c8 c8 c8]}
\relative c''{\tuplet 5/4{r8 r8}}
   
}
}

RE: How to get proper barlines, and how to get page breaks, on this score

2016-11-03 Thread Mark Stephen Mrotek

McLaren,

Be prepared to be chastised about "minimal snippet!"

Mark

-Original Message-
From: lilypond-user
[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of
mclaren
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 8:57 PM
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: How to get proper barlines, and how to get page breaks, on this
score

This score is a transcription of a rhythm I generated in Jens Johansen's
wonderful polyrthmic application Polymath.  It's a pretty catchy rhythm. 
But Lilypond has trouble handling it.

The barlines are obvious from the score, since this is nothing but a bunch
of hypermeasures. Notice that in each pair of staves (staff 1 & 2, staff 3 &
4, staff 5 & 6), the broken tuplets are offset so that the barlines are
well-formed for each hypermeasure and the point at which they occur is
pretty clear from the score. 

My problem?  I can't figure out make-moment values that will cause barlines
to get placed properly.

Then there's the additional problem of forcing a page break. The most
logical solution to getting a page break, namely, using a time signature
large enough to account for all the broken tuplets, would produce a time
signature so large that it crashes Lilypond. So that solution is out. Jens
Johansen's Polymath doesn't care about page breaks or barlines, so it has no
problem with rhythms like this. But Lilypond is based on traditional
notation, which has lots of trouble with these kinds of rhythms.

Any suggestions?

\version "2.18.2"
\header {
  tagline = ""  % removed 
 

} 


#(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape)
\layout{

indent=0
}


\relative c'' 
{
<<
\new Staff { \clef "treble"
{
  \cadenzaOn
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { c4 c4 b4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 9/11 { c4 c4 d4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { b4 c4 c4 } 

  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { d4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 11/9 { b4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 } 

  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 

  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 c4}
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 

  \cadenzaOn
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 

  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 

  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 

  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 c4}
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 

}

}
\new Staff { \clef "treble"
\cadenzaOn
\relative c'' {
  \cadenzaOn
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6  { b4 c4 c4 } 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
   {d4 c4 }
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f

Re: Are page breaks possible with this kind of score? If so, how?

Wow!  That's fantastic!  Thanks, Urs. You are a true Lilypond wizard. I abase
myself before your excellence.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Are-page-breaks-possible-with-this-kind-of-score-If-so-how-tp196124p196129.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

How to get proper barlines, and how to get page breaks, on this score

This score is a transcription of a rhythm I generated in Jens Johansen's
wonderful polyrthmic application Polymath.  It's a pretty catchy rhythm. 
But Lilypond has trouble handling it.

The barlines are obvious from the score, since this is nothing but a bunch
of hypermeasures. Notice that in each pair of staves (staff 1 & 2, staff 3 &
4, staff 5 & 6), the broken tuplets are offset so that the barlines are
well-formed for each hypermeasure and the point at which they occur is
pretty clear from the score. 

My problem?  I can't figure out make-moment values that will cause barlines
to get placed properly.

Then there's the additional problem of forcing a page break. The most
logical solution to getting a page break, namely, using a time signature
large enough to account for all the broken tuplets, would produce a time
signature so large that it crashes Lilypond. So that solution is out. Jens
Johansen's Polymath doesn't care about page breaks or barlines, so it has no
problem with rhythms like this. But Lilypond is based on traditional
notation, which has lots of trouble with these kinds of rhythms.

Any suggestions?

\version "2.18.2"
\header { 
  tagline = ""  % removed 
 

} 


#(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape)
\layout{

indent=0
}


\relative c'' 
{
<<
\new Staff { \clef "treble"
{
  \cadenzaOn
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { c4 c4 b4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 9/11 { c4 c4 d4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { b4 c4 c4 } 

  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { d4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 11/9 { b4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 } 

  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 

  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 c4}
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 

  \cadenzaOn
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 

  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 

  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 }
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 

  { c4 c4 c4 }
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6 { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f  
  { c4 c4 c4}
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6   { c4 c4 c4 c4 } 

}

}
\new Staff { \clef "treble"
\cadenzaOn
\relative c'' {
  \cadenzaOn
 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6  { b4 c4 c4 } 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
   {d4 c4 }
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 9/11  {c4 b4 c4} 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  { c4 d4 c4}

 \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  \times 5/6  { c4 b4 c4 } 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature

Re: Are page breaks possible with this kind of score? If so, how?



Am 04.11.2016 um 04:33 schrieb mclaren:
> Here's the score. It's pretty self-explanatory. I recognize that at this
> point we're stretching the bounds of Western music notation. It would be
> nice to be able to get page breaks with a score like this that goes on for
> several pages, but so far I haven't figured out how to do it. Trying to
> deduce the correct make-moment values would appear to require perceptions
> verging, as we may say, on the extrasensory.
>
> This is just a Conlon Nancarrow-style acceleration notated traditionally, by
> the way. Nancarrow was doing these kinds of rhythms back in the 1940s.  So
> this is far from exotic, musically speaking.

As Nathan Ho wrote in another thread you have to remove the
Forbid_line_break_engraver from the Voice context.
Then you can add a parallel voice to each staff specifying the break points.

See attached.

> \version "2.18.2"
>
> \paper {
>   indent = 0
> }
>
> \layout {
>   % Create time signature context
>   % Source: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=272
>   % (modified)
>   \context {
> \type Engraver_group
> % Add elements that _can_ be printed
> \consists "Timing_translator"
> \consists "Time_signature_engraver"
> \consists "Axis_group_engraver"
> \name "TimeLine"
> \alias "Staff"
> 
> % Align time signatures on barlines
> \override TimeSignature.X-offset =
>   #ly:self-alignment-interface::x-aligned-on-self
> \override TimeSignature.self-alignment-X = #CENTER
>   }
>   \context {
> \Score
> \accepts "TimeLine"
> \remove "Timing_translator"
> \remove "Default_bar_line_engraver"
> \override TupletNumber.text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
>   }
>   \context {
> \Staff
> \consists "Timing_translator"
> \remove "Default_bar_line_engraver"
> \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
>
>   }
> }  
> <<
>  
>
>
> \new Staff { \clef "treble"
> \tuplet 9/10 {   
>  
> {
>  r2 b'2
>  
> {\tuplet 3/2 {a'4 \tuplet 4/3 {b'4\tuplet 6/5 {e''4 \tuplet 9/8 {f''4
> \tuplet 4/3 {d''4 \tuplet 5/4 {c''4  \tuplet 7/6 {d''4 \tuplet 10/9 {a''4
> \tuplet 5/4 {b''4 \tuplet 6/5 {c'''4 \tuplet 8/7 {d'''4 \tuplet 11/10 {e'''4
> \tuplet 6/5 {b'''4 \tuplet 7/6 {a'''4 \tuplet 9/8 {d4 \tuplet 12/11
> {e4 \tuplet 7/6 {f4 \tuplet 8/7 {a4 \tuplet 10/9 {g4\tuplet
> 13/12 {g4 \tuplet 8/7 {a4 \tuplet 9/8 {b4 \tuplet 11/10 {c'4
> \tuplet 14/13 {d'4}
> }
> }
> }
> \new Staff {  \clef "treble"
> \tuplet 15/22
> {   
>  
> {
>  b2
> {\tuplet 3/2 {a4 \tuplet 4/3 {b4\tuplet 6/5 {e'4 \tuplet 9/8 {f'4 \tuplet
> 4/3 {d'4 \tuplet 5/4 {c'4  \tuplet 7/6 {d'4 \tuplet 10/9 {a'4 \tuplet 5/4
> {b'4 \tuplet 6/5 {c''4 \tuplet 8/7 {d''4 \tuplet 11/10 {e''4 \tuplet 6/5
> {b''4 \tuplet 7/6 {a''4 \tuplet 9/8 {d'''4 \tuplet 12/11 {e'''4 \tuplet 7/6
> {f'''4 \tuplet 8/7 {a'''4 \tuplet 10/9 {g'''4\tuplet 13/12 {g'''4 \tuplet
> 8/7 {a'''4 \tuplet 9/8 {b'''4 \tuplet 11/10 {c4 \tuplet 14/13
> {c4}
> }
> }
> }
>
> \new Staff {  \clef "bass"
> \time 4/5
> \relative c,
> \scaleDurations 5/8
> {c d e f }  
> {d c d e }
> {c d e f }
>
> }
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Are-page-breaks-possible-with-this-kind-of-score-If-so-how-tp196124.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

