Re: Weird gap between staff lines and ending bar line

[Malte Meyn]

Am 07.09.18 um 02:52 schrieb Simon Albrecht:

Hello everybody,

has anybody came across something like this? It’s a score for piano and 
chorus, where in the last system all chorus staves are removed, and now 
I’ve noticed that at the end the staff lines don’t go all the way to the 
final bar line. This looks the same in Frescobaldi’s built-in PDF viewer 
and in Evince.


I don’t really have an idea how that might come about and I’m inclined 
to save myself the trouble and just apply extra-offset to the bar line. 
I’ll probably have to go the stony path of minimal example creation… but 
maybe someone has already debugged a similar case.


Best, Simon


I bet you’re using \magnifyStaff for the choir.

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

Re: Weird gap between staff lines and ending bar line

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Simon,

MWE Sir! [You can't get off so lightly :-)]

I'd be interested to take a look, and see if it is platform dependent.

Andrew


On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 10:53, Simon Albrecht  wrote:

>
> I don’t really have an idea how that might come about and I’m inclined
> to save myself the trouble and just apply extra-offset to the bar line.
> I’ll probably have to go the stony path of minimal example creation… but
> maybe someone has already debugged a similar case.
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LSR clef change at beginning of the piece

[Simon Albrecht]

On 07.09.2018 03:17, Simon Albrecht wrote:

Hello everybody,

here’s two suggestions for the LSR snippets dealing with an initial 
clef change before the first note of a piece:


#956  works with a hidden 
grace note; this creates an unsightly gap that can be avoided by using 
a grace-timed spacer rest instead of the hidden note and repositioning 
clef and first note column thus:


Apologies, there were a number of things wrong with the version that I 
posted; here’s a better one:


%%%
\relative c' {
  \key b \major
  %%  Start with a bass clef:
  \clef bass
  %%  Use a grace-timed spacer to separate the two clefs:
  %%  (remember to also put this in all other
  %%  parallel music expressions to avoid issue 34!)
  \grace s1
  %%  Adjust the spacing:
  \once\override Staff.Clef.extra-offset = #'(3 . 0)
  \once\override NoteColumn.X-offset = 5
  %%  Switch to treble clef:
  \clef treble
  c4 c c c | c1
}
%%

Best, Simon

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

Re: LSR clef change at beginning of the piece

[Simon Albrecht]

On 07.09.2018 03:17, Simon Albrecht wrote:

Hello everybody,

here’s two suggestions for the LSR snippets dealing with an initial 
clef change before the first note of a piece:


#956  works with a hidden 
grace note; this creates an unsightly gap that can be avoided by using 
a grace-timed spacer rest instead of the hidden note and repositioning 
clef and first note column thus:


%
\relative c' {
  \key b \major
  %%  Start with a bass clef :
  \clef bass
  %%  Use a grace-timed spacer:
  \grace s64

The above duration is irrelevant and may be omitted.

  %% Adjust the clef spacing:
  \once\override Staff.Clef.extra-offset = #'(3 . 0)
  %\once\override Staff.Clef.X-extent = #'(0 . 0)
  %%  Put in the treble clef:
  \clef treble
  \once\override NoteColumn.X-offset = 5
  c4 c c c | c1
}
%%

#792 uses a more sophisticated approach, which is good, but it has the 
major disadvantage that any key signature will be displayed according 
to the wrong clef. That limitation should probably be pointed out in 
the snippet’s description.


Best, Simon


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



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

LSR clef change at beginning of the piece

[Simon Albrecht]

Hello everybody,

here’s two suggestions for the LSR snippets dealing with an initial clef 
change before the first note of a piece:


#956  works with a hidden grace 
note; this creates an unsightly gap that can be avoided by using a 
grace-timed spacer rest instead of the hidden note and repositioning 
clef and first note column thus:


%
\relative c' {
  \key b \major
  %%  Start with a bass clef :
  \clef bass
  %%  Use a grace-timed spacer:
  \grace s64
  %%  Adjust the clef spacing:
  \once\override Staff.Clef.extra-offset = #'(3 . 0)
  %\once\override Staff.Clef.X-extent = #'(0 . 0)
  %%  Put in the treble clef:
  \clef treble
  \once\override NoteColumn.X-offset = 5
  c4 c c c | c1
}
%%

#792 uses a more sophisticated approach, which is good, but it has the 
major disadvantage that any key signature will be displayed according to 
the wrong clef. That limitation should probably be pointed out in the 
snippet’s description.


Best, Simon


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

Weird gap between staff lines and ending bar line

[Simon Albrecht]

Hello everybody,

has anybody came across something like this? It’s a score for piano and 
chorus, where in the last system all chorus staves are removed, and now 
I’ve noticed that at the end the staff lines don’t go all the way to the 
final bar line. This looks the same in Frescobaldi’s built-in PDF viewer 
and in Evince.