\version "2.18.2"

\paper {
  indent = 0
  page-count = 2
}

\layout {
  % Create time signature context
  % Source: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=272
  % (modified)
  \context {
\Voice
\remove "Forbid_line_break_engraver"
  }
  \context {
\type Engraver_group
% Add elements that _can_ be printed
\consists "Timing_translator"
\consists "Time_signature_engraver"
\consists "Axis_group_engraver"
\name "TimeLine"
\alias "Staff"

% Align time signatures on barlines
\override TimeSignature.X-offset =
#ly:self-alignment-interface::x-aligned-on-self
\override TimeSignature.self-alignment-X = #CENTER
  }
  \context {
\Score
\accepts "TimeLine"
\remove "Timing_translator"
\remove "Default_bar_line_engraver"
\override TupletNumber.text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  }
  \context {
\Staff
\consists "Timing_translator"
\remove "Default_bar_line_engraver"
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"

  }
}

% Define line breaks
breaks = {
  {
s2. \bar "" \break
s2 \bar "" \break
  }
}

<<
  \new Staff <<
\breaks
{ 
  \clef "treble"
  \tuplet 9/10 {
r2 b'2
\tuplet 3/2 {
  a'4 
  \tuplet 4/3 {
b'4 \tuplet 6/5 { 
  e''4 \tuplet 9/8 {
f''4 \tuplet 4/3 {
  d''4 \tuplet 5/4 {

Another page-break problem, particularly fiendish

This score fragment follows up on Lilypond code originally posted by Hans
Åberg  and Malte Men back in June, 2014, on this forum. I've carried the
notation a little bit farther. 

The question I have is: how the devil to generate a proper page break in a
score like this?

If there's a make-moment value that will do it, I can't figure it out. Any
suggestions?


\version "2.18.2" 
 

\header{ 
  title = "Example of irrational meter"
% Based on code by Hans Aberg and Malte Meyn, posted to Lilypond Nabble
forum June 2014 
 
  tagline = ##f  % Removing "Music engraving by LilyPond (version)" 
} 


above = { \once \override Script #'script-priority = #-100 } 
below = { \once \override TextScript #'script-priority = #-100 } 


irrtuplet = \once \override TupletNumber.text = 
 \markup \concat { 

   \tiny "√" 
   \hspace #-0.15 
   \override #'(offset . -16) 
   \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   \underline "17"
   ":"
   \tiny "√" 
   \hspace #-0.15 
   \override #'(offset . -16) 
   \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   \underline "3"
 } 

irrtupletb = \once \override TupletNumber.text = 
 \markup \concat { 

   \tiny "√" 
   \hspace #-0.15 
   \override #'(offset . -16) 
   \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   \underline "23"
   ":"
   \tiny "√" 
   \hspace #-0.15 
   \override #'(offset . -16) 
   \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   \underline "5"
 } 
 
 irrtupletc = \once \override TupletNumber.text = 
 \markup \concat { 

   \tiny "√" 
   \hspace #-0.15 
   \override #'(offset . -16) 
   \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   \underline "3"
   
 } 

music = << \new Staff { \clef "treble"
  \tempo 4 = 73 
 \cadenzaOn

  \override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature.text = 
  \markup \override #'(baseline-skip . 0) \center-column \number { 
\concat { 
\tiny "√" 
   \hspace #-0.15 
   \override #'(offset . -16) 
   \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   \underline "337" \tiny "/" "17"
   
   % sqr(3) + 4*sqr(17):sqr(3) =
   % sqr(17)/[sqr(17)*sqr(3)] + sqr(16)*[sqr(3)/sqr(17)] =
   % = sqr(289)/sqr(3) + sqr(48)/sqr(17) = 
   % sqr(337)/sqr(17) = 4.45236 quarter notes.
  
} 
\concat { 
  
  \tiny "√" 
   \hspace #-0.15 
   \override #'(offset . -16) 
   \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   \underline "17"
   ":"
   \tiny "√" 
   \hspace #-0.15 
   \override #'(offset . -16) 
   \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   \underline "3" 
} 
  } 


  \override TupletNumber.text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text 

  \relative c' { 
   { 
  \once \override TextScript #'padding = #1.0 
  
  \irrtuplet \tuplet 219/92 {f8[ g] a[ d,]} \irrtuplet \tuplet 219/92
{e8[ g] b[ f]} \irrtupletc \tuplet 627/362 {r4}
  |
  \irrtuplet \tuplet 219/92 {a8[ g] a[ d,]} \irrtuplet \tuplet 219/92
{e8[ g] b[ f]} \irrtupletc \tuplet 627/362 {r4}
   
   | 
  } 
} 
  } 
  
  \new Staff { \clef "bass"
  
 

  \override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature.text = 
  \markup \override #'(baseline-skip . 0) \center-column \number { 
\concat { 
  "4" 
  
} 
\concat { 
  
  \tiny "√" 
   \hspace #-0.15 
   \override #'(offset . -16) 
   \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   \underline "23"
   ":"
   \tiny "√" 
   \hspace #-0.15 
   \override #'(offset . -16) 
   \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   \underline "5" 
} 
  } 


  \override TupletNumber.text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text 

  \relative c { 
   { 
  \once \override TextScript #'padding = #1.0 
   
  \irrtupletb \tuplet 716/395 {a'8[ e] c[ b']} \irrtupletb \tuplet
716/395 {e,8[ b] d[ a']} 
  |
  \irrtupletb \tuplet 716/395 {f8[ e] c[ b']} \irrtupletb \tuplet
716/395 {e,8[ b] d[ a']}   
   | 
  } 
} 
  } 

>> 

\score { 
  \music 
\layout {

#(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape)

}
} 
 



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Another-page-break-problem-particularly-fiendish-tp196126.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: Lilypon error message: "Programming error -- bounds of the piece aren't breakable"

If you run that score with the current development version it will not
crash but produce the attached result (for your reference).

But the log shows that you have errors in it (you can ignore the
warnings about strange time signatures but look for warning: mid-measure
time signature without \partial). Obviously LilyPond 2.18 didn't
gracefully handle the faulty input.

Starting lilypond 2.19.50 [Untitled]...

Processing `/tmp/frescobaldi-GQAw3f/tmp5ji_kp/document.ly'

Parsing...

Interpreting music...

/tmp/frescobaldi-GQAw3f/tmp5ji_kp/document.ly:53:20 <0>: warning:
strange time signature found: 2885/403

\time 2885/403

/tmp/frescobaldi-GQAw3f/tmp5ji_kp/document.ly:89:20 <1>: warning:
strange time signature found: 7706/693

\time 7706/693

/tmp/frescobaldi-GQAw3f/tmp5ji_kp/document.ly:63:22 <2>: warning:
strange time signature found: 4285/631

\time 4285/631

/tmp/frescobaldi-GQAw3f/tmp5ji_kp/document.ly:63:22 <3>: warning:
mid-measure time signature without \partial

\time 4285/631

/tmp/frescobaldi-GQAw3f/tmp5ji_kp/document.ly:93:20 <4>: warning:
strange time signature found: 4127/393

\time 4127/393

/tmp/frescobaldi-GQAw3f/tmp5ji_kp/document.ly:93:20 <5>: warning:
mid-measure time signature without \partial

\time 4127/393

/tmp/frescobaldi-GQAw3f/tmp5ji_kp/document.ly:71:22 <6>: warning:
strange time signature found: 1071/115

\time 1071/115

/tmp/frescobaldi-GQAw3f/tmp5ji_kp/document.ly:71:22 <7>: warning:
mid-measure time signature without \partial

\time 1071/115

Preprocessing graphical objects...

Finding the ideal number of pages...

Fitting music on 1 page...

Drawing systems...

Layout output to `/tmp/lilypond-QRomN1'...

Converting to `document.pdf'...

Deleting `/tmp/lilypond-QRomN1'...

Success: compilation successfully completed

Completed successfully in 1.1".

Am 04.11.2016 um 04:27 schrieb mclaren:
> Now we get to the interesting Lilypond scores, the ones that cause Lilypond
> to crash or produce error messages.  
>
> This simple score makes Lilypond die and stop engraving after a couple of
> measures with the error message "Programming error: bounds of this piece
> aren't  breakable."  Lilypond gives lots of "continuing -- crossing fingers"
> and ultimately fails to engrave the score.  Yet Lilypond claims "Completed
> successfully"!
>
> This simple score is broken up into measures of tuplets each of which has a
> large time signature. Because these time signatures would make Lilypond
> crash (LILYPOND HAS STOPPED WORKING is the error message), I have had to
> approximate the time signatures with smaller rational fraction
> approximations in each case.  This is a workaround, but it seems to work in
> other Lilypond scores without trouble.
>
> For example, the time signature 21632/3135 had to be approximated by the
> smaller time signature 2285/403. The smaller time signature is accurate to
> within a couple of parts per million, though, so it works out okay.
>
> That's not the issue. The issue is that Lilypond just can't seem to handle a
> score in which every note is a broken tuplet, and in which large time
> signatures are used. 
>
> Notice that by the time we reach the dotted quarter note tuplet 14 in the
> time of 11 B in the top measure, Lilypond has given up the ghost. Lilypond
> doesn't even print the tuplet. It has freaked out. Lilypond is no longer
> working properly.
>
> Clearly, this score makes Lilypond blow its stack. What I'd like to know is:
> is there any workaround? Any suggestions for getting Lilypond to actually
> engrave what I've entered?
>
> Lilhypond gives the message "Completed successfully" but clearly Lilypond
> isn't completing anything successfully. It gives up and stops engraving the
> score after the first two and a  half measures.
>
> Here's the Lilypond score:
>
> \version "2.18.2"
>
> \header { 
>   tagline = ""  % removed 
> } 
>
> #(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape)
> \layout {
>
> %\paper  {}
> indent=0
>   % Create time signature context
>   % Source: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=272
>   % (modified)
>   \context {
> \type Engraver_group
> % Add elements that _can_ be printed
> \consists "Timing_translator"
> \consists "Time_signature_engraver"
> \consists "Axis_group_engraver"
> \name "TimeLine"
> \alias "Staff"
> 
> % Align time signatures on barlines
> \override TimeSignature.X-offset =
>   #ly:self-alignment-interface::x-aligned-on-self
> \override TimeSignature.self-alignment-X = #CENTER
>   }
>   \context {
> \Score
> \accepts "TimeLine"
> \override TupletNumber.text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
>   }
>   \context {
> \Staff
> \consists "Timing_translator"
> \consists "Default_bar_line_engraver"
> 
>   }
> }
>
> {
>   
>   
> <<
>   
> \new Staff { \clef "treble"
>  \relative c''
> {
>
> \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
> %\time 86772/12121
>   \time 2885/403
>   { \tuplet 17/15 {c4} 
> \tweak direction #up

Are page breaks possible with this kind of score? If so, how?

Here's the score. It's pretty self-explanatory. I recognize that at this
point we're stretching the bounds of Western music notation. It would be
nice to be able to get page breaks with a score like this that goes on for
several pages, but so far I haven't figured out how to do it. Trying to
deduce the correct make-moment values would appear to require perceptions
verging, as we may say, on the extrasensory.

This is just a Conlon Nancarrow-style acceleration notated traditionally, by
the way. Nancarrow was doing these kinds of rhythms back in the 1940s.  So
this is far from exotic, musically speaking.

\version "2.18.2"

\paper {
  indent = 0
}

\layout {
  % Create time signature context
  % Source: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=272
  % (modified)
  \context {
\type Engraver_group
% Add elements that _can_ be printed
\consists "Timing_translator"
\consists "Time_signature_engraver"
\consists "Axis_group_engraver"
\name "TimeLine"
\alias "Staff"

% Align time signatures on barlines
\override TimeSignature.X-offset =
  #ly:self-alignment-interface::x-aligned-on-self
\override TimeSignature.self-alignment-X = #CENTER
  }
  \context {
\Score
\accepts "TimeLine"
\remove "Timing_translator"
\remove "Default_bar_line_engraver"
\override TupletNumber.text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  }
  \context {
\Staff
\consists "Timing_translator"
\remove "Default_bar_line_engraver"
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
   
  }
}  
<<
 


\new Staff { \clef "treble"
\tuplet 9/10 {   
 
{
 r2 b'2
 
{\tuplet 3/2 {a'4 \tuplet 4/3 {b'4\tuplet 6/5 {e''4 \tuplet 9/8 {f''4
\tuplet 4/3 {d''4 \tuplet 5/4 {c''4  \tuplet 7/6 {d''4 \tuplet 10/9 {a''4
\tuplet 5/4 {b''4 \tuplet 6/5 {c'''4 \tuplet 8/7 {d'''4 \tuplet 11/10 {e'''4
\tuplet 6/5 {b'''4 \tuplet 7/6 {a'''4 \tuplet 9/8 {d4 \tuplet 12/11
{e4 \tuplet 7/6 {f4 \tuplet 8/7 {a4 \tuplet 10/9 {g4\tuplet
13/12 {g4 \tuplet 8/7 {a4 \tuplet 9/8 {b4 \tuplet 11/10 {c'4
\tuplet 14/13 {d'4}
}
}
}
\new Staff {  \clef "treble"
\tuplet 15/22
{   
 
{
 b2
{\tuplet 3/2 {a4 \tuplet 4/3 {b4\tuplet 6/5 {e'4 \tuplet 9/8 {f'4 \tuplet
4/3 {d'4 \tuplet 5/4 {c'4  \tuplet 7/6 {d'4 \tuplet 10/9 {a'4 \tuplet 5/4
{b'4 \tuplet 6/5 {c''4 \tuplet 8/7 {d''4 \tuplet 11/10 {e''4 \tuplet 6/5
{b''4 \tuplet 7/6 {a''4 \tuplet 9/8 {d'''4 \tuplet 12/11 {e'''4 \tuplet 7/6
{f'''4 \tuplet 8/7 {a'''4 \tuplet 10/9 {g'''4\tuplet 13/12 {g'''4 \tuplet
8/7 {a'''4 \tuplet 9/8 {b'''4 \tuplet 11/10 {c4 \tuplet 14/13
{c4}
}
}
}

\new Staff {  \clef "bass"
\time 4/5
\relative c,
\scaleDurations 5/8
{c d e f }  
{d c d e }
{c d e f }

}
>>



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Are-page-breaks-possible-with-this-kind-of-score-If-so-how-tp196124.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

Lilypon error message: "Programming error -- bounds of the piece aren't breakable"

Now we get to the interesting Lilypond scores, the ones that cause Lilypond
to crash or produce error messages.  

This simple score makes Lilypond die and stop engraving after a couple of
measures with the error message "Programming error: bounds of this piece
aren't  breakable."  Lilypond gives lots of "continuing -- crossing fingers"
and ultimately fails to engrave the score.  Yet Lilypond claims "Completed
successfully"!

This simple score is broken up into measures of tuplets each of which has a
large time signature. Because these time signatures would make Lilypond
crash (LILYPOND HAS STOPPED WORKING is the error message), I have had to
approximate the time signatures with smaller rational fraction
approximations in each case.  This is a workaround, but it seems to work in
other Lilypond scores without trouble.

For example, the time signature 21632/3135 had to be approximated by the
smaller time signature 2285/403. The smaller time signature is accurate to
within a couple of parts per million, though, so it works out okay.

That's not the issue. The issue is that Lilypond just can't seem to handle a
score in which every note is a broken tuplet, and in which large time
signatures are used. 

Notice that by the time we reach the dotted quarter note tuplet 14 in the
time of 11 B in the top measure, Lilypond has given up the ghost. Lilypond
doesn't even print the tuplet. It has freaked out. Lilypond is no longer
working properly.