I don’t really have an idea how that might come about and I’m inclined 
to save myself the trouble and just apply extra-offset to the bar line. 
I’ll probably have to go the stony path of minimal example creation… but 
maybe someone has already debugged a similar case.


Best, Simon

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

Re: Frescobaldi testing requested

[Partitura Organum]

This is not what happens for me.
Could you specify the OS/distribution you're running?
And maybe provide a screenshot of the dialog. I could imagine that 
some combination of options would be able to produce unwanted behaviour.




I'm running it on Windows. Here's a screenshot of the dialog.



I doesn't matter which option I choose, PDF, PNG, SVG or some of the 
other options. Starting Lilypond results in nothing. The dialog 
disappears and that's it.


When I run it on Linux, it works as expected. So it's somehow 
Windows-related.




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

Re: Defining 4 \breve time in Carmina Burana

[Hans Åberg]

That is the lesser form. Sorry, the joke markup dropped out.


> On 6 Sep 2018, at 16:25, shane  wrote:
> 
> Cease and desist. And yes copyright here is a farce at this point. But don't 
> get afoul of the owners of the copyright. 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Hans Åberg 
> Date: 9/6/18 8:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: David Kastrup 
> Cc: lilypond-user Mailinglist 
> Subject: Re: Defining 4 \breve time in Carmina Burana
> 
> 
> > On 6 Sep 2018, at 10:49, David Kastrup  wrote:
> > 
> > Hans Åberg  writes:
> > 
> >>> On 6 Sep 2018, at 03:07, Simon Albrecht  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> of course you are right, I misrepresented that and went too far –
> >>> sorry.  A reengraving is no different from a photocopy in that you
> >>> cannot give it to anybody or use it for performing, regardless
> >>> whether parts of that may not be enforcible. But you can do whatever
> >>> you want in your house, so to speak.
> >> 
> >> In fact, a few years ago, a guy engraved the very same piece and put
> >> it up on the net, and got a notice from the copyright holder asking
> >> merely to take it down.
> > 
> > That's the nice way of dealing with that situation.  A Cease
> > notice with lawyer fees attached is the neutral way.  Suing for
> > statutory and/or estimated damages (based on download numbers, possibly
> > estimated) is the non-nice way.
> > 
> > It depends on jurisdictions, public relations, the size and workload of
> > the respective legal department which of those options (and/or others)
> > will be chosen.  Also on whether the legal department is budgeted in a
> > manner where it is supposed to contribute to its salaries.
> 
> In the US, some copyright holders don't know much about it except that it is 
> something that helps them making money, so in the absence of legal checks, 
> they can set their legal department to write something forceful, like a 
> Disease and Cease to Exist letter.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Extend Whiteout property

[foxfanfare]

Hi all,

I wonder if it is possible to extend in the X-direction the whiteout
property on a grob?

For instance, I find in this exemple ( snippet

 
), that the slurs are too close to the TimeSignature.

I know I can make a markup-box for a note, like
  -\markup {
  \with-dimensions #'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0)
  \with-color #white
  \filled-box #'(-0.5 . 2) #'(7 . 8) #0 }

but I would prefer to use the original whiteout property of the
TimeSignature and only extend its width... 

I found that  snippet

  
also useful. So I can draw around the TimeSignature but cannot find how to
fill this box whith white colour...



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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

Re: Defining 4 \breve time in Carmina Burana

[Simon Albrecht]

On 06.09.2018 10:49, David Kastrup wrote:

In fact, a few years ago, a guy engraved the very same piece and put
it up on the net, and got a notice from the copyright holder asking
merely to take it down.

That's the nice way of dealing with that situation.  A Cease
notice with lawyer fees attached is the neutral way.  Suing for
statutory and/or estimated damages (based on download numbers, possibly
estimated) is the non-nice way.


Which reminds me that this very piece, namely the opening chorus ‘O 
Fortuna’, is said to form a major/considerable portion of Schott’s 
revenue, and that they have been keen to squeeze that out: It is told 
that, when Michael Jackson used it in a concert tour without permission, 
they waited till the concert tour was over and then sued, thus 
maximising the amount they got.


Best, Simon

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

Re: Defining 4 \breve time in Carmina Burana

[Hans Åberg]

> On 6 Sep 2018, at 10:49, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Hans Åberg  writes:
> 
>>> On 6 Sep 2018, at 03:07, Simon Albrecht  wrote:
>>> 
>>> of course you are right, I misrepresented that and went too far –
>>> sorry.  A reengraving is no different from a photocopy in that you
>>> cannot give it to anybody or use it for performing, regardless
>>> whether parts of that may not be enforcible. But you can do whatever
>>> you want in your house, so to speak.
>> 
>> In fact, a few years ago, a guy engraved the very same piece and put
>> it up on the net, and got a notice from the copyright holder asking
>> merely to take it down.
> 
> That's the nice way of dealing with that situation.  A Cease
> notice with lawyer fees attached is the neutral way.  Suing for
> statutory and/or estimated damages (based on download numbers, possibly
> estimated) is the non-nice way.
> 
> It depends on jurisdictions, public relations, the size and workload of
> the respective legal department which of those options (and/or others)
> will be chosen.  Also on whether the legal department is budgeted in a
> manner where it is supposed to contribute to its salaries.