Clearly, this score makes Lilypond blow its stack. What I'd like to know is:
is there any workaround? Any suggestions for getting Lilypond to actually
engrave what I've entered?

Lilhypond gives the message "Completed successfully" but clearly Lilypond
isn't completing anything successfully. It gives up and stops engraving the
score after the first two and a  half measures.

Here's the Lilypond score:

\version "2.18.2"

\header { 
  tagline = ""  % removed 
} 

#(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape)
\layout {

%\paper  {}
indent=0
  % Create time signature context
  % Source: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=272
  % (modified)
  \context {
\type Engraver_group
% Add elements that _can_ be printed
\consists "Timing_translator"
\consists "Time_signature_engraver"
\consists "Axis_group_engraver"
\name "TimeLine"
\alias "Staff"

% Align time signatures on barlines
\override TimeSignature.X-offset =
  #ly:self-alignment-interface::x-aligned-on-self
\override TimeSignature.self-alignment-X = #CENTER
  }
  \context {
\Score
\accepts "TimeLine"
\override TupletNumber.text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  }
  \context {
\Staff
\consists "Timing_translator"
\consists "Default_bar_line_engraver"

  }
}

{
  
  
<<
  
\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
{

\override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
%\time 86772/12121
  \time 2885/403
  { \tuplet 17/15 {c4} 
\tweak direction #up
\tuplet 23/19 {d8[ f]} \tuplet 31/29{e b4 c8}}
 

%\time 21632/3135
  \bar "|"
  
  {
  \time 4285/631
  \tuplet 11/9{d4.} 
   \tweak direction #up
   \tuplet 15/13{f8} \tuplet 19/17{e2}}
  
  
 \bar "|"
 {
 \time 1071/115
 \tuplet 14/11{b4.} \tuplet 23/17{c8} \tuplet 1/15{d8[ f e b]} \tuplet
17/13{c2}
 
  \bar "|"
 }

}
}
  


\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
{


\override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
\time 7706/693
{ \tuplet 17/15{c8[ d f e]} \tuplet 11/7{b2.} \tweak direction #down \tuplet
5/3{r4} \tuplet 7/6 {c16[ d16]} \tuplet 9/8 {f4} }
 \bar "|"
 \time 4127/393
 {\tuplet 13/10{r4.} \tuplet 3/4{e8} \tuplet 7/5{b[ c d]} \tuplet 8/5{d8 f4
e8} \tuplet 23/17{b4.}}
 \bar "|"
  e8  b] c[ d16 f e8 b c16 d f8 e b c] d[ f e b16 c d8 f e b16 c  d8]  
}  
}


>>
 
}





--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Lilypon-error-message-Programming-error-bounds-of-the-piece-aren-t-breakable-tp196123.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: Can't get page breaks for 7 over square root of 71 meter



Am 04.11.2016 um 03:29 schrieb mclaren:
> Hans;
>
> You mentioned:
> "LilyPond doesn't require all the barlines to align in order to be able
> to break a line, it only requires an arbitrary *moment* to align. If you
> have such a moment you can break lines, and the manual tells you how to
> achieve that."
>
> Sorry, no, the Lilypond manual does _not_ tell you how to achieve that. The
> Lilypond manual is a mess. If the Lilypond manual were adequate, there
> wouldn't be any need for a forum like this. The very existence of this forum
> shows that the Lilypond manual is disorganized, incomplete, and inadequate.
> I'm not the only person who has mentioned this. It's common knowledge, and
> uncontroversial.

Again: If LilyPond doesn't meet your standards go find a better tool.

>
> You go on to claim:
>
> "This clearly indicates that you have a timing error *within a single
> voice*, which obviously stems from the fact that 800/898 don't match
> 735/713. One measure is 0,890868597 whole notes long and seven eight
> notes stretched by 735/413 equal 0,921610169 whole notes."
>
> Now we're getting to the real issue. You assert that one measure of 7
> sqr(71) is 
> 0.890868597 whole notes long. Sorry, that is incorrect.

Of course it is incorrect. The point is that *your* file pretends it with

\set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 800/898)

And *you* are stretching notes by 735/713 with

\scaleDurations 435/413 {

And these two settings don't match. This is why I suggest *you* are
doing the maths first. This wouldn't match even if your basic assumption
about the length of a measure were correct.

>
> Let's do the math:
>
> The length of one measure is 7*square root of 71. Let's do this one
> step at a time so there's no mistake. Square root of 71 = 8.42614977318.
> 7 of these makes 7*8.42614977318 = 58.9830484122.
>
> Agreed?  

No.

> You can check on your calculator or by typing this stuff into
> WolframAlpha or google.com
> to verify that this is correct.

Your calculation is correct. But to verify this it is actually more
useful to use LilyPond's capabilities itself. Especially as it offers
tools to actually work with fractions instead of floats.

But what I don't agree with is your basic assumption. The length of one
measure is *not* 7*square root of 71.
The length of a measure is in fact 7 times 1 /divided/ by square root of 71.
If you have \time 7/8 the length is 7 * 1/8, in \time 7/9 it is 7 * 1/9,
and in \time 7/√71 it is 7 * 1/√71.

This can be conveniently expressed in Scheme as

(* 7 (/ 1 (sqrt 71))) => 0.830747160735697


You can actually express that as a proper rational fraction:

(inexact->exact (* 7 (/ 1 (sqrt 71 => 58458634430131/70368744177664


You can easily verify that by comparing this result to the length of a
7/8 and a 7/9 measure (your measure length should be in between):

7/8   => 0.875
7/√71 => 0.830747160735697
7/9   => 0.777...

So consequently all your following calculations are moot.

>
> If square root of 71 has a value of 8.42614977318, and a single eighth note
> has a value of 8,
> then logically 7*8.42614977318 = 58.9830484122 while a whole note contains 8
> eighth notes,
> so a whole note = 64
> .
> This means that the ratio of 7/sqr(71) to one whole note is given by
>
> [7*8.42614977318]/(8*8).
>
> Are you with me so far? 

I am following you but you're on the wrong track.

>  You can verify this with a calculator or with
> WolframAlpha.
>
> [7*8.42614977318]/(8*8) = 58.9830484122/64 = 0.92161013144.
>
> You asserted above that "seven eight notes stretched by 735/413 equal
> 0.921610169 whole notes."

This is of course correct. But irrelevant as it doesn't even closely
match the length of a measure.

>
> That is correct. Please compare 0.921610169 whole notes to 0.92161013144
> whole notes, the actual value of 7*sqr(71). As you can verify, they are very
> close, to within a couple of parts per million. To be exact, the difference
> between  0.921610169 and 0.92161013144 is 3.756 parts in 100 million.

But in music we actually calculate with fractions, and therefore
floating point numbers are inappropriate for this kind of things.

>
> This is as close as I could reasonably come using rational approxmation.
> Lilypond crashes and gives me an error message if I try to use a rational
> fraction with really large numerators and denominators, in the tens of
> millions or hundreds of millions, so as a practical matter, we must stick
> with rational fractions which are in the hundreds or tens of thousands to
> approximate these irrational values.
>
> As an aside, I would say that yes, it is crazy to arbitrarily limit the
> value of the Lilypond moment to rational fraction approximations. Why not
> just allow floats?  What's the problem with that?  Why must a moment be a
> rational fraction?  Why can't it just be a floating point number? 

Because no one has ever considered thinking musically like this.
I don't want to argue that it is nonsensical to allow such a

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 19:50:05 (-0700), mclaren wrote:
> Well, the 3's indicate 3:2 broken tuplets. There seems to be some controversy
> over whether Tobin Chodos really wanted a single 3:2 eighth note at the end
> of every measure. If he does, then the 3's are correct.

Well, I don't perform music like this, so I wouldn't know if there's a
precedent for this notation. I'm just a guy with the temerity to try
and answer the OP's question using conventional notation rather than
something that looks strange.

Where might I find a reference on notation of this sort? Is is on the
web or are there special books?

> If he doesn't, then
> the question was unclear and we're answering something that wasn't asked.

Well, most of us concluded that the OP probably knew what notes should
be contained in each bar better than the appropriate time signature,
looking at the question posed which is how to define the time signature.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

2016-11-03 Thread Tobin Chodos

Hi all,

Thanks for all the helpful info.  A teacher of mine called them
"interruplets" (interrupted tuplets).  I think the clearest solution for my
purposes is just:
\compoundMeter #'((3 4) (1 12)).  David's suggestion of 13/8 is workable
but leads to problems with the music in question.

I really enjoyed those Balkan dances!

Tobin

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 7:50 PM, mclaren  wrote:

> Well, the 3's indicate 3:2 broken tuplets. There seems to be some
> controversy
> over whether Tobin Chodos really wanted a single 3:2 eighth note at the end
> of every measure. If he does, then the 3's are correct. If he doesn't, then
> the question was unclear and we're answering something that wasn't asked.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.
> nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-
> denominator-tp195829p196116.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: compound time signature with non duple denominator

Yes, I realized that. Thanks for the correction. 



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196119.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: compound time signature with non duple denominator

On Fri 04 Nov 2016 at 02:44:56 (+0100), Urs Liska wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 04.11.2016 um 02:39 schrieb Urs Liska:
> >
> > Am 02.11.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Chris Yate:
> >> particularly as it utterly confuses those players that don't know how
> >> to parse it.
> > Any musical notation utterly confuses those players that don't know how
> > to parse it. Actually you could extend that to written text as well.

But even those who can parse it can also be confused, just not utterly¹.
For example, I would say that the top line² is confusing and the
bottom one isn't, in the example I posted earlier. But somebody liked it.

> To clarify, this wasn't meant as a joke. On the one hand those musicians
> who will be able to perform this kind of music won't have an issue
> reading it.

Well, they might have had an issue on the first occasion that they met
some instance of unconventional notation. They work through it, then
it becomes second nature. Call it learning, training...

> On the other hand there *are* many people arguing that music
> notation is way too complex to learn but who claim to express themselves
> musically anyway.

That's too vague for me to understand the point you're trying to make there.

¹ Disclaimer: I have no idea what was being discussed on facebook.
² which I wasn't happy with until I changed "3" to "1:⅔".

Cheers,
David.

met.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

LOL!  Well said, Urs.

As a practical matter, the musicians who perform Michael Gordon's broken
tuplets don't seem confused by the  notation. You can examples of this in
"Four Kings Fight Five," "Yo, Shakespeare!" and many other pieces by Gordon.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196117.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: compound time signature with non duple denominator

Well, the 3's indicate 3:2 broken tuplets. There seems to be some controversy
over whether Tobin Chodos really wanted a single 3:2 eighth note at the end
of every measure. If he does, then the 3's are correct. If he doesn't, then
the question was unclear and we're answering something that wasn't asked.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196116.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: compound time signature with non duple denominator

David remarked: 
>"One triplet eighth note" defines a duration of time (which the OP 
> appeared to get wrong in any case). One note cannot form a triplet. 

Sure it can. They're called broken tuplets, and lots of composers use 'em.
Michael Gordon uses broken tuplets all the time. So does Mikel Rouse, Kyle
Gann, and many others.

Single notes can be tuplets of any kind, 4:3, 11:9, 23:17, or whatever. This
is common practice nowadays in what Kyle Gann calls totalist music.

A typical totalist rhythm pattern is something like

qq   q 3:2 q q 3:2 q 3:2 against
5:4  q  q 5:4 5:4 q q 5:4 5:4 

Both measures add up to eight quarter notes, but the pulse is irregular due
to the broken tuplets. 



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196115.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: Can't get page breaks for 7 over square root of 71 meter

Hans;

You mentioned:
"LilyPond doesn't require all the barlines to align in order to be able
to break a line, it only requires an arbitrary *moment* to align. If you
have such a moment you can break lines, and the manual tells you how to
achieve that."

Sorry, no, the Lilypond manual does _not_ tell you how to achieve that. The
Lilypond manual is a mess. If the Lilypond manual were adequate, there
wouldn't be any need for a forum like this. The very existence of this forum
shows that the Lilypond manual is disorganized, incomplete, and inadequate.
I'm not the only person who has mentioned this. It's common knowledge, and
uncontroversial.

You go on to claim:

"This clearly indicates that you have a timing error *within a single
voice*, which obviously stems from the fact that 800/898 don't match
735/713. One measure is 0,890868597 whole notes long and seven eight
notes stretched by 735/413 equal 0,921610169 whole notes."

Now we're getting to the real issue. You assert that one measure of 7
sqr(71) is
0.890868597 whole notes long. Sorry, that is incorrect.

Let's do the math:

The length of one measure is 7*square root of 71. Let's do this one
step at a time so there's no mistake. Square root of 71 = 8.42614977318.
7 of these makes 7*8.42614977318 = 58.9830484122.

Agreed? You can check on your calculator or by typing this stuff into
WolframAlpha or google.com
to verify that this is correct.

If square root of 71 has a value of 8.42614977318, and a single eighth note
has a value of 8,
then logically 7*8.42614977318 = 58.9830484122 while a whole note contains 8
eighth notes,
so a whole note = 64
.
This means that the ratio of 7/sqr(71) to one whole note is given by

[7*8.42614977318]/(8*8).

Are you with me so far? You can verify this with a calculator or with
WolframAlpha.

[7*8.42614977318]/(8*8) = 58.9830484122/64 = 0.92161013144.

You asserted above that "seven eight notes stretched by 735/413 equal
0.921610169 whole notes."

That is correct. Please compare 0.921610169 whole notes to 0.92161013144
whole notes, the actual value of 7*sqr(71). As you can verify, they are very
close, to within a couple of parts per million. To be exact, the difference
between 0.921610169 and 0.92161013144 is 3.756 parts in 100 million.

This is as close as I could reasonably come using rational approxmation.
Lilypond crashes and gives me an error message if I try to use a rational
fraction with really large numerators and denominators, in the tens of
millions or hundreds of millions, so as a practical matter, we must stick
with rational fractions which are in the hundreds or tens of thousands to
approximate these irrational values.

As an aside, I would say that yes, it is crazy to arbitrarily limit the
value of the Lilypond moment to rational fraction approximations. Why not
just allow floats? What's the problem with that? Why must a moment be a
rational fraction? Why can't it just be a floating point number?

In any case, let's return to the issue at hand -- which is your claim

"One measure is 0.890868597 whole notes long."

You are incorrect, sir. One measure of 7 sqr(71) is 0.92161013144 whole
notes long. You can check my math above. You will find that my arithmetic is
correct.

If you are saying that one measure of 7 sqr(71) is 0.890868597 whole notes
long, that's simply not right. If Lilypond is saying one measure of 7
sqr(71) is 0.890868597 whole notes long, that's also not right.

You can follow through and veryify my math at each stage. I haven't made a
mathematical error. Lilypond is misbehaving.

When you say "As long as you haven't got this sorted out there's not point
in discussing" you're just wrong. I have got the math sorted out and you can
verify at each step that my arithmetic is correct.

It sounds like you don't know how to get Lilypond to force page breaks in a
score like this, and I think I can prove it.

0.890868597 is approximated by 400/449 to an error of 53 parts in 449
billion. So I entered 400/449 into the make-moment command instead of the
values I was using.

And guess what, Hans?

Lilypond _still_ won't create a page break. No wonder, of course --
0.890868597 whole notes is the wrong value for the length of a measure in
whole notes, way off from the actual length of a measure of 7 sqr(71), which
as we calculated above is 0.92161013144 whole notes long.

Aside from the arithmetic errors in your answer, your reply seems like a
complicated way of saying "I don't know how to fix your problem with
Lilypond."

In future, you may just want to say "I don't know how to fix your problem
with Lilypond," Hans. It's a lot simpler.