In the US, some copyright holders don't know much about it except that it is 
something that helps them making money, so in the absence of legal checks, they 
can set their legal department to write something forceful, like a Disease and 
Cease to Exist letter.



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

Re: Defining 4 \breve time in Carmina Burana

[Jogchum Reitsma]

Op 06-09-18 om 09:43 schreef Thomas Morley:

2018-09-05 11:15 GMT+02:00 Jogchum Reitsma :

Hi,

The first bar of part 5: Ecce gratum, from Orff's Camina Burana states a
time of 4 \breve notes. In the Schott-edition I have, that is noted not on
the staff, but above it.

Is there a possiblility in Lilypond to define that time? Simpy issuing "time
4/\breve" gives an error message in version 2.19.65


regards, Jogchum Reitsma


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

This was discussed in the german forum a while back.
My own coding here:
https://archiv.lilypondforum.de/index.php/topic,2127.msg11763.html#msg11763

HTH,
   Harm


Hi Thomas,

Seems magnificent! Thanks a lot!

regards, Jogchum




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

Re: Defining 4 \breve time in Carmina Burana

[Jogchum Reitsma]

Op 05-09-18 om 15:40 schreef Simon Albrecht:

On 05.09.2018 11:15, Jogchum Reitsma wrote:
The first bar of part 5: Ecce gratum, from Orff's Camina Burana 
states a time of 4 \breve notes. In the Schott-edition I have, that 
is noted not on the staff, but above it. 


PS. I’d like to just mention that Carl Orff’s music is under copyright 
worldwide and retypesetting his music is illegal.

Best, Simon

Hi Simon,

Thanks for your warning, but I'm not going to redistribute it in 
whatever form, it is pure for personal use, so I think there's no 
problem. As you yourself and others already stated in previous anwers to 
your remark.

But your attention is appreciated!

regrads, Jogchum




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

Re: Defining 4 \breve time in Carmina Burana

[David Kastrup]

Hans Åberg  writes:

>> On 6 Sep 2018, at 03:07, Simon Albrecht  wrote:
>> 
>> of course you are right, I misrepresented that and went too far –
>> sorry.  A reengraving is no different from a photocopy in that you
>> cannot give it to anybody or use it for performing, regardless
>> whether parts of that may not be enforcible. But you can do whatever
>> you want in your house, so to speak.
>
> In fact, a few years ago, a guy engraved the very same piece and put
> it up on the net, and got a notice from the copyright holder asking
> merely to take it down.

That's the nice way of dealing with that situation.  A Cease
notice with lawyer fees attached is the neutral way.  Suing for
statutory and/or estimated damages (based on download numbers, possibly
estimated) is the non-nice way.

It depends on jurisdictions, public relations, the size and workload of
the respective legal department which of those options (and/or others)
will be chosen.  Also on whether the legal department is budgeted in a
manner where it is supposed to contribute to its salaries.

In short: it's not a good plan to rely on any particular kind of
response.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Defining 4 \breve time in Carmina Burana

[Hans Åberg]

> On 6 Sep 2018, at 03:07, Simon Albrecht  wrote:
> 
> of course you are right, I misrepresented that and went too far – sorry.
> A reengraving is no different from a photocopy in that you cannot give it to 
> anybody or use it for performing, regardless whether parts of that may not be 
> enforcible. But you can do whatever you want in your house, so to speak.

In fact, a few years ago, a guy engraved the very same piece and put it up on 
the net, and got a notice from the copyright holder asking merely to take it 
down.



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

Re: Defining 4 \breve time in Carmina Burana

[Thomas Morley]

2018-09-05 11:15 GMT+02:00 Jogchum Reitsma :
> Hi,
>
> The first bar of part 5: Ecce gratum, from Orff's Camina Burana states a
> time of 4 \breve notes. In the Schott-edition I have, that is noted not on
> the staff, but above it.
>
> Is there a possiblility in Lilypond to define that time? Simpy issuing "time
> 4/\breve" gives an error message in version 2.19.65
>
>
> regards, Jogchum Reitsma
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

This was discussed in the german forum a while back.
My own coding here:
https://archiv.lilypondforum.de/index.php/topic,2127.msg11763.html#msg11763

HTH,
  Harm

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