--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Can-t-get-page-breaks-for-7-over-square-root-of-71-meter-tp196099p196114.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 22:08:02 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> 
> > On 3 Nov 2016, at 21:28, David Wright  wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 10:37:36 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 3 Nov 2016, at 03:04, David Wright  wrote:
> >>> 
> > The only 13/8 I can recall off-hand is an uncomplicated 6/4+1/8.
> 
> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not familiar with these dances), but
> >>> these are just groupings of steady 16th notes, are they not.
> >> 
> >> Yes, in the definition of the meter, in respons to your question whether 
> >> it might be performable. 13/8 and even 13/16 is performable at moderato 
> >> counting on the 1/4s, though I have no example of the 3+3+3+3+1 occurring 
> >> naturally.
> > 
> > But the three notes I referred to weren't in 13/8 or 13/16 because the
> > last 3 of 3+3+3+3+1 (in 13/8 time) was a made into a duplet.
> 
> It was in response to your comment on 13/8 above.

Oh, OK. Well, I'm not familiar with music in these folk-dancing
traditions, and don't particularly find it easy to pick up on
the patterns involved. My own experience of dancing is mainly
in the Scottish Country Dancing tradition, where such rhythmic
irregularities would be of no help at all. In a tradition where
8-bar phrases rule, a dance like The Wee Cooper of Fife is highly
irregular, having four 10-bar phrases.

> 
> In the Leventikos 12/8, 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, the 3s have duplets metric accents. 
> But it is hard to express that via meter. When notation, oen just sums it up. 
> Bartok used (4+2+3)/8, that is
>   4+2+3
> 8
> but on the Balkans one would just write 9/8 or 9/16. The beaming can indicate 
> metric subaccents, but LilyPond cannot do that automatically, so I just skip 
> it,
> 
> >>> My example wasn't.
> >> 
> >> Then one add another level on the musical line. One example how this 
> >> occurs metrically is the Leventikos in 12.
> >> 
> > 
> > I don't know what "another level on the musical line" means.
> 
> One performer keeps the meter, and the others follow.
> 
> > What I was pointing out was that we have 13/8 consisting of three
> > dotted crochets followed by a duplet (two in the time of a dotted
> > crochet) followed by a quaver. The relationship of these notes is
> > 6 6 6 3 3 2 and I think most people would struggle with getting
> > that last note exactly the correct length.
> 
> In irregular meters, the opposite happens: one looses the feeling for exact 
> proportions. So one has to unlearn the idea of exact beats. If you want exact 
> beats, then you need a sequencer track.

If you say so.

> I am not sure exactly what meter you want, but if the proportions are 
> 3+3+3+3+1, then it will likely feel like a common 9 = 2+2+2+3 with a slight 
> time bend shortening the last beat a bit, which is normally done.

I don't want any meter. All I wanted to do was answer the question
posed by the OP, but using conventional notation (which, it appears,
is sufficient) rather than the rather unconventional approach IMO
posted by Joram.

> The tune Eleno Mome is often played in 7/8, but exists written as 13/16, 13 = 
> 4+4+2+3, where the 3 has typical 2+1 patterns. In live performances, there 
> might be something between 7/8 and 13/16. But exists written as 12/16, 12 = 
> 3+4+2+3, and a performance plays it as 3+2+2+2+3.
> 
> > Of course, if you adopt a pace where you can form that pattern
> > by grouping 26 rapid claps or whatever, then it can get simpler,
> > but I was talking in the context of straightforward note values
> > as sung by, say, a classical singer.
> 
> On Balkans, they use 3s and 2s, counting on the fingers, for example 11 = 
> 2+2+3+2+2. This way, smaller differences than be performed.
> 
> But you might try using flute articulation t-k and t-k-t patterns.
> 
>  This Leventikos is also performed in 12 = 3+2+2+3+2, with quadruplets on 
>  the 3s - se my other post in this thread.
> >>> 
> >>> OK, the quadruplets add another layer of complexity. The note
> >>> durations are now 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+ 4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4 / 48.
> >>> So taking this Leventikos pattern, I've bent the "4/4+1/3" so
> >>> that it contains similar tupleticity, to coin a nonce word.
> >> 
> >> Yes, indeed. In the Leventikos, the quadruplet pattern occurs 
> >> consistently. When performing, there are slower 1/16th contrasted with 
> >> faster ones. Some performers have triplets on the 2s, and quintuplets 
> >> occur in Balkan music as well. So it can be more complex.
> >> 
> >>> I've broken the 13/8 time signature into the appropriate groups,
> >>> 3/8+3/8+3/8+3/8+1/8. I've followed this with the 4/4/+1/12
> >>> time signature's equivalent notation for the same durations.
> >>> The actual rhythm of the individual notes in both cases is
> >>> 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4+4+4+ 3+3+3+3+ 4 / 52.
> >> 
> >> A problem with this meter is that the 1/3 at the end is fairly short, so 
> >> it may be distorted by metric time bends: there is a tendency in Balkan 
> >> music

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator



Am 04.11.2016 um 02:39 schrieb Urs Liska:
>
> Am 02.11.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Chris Yate:
>> particularly as it utterly confuses those players that don't know how
>> to parse it.
> Any musical notation utterly confuses those players that don't know how
> to parse it. Actually you could extend that to written text as well.

To clarify, this wasn't meant as a joke. On the one hand those musicians
who will be able to perform this kind of music won't have an issue
reading it. On the other hand there *are* many people arguing that music
notation is way too complex to learn but who claim to express themselves
musically anyway.

Urs

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

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator



Am 04.11.2016 um 01:56 schrieb mclaren:
> Oops. Unless I'm mistaken, 4 + 1 triplet eighth note would be 4 + 1/6, not 4
> + 1/3.

You *are* mistaken. 4 quarters + 1 triplet eight is 4/4 + 1/12.

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

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 18:00:59 (-0700), mclaren wrote:
> "Wouldn't that rather be (4 + 2/3)/4?"
> 
> Yes, I think you're right. 1/3 is presumably half of the value of a triplet
> quarter note, so 1 triplet eighth note. I've corrected that in my second
> Lilypond example. My bad.
> 
> Change the "6" denominator in my new Lilypond code to a 3 to get the meter
> to display correctly. But the measures do print correctly, so this code
> should get what Tobin Chodos wants, I think, 4 quarter notes + 1 triplet
> eighth in every measure.

I think Joram pointed that out in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-10/msg00584.html
and most/all of this discussion has made that assumption. AFAIK the
OP has neither confirmed nor disagreed with this change.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator



Am 02.11.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Chris Yate:
> particularly as it utterly confuses those players that don't know how
> to parse it.

Any musical notation utterly confuses those players that don't know how
to parse it. Actually you could extend that to written text as well.

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

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

On Thu 03 Nov 2016 at 17:13:14 (-0700), mclaren wrote:
> I have an even more diabolical question, related to the one at the start of
> this thread. 
> 
> But let me first answer the original question, which was: "Is there a way to
> implement a non-binary time signature like 4 + 1/3?" I think I know a way to
> do this.
> 
> This seems like an entirely valid question. 1/3 would be a single triplet
> note, right? That is, if we're dealing with (4 + 1/3)/4, then what we want
> is 4 quarter notes + 1 triplet quarter note, correct?  In that case, can't
> we get the same effect by doing [X number of triplets equivalent to 4
> quarter notes] + 1 triplet quarter note?
> 
> The number of triplet quarter notes = 4 quarter note is of course 12,
> therefore the total is 12 + 1 triplet quarter notes, and therefore the time
> signature should be 13/3.

Um, I'm trying to find the difference between that and
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-10/msg00586.html

Why do you have a denominator of "3". Why not 13/2 or 13/4 or 13/8 or 13/16?

> And here's an example of the score output on imgur:
> http://imgur.com/a/cSyML

To me, that looks like
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-10/msg00584.html
except that you've suppressed the "a a" following the barline check
which Joram didn't bother to do.

That's the first thing you do (and I did).
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00074.html

Then you look at it again and realise that those number "3"s that
pepper the score are inappropriate as there isn't 3 of anything.
The obvious thing to do is to change to the ratio annotation, as in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00083.html

> Now here's my even more diabolical question:
> How do you get Lilypond to do a meter and print barlines properly on a time
> signature like
> 4 + (square root of 3)? And get valid page breaks?

I dpn't know. This seems to have more to do with mathematics than any
music I enjoy performing or listening to.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

Yes, Thomas Ades and Brian Ferneyhough and Kyle Gann and many others have
written music in non-binary meters like 7/6 and 21/10 and so on. This is
hardly unusual nowadays. In fact, these kinds of meters go all the way back
to Henry Cowell's "New Musical Resources," written in 1930, though Cowell
used idiosyncratic notation (diamond-shaped and square-shaped noteheads)
instead of a non-binary meter. But this kind of stuff has been done in
serious contemporary music since 1930 at least, so it's hardly
earth-shattering or exotic.

Irrational meters like 5 in the time of the cube root of 1119, now, that's
considered exotic today.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196107.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: Can't get page breaks for 7 over square root of 71 meter

2016-11-03 Thread Nathan Ho


On 2016-11-03 17:36, mclaren wrote:
The problem comes from Lilypond's bizarre assumption that at some point 
all
the barlines in the score will line up. In this case, clearly the 
barlines
in the 7/sqr(71) staff will never line up with any of the other 
barlines in

the score. Therefore Lilypond can't ever break the page.


Hello mclaren,

LilyPond does not allow you to break in the middle of note events by 
default. The solution is to remove Forbid_line_break_engraver from the 
Voice context, as described in the docs here: 
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/line-breaking


\layout {
  \context {
\Voice
\remove "Forbid_line_break_engraver"
  }
}

I admit to posting this without making much effort to understand your 
code, so apologies if this is does not solve the problem.


I also agree with Urs' comment on your tone.


Nathan

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

Re: Can't get page breaks for 7 over square root of 71 meter


Am 04.11.2016 um 01:36 schrieb mclaren:
> A meter of 7/sqr(71) simply means that that there are 7 eighth notes each of
> which has duration of square root of 71 = 1/8.426149 of a whole note,
> whereas a standard eighth note has duration of 1/8 of a whole note. 
> Therefore each eighth note in 7/sqr(71) meter has a duration of 8.426149/8 =
> 1.053268 of a regular eighth note. We use a rational approximation program
> to get a rational fraction which approximates this value to within one part
> in a billion, close enough.
>
> The problem comes from Lilypond's bizarre assumption that at some point all
> the barlines in the score will line up. In this case, clearly the barlines
> in the 7/sqr(71) staff will never line up with any of the other barlines in
> the score. Therefore Lilypond can't ever break the page. 
>
> That's a) insane, b) stupid, c) unmusical, d) all three (take your pick). No
> matter where I place bar checks and page breaks, Lilypond absolutely
> posistively 100% utterly totally refuses to break the page.
>
>

What you are describing is none of your suggestions a) to c), at best
you could label it a limitation.
LilyPond assumes that a line break happens at a single point in time
through all staves of a system. This is a totally reasonable assumption,
and when you have musical reasons to override this it is the case of an
extreme exception. That LilyPond doesn't support this may be considered
a limitation, but as mentioned in my other reply I doubt that any other
notation software (except maybe SCORE that more or less does *not* have
any notion of musical structure) will get you even close to what
LilyPond does.

"The problem comes from Lilypond's bizarre assumption that at some point
all the barlines in the score will line up". This indicates that you
don't really understand what you're doing - which isn't a fault in
itself but doesn't really match your tone.
LilyPond doesn't require all the barlines to align in order to be able
to break a line, it only requires an arbitrary *moment* to align. If you
have such a moment you can break lines, and the manual tells you how to
achieve that.

HOWEVER:

tmp/frescobaldi-aXfsgv/tmpe9t0hz/document.ly:93:25 <0>: warning:
barcheck failed at: 6515/211928

{ c8 d f e b c d16 f

| e8 b c d16 f e8 b c16 d }

This clearly indicates that you have a timing error *within a single
voice*, which obviously stems from the fact that 800/898 don't match
735/713. One measure is 0,890868597 whole notes long and seven eight
notes stretched by 735/413 equal 0,921610169 whole notes.
Your seven notes in that measures (and you'd have this in all the
following measures if you'd applied barchecks as should be the minimal
safety net in such complicated cases) simply don't match the length of
your measure.

As long as you haven't sorted this out it doesn't make sense to discuss
the issue of line breaking.
So please get your maths straight before ranting about LilyPond's sanity.

Urs


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

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

"Wouldn't that rather be (4 + 2/3)/4?"

Yes, I think you're right. 1/3 is presumably half of the value of a triplet
quarter note, so 1 triplet eighth note. I've corrected that in my second
Lilypond example. My bad.

Change the "6" denominator in my new Lilypond code to a 3 to get the meter
to display correctly. But the measures do print correctly, so this code
should get what Tobin Chodos wants, I think, 4 quarter notes + 1 triplet
eighth in every measure.





--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196104.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: compound time signature with non duple denominator

Tobin Chodos mentioned: "That is, the measure is four quarter notes long plus
one triplet eighth note."

Oops. Unless I'm mistaken, 4 + 1 triplet eighth note would be 4 + 1/6, not 4
+ 1/3. My Lilypond code was based on the assumption that you had 4 quarter
notes + 1 triplet quarter note. 

Here's the Lilypond code for 4 + 1/6 meter, i.e., 4 quarter notes + 1
triplet eighth note in every measure.

\version "2.18.2"

\header { 
  tagline = ""  % removed 
} 

#(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape)
%\layout {}

indent=0
<<
  
\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
   \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \time 13/8
% We need this time signature to get the beat
% structure, but this time signature won't print.
% Now we insert the time sig that does print. 

% This is the time signature that will print

 \override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature.text = 
  \markup \override #'(baseline-skip . 0) \center-column \number { 
\concat { "4 + 1" } 
  \hspace #-0.1 
  \override #'(offset . -32) 
  \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
   "6"}


\set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 1265/780)
% This sets the barline locations. I had to play around with this
% make-moment value to get the barlines to place properly. AFAICT
% this make-moment vlaue is a by-guess-and-by-God "magic" value
% that has to be fiddled with by trial and error to get it right.
\relative c''
\scaleDurations 3/2 {

   c4 d f e \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4  b a  c  \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4 d f, g  \tuplet
3/2{b8}  c4 d c f, \tuplet 3/2{b8} e4  f g  d  \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4 d f, g 
\tuplet 3/2{b8}  c4 d f e \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4  d f  e  \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4 d
f, g  \tuplet 3/2{b8}
\bar ""
\break
c4 d f e \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4  b a  c  \tuplet 3/2{b8} c4 d f, g  \tuplet
3/2{b8}  c4 d c f, \tuplet 3/2{b8} e4  f g  d  \tuplet 3/2{b8}

} 
}

%\new Staff { \clef "bass"
% \relative c,
   
%  \time 4/4
%\set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 4/4)
 %{a,4 b, c d  a,4 b, c d   a,4 b, c d   a,4 b, c d   a,4 b, c d}
%}
>>  








--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compound-time-signature-with-non-duple-denominator-tp195829p196103.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: Can't get page breaks for 7 over square root of 71 meter



Am 04.11.2016 um 01:36 schrieb mclaren:
> Therefore Lilypond can't ever break the page. 
>
> That's a) insane, b) stupid, c) unmusical, d) all three (take your pick).

Before I may try to understand the case (particularly as your questions
so far indicated that you may not always have really read the manual)
may I suggest that if you expect people to help you willingly (and don't
forget: always voluntarily) you might try moderating your language first.

If you think LilyPond's behaviour is insane, stupid or even unmusical
you are free to switch to any of the other available tools that will
give you what you want ;-)
But more seriously: of course you won't run into that issue with Finale
or Sibelius - simply because they don't even get you near to what
LilyPond achieves.

Urs

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

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

2016-11-03 Thread Martin Neubauer

On 04/11/2016 01:13, mclaren wrote:

> This seems like an entirely valid question. 1/3 would be a single triplet
> note, right? That is, if we're dealing with (4 + 1/3)/4, then what we want
> is 4 quarter notes + 1 triplet quarter note, correct?
Wouldn't that be rather (4 + 2/3)/4?

-- 
Not the actual page, because it contains nothing. It's just the
content.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Lilypond page breaks work properly for non-binary meters like 7/5...

..But apparently Lilypond page breaks don't work at all for an irrational
meter like 7/sqr(71). I'm baffled. Why do page breaks work for 7/5 but not
for 7/sqr(71)?  The basic metric pulse is non-binary in both cases, so why
should it make any difference whether the basic metric pulse is 5 equal
divisions of a whole note, or sqr(71) divisions of a whole note?

Anyway, here's my Lilypond code for a polymetric score with 7/5 playing
against various other pedestrian polymeters. The page breaks work as
expected.

\version "2.18.2"

\header { 
  tagline = ""  % removed 
} 
#(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape)
\layout {

indent=0
  % Create time signature context
  % Source: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=272
  % (modified)
  \context {
\type Engraver_group
% Add elements that _can_ be printed
\consists "Timing_translator"
\consists "Time_signature_engraver"
\consists "Axis_group_engraver"
\name "TimeLine"
\alias "Staff"

% Align time signatures on barlines
\override TimeSignature.X-offset =
  #ly:self-alignment-interface::x-aligned-on-self
\override TimeSignature.self-alignment-X = #CENTER
  }
  \context {
\Score
\accepts "TimeLine"
\remove "Timing_translator"
\remove "Default_bar_line_engraver"
\override TupletNumber.text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  }
  \context {
\Staff
\consists "Timing_translator"
\consists "Default_bar_line_engraver"
\consists "Time_signature_engraver"
  }
}

{
  
  
<<
  
\new TimeLine {
\time 7/5

  }

\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
{

\time 7/5
\override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
\scaleDurations 8/5 {
  { c8[ d f e b c d16 f] | e8[  b c d16 f  e8 b c16 d] } 
  { f8  } }
  \bar"" \break
  {e8 b c d f e b16 c d8 f e b16 c  d8 f e16 b c8 d f e b c  d f16 e b8 c d
f16 e b8 c d16 f e8 b c d f e b }
 
}  
}
  \new TimeLine {
\time 13/8

  }

\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
{


\override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 

 \scaleDurations 8/13 { c8[ d f e b c d16 f e8  b c d16 f e8 b] c16 d f8 e b
c d f e b16 c d8 f e b16 c  d8 f e16 b c8 d f e b c  d f16 e b8 c } 
 \bar"|" \break { d f16 e b8 c d16 f e8 b c d f e b }
 
}  
}

  \new TimeLine {
\time 9/8

  }

\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
{


\override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 

 \scaleDurations 8/9 { c8[ d f] e[ b c] d16[ f e8  b] c[ d16 f e8] b[ c16 d
f8] e[ b c] d f e b16 c d8 f e b16 c  d8 } 
 \bar"|" \break { f e16 b c8 d f e b c  d f16 e b8 c d f16 e b8 c d16 f e8 b
c d f e b }
 
}  
}

  \new TimeLine {
\time 11/8

  }

\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
{
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f
 
 \scaleDurations 8/11 { e8 b c d16 f e8 b c d16 f e8 b c16 d f8 e b c d f e
b16 c d8 f e b16 c d8 f e16 b c8 d f e b c d } \bar"|" \pageBreak { f16 e b8
c d f16 e b8 c d16 f e8 b c d f e b c16 d f8 }

}

}

>>
 
}





--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Lilypond-page-breaks-work-properly-for-non-binary-meters-like-7-5-tp196100.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

Can't get page breaks for 7 over square root of 71 meter

A meter of 7/sqr(71) simply means that that there are 7 eighth notes each of
which has duration of square root of 71 = 1/8.426149 of a whole note,
whereas a standard eighth note has duration of 1/8 of a whole note. 
Therefore each eighth note in 7/sqr(71) meter has a duration of 8.426149/8 =
1.053268 of a regular eighth note. We use a rational approximation program
to get a rational fraction which approximates this value to within one part
in a billion, close enough.

The problem comes from Lilypond's bizarre assumption that at some point all
the barlines in the score will line up. In this case, clearly the barlines
in the 7/sqr(71) staff will never line up with any of the other barlines in
the score. Therefore Lilypond can't ever break the page. 

That's a) insane, b) stupid, c) unmusical, d) all three (take your pick). No
matter where I place bar checks and page breaks, Lilypond absolutely
posistively 100% utterly totally refuses to break the page.

Is there any way, any way at all, to break the page on this score?  Or am I
completely and utterly stuck, and have to generate the score piecewise by
compiling a few measures at a time and then PhotoShopping 'em into a full
score?

Here's the Lilypond score:

\version "2.18.2"

\header { 
  tagline = ""  % removed 
} 
#(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape)
\layout {

indent=0
  % Create time signature context
  % Source: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=272
  % (modified)
  \context {
\type Engraver_group
% Add elements that _can_ be printed
\consists "Timing_translator"
\consists "Time_signature_engraver"
\consists "Axis_group_engraver"
\name "TimeLine"
\alias "Staff"

% Align time signatures on barlines
\override TimeSignature.X-offset =
  #ly:self-alignment-interface::x-aligned-on-self
\override TimeSignature.self-alignment-X = #CENTER
  }
  \context {
\Score
\accepts "TimeLine"
\remove "Timing_translator"
\remove "Default_bar_line_engraver"
\override TupletNumber.text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
  }
  \context {
\Staff
\consists "Timing_translator"
\consists "Default_bar_line_engraver"
   
  }
}

{
  
  
<<
  
\new TimeLine {
  
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
  \time 7/8
% Not 7/8 time, it's actually 7/sqrt(71) time.
% To get this, you choose time sig of 7/8
% since an eighth note is the basic pulse
% and you want 7 of those basic pulses per measure.
% Then you calculate the fraction of an eighth note
% that 1/(sqrt(71) of a whole note makes. That's
% 1/sqrt(71) of a whole note, or 1/(8.426149773) of
% of a whole note. This is 1/(8.426149773/8) or
% 1/1.053268772 of an eighth note. Now use a
% rational approximation program to calculate
% the best ratio giving a rational approximation
% to 1.053268772 eighth note with integers below, say, 300.
% That turns out to be 256/244, which gives an
% approximation to better than 1 part in 10,000 --
% good enough for real-world musical purposes.
% Now you just insert a tuplet using the command
% \times 256/244, which sets every eighth note
% to a duration of 244/256 of the basic pulse
% set by the time signature, and voila. 
 
  }

\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
{

 \override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print 
  \override Staff.TimeSignature.text = 
  \markup \override #'(baseline-skip . 0) \center-column \number { 
\concat { "7" } 
  \hspace #-0.1 
  \override #'(offset . -32) 
  \override #'(thickness . 1.6) 
  \underline "√71"}
  
%\set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3430/413) 
\set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 800/898)
\scaleDurations 435/413 {
% 7 over the square root of 71 time signature,
% = 1.053268772 eighth notes per eighth note.
% This rational fraction approximation is 
% accurate to within 6.86 parts per billion.
  { c8 d f e b c  d16 f | e8  b c d16 f  e8 b c16 d } 
  { f8  } }
 
   {e8 b c d f e b16 c d8 f e b16 c  d8 f e16 b c8 d f e b c  d[ f16[ e b8 c
}


d f16 e b8]
 \bar ""
\break
c[ d16 f e8 b c d f e] b 
 
}  
}
  \new TimeLine {

%\override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 
\time 13/8
  

  }

\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
{


\override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 

 \scaleDurations 8/13 { c8[ d f e b c d16 f e8  b c d16 f e8 b]
   c16[ d f8 e b c d f e b16 c d8 f e b16 c]
   d8[ f e16 b c8 d f e b c  d f16 e b8 c]  
   d[ f16 e b8 c d16 f e8 b c  d f e b d] 
  c8[ d f e b c d16 f e8  b c d16 f e8 b]
   
 d8[ f e16 b c8 d 
 
 \bar ""
 \break
 f e b c  d f16 e b8 c]
 
 }
 
}  
}

  \new TimeLine {
\time 9/8

  }

\new Staff { \clef "treble"
 \relative c''
{


\override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f 

 \scaleDurations 8/9 { c8[ d f e b c d16 f e8  b]
 c[ d16 f e8 b c16 d f8 e b c]
 d[ f e b16 c d8 f e b16 c  d8]
  
  \break  f e16 b c8 d f e b c  d 
  f16[ e b8 c d f16 e b8 c d16 f e8]

  b c d f

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator