Re: Best Practices for file structures, score and parts

[karl]

Andrew:
> So, I'm in the process of transcribing some masses from part-books, and I'm
> trying to figure out the best way to set up the file/variable/include
> structure so that I have a minimum of clutter.
> 
> There are six masses, with two brass (alternating between trumpet, horn,
> and tacet), tympani, two violins, cello (which is just a double of basso
> continuo, confusing me as to exactly how many celli there actually should
> be), SATB voice parts (solo and tutti/chorus passages), and an organ
> doubling basso continuo.
> 
> What I'd been doing previously is have each movement of the mass in its own
> file, containing the following rough structure:
> 
> each instrument is a block at the top, formatted thus:
> 
> ClarinoOneMusic = \new Voice \relative c'' {
...
> }
> 
> then a silent voice added to the top staff for tempo/meter changes, special
> barlines, etc, like this:
> 
> systembreaks = \new Voice {
>\tempo \markup {\sans \medium \fontsize #4 "Adagio" }
>s2.*6 \break
...
>\mark \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.ufermata" } \bar "||" \break %%
> End first part

(there seems to be a final } missing)

> then a big \score block putting all the Voice variables together, starting
> like this:
> 
> \score {
...
> }
> 
> This is in each of five files that are \included in a master file
> specifying title, composer, etc, and setting them in order.
...
> Is there a better way to structure the files? How do I extract the
> instrument variables into separate part files? Can I just \include all the
> separate movement files, and then add the Voice variables in sequence? In
> other words: each movement is a separate file, but in each file the
> instruments have the same name for their variable. How do I set up part
> files so that each part has all the movements, from all the masses, in
> order and correctly transposed and everything?
...

I currently use the same structure as you, though I have the score 
block in a seperate file, see e.g.:

 http://turkos.aspodata.se/git/musik/WAMozart/requiem/

for movement "I", I have files I.ily (containing the music) and I.ly:
===
\version "2.19.0"

%{
\header {
  title = "Introitus"
  subtitle = "Requiem"
  composer = "W.A. Mozart"
}
%}
\include "score_glb.ily"
\include "I.ily"
PB = {
  s1*20 \break
  s1*5  \break
  s1*8  \break
}
\include "score_ps.ily"
\include "score_midi.ily"
===

for *.ly, the score block is the same, so I reuse it with the
\include "score_ps.ily" and by using a I.ly file I can other "I.ly" 
files with e.g. different line and page breaks, different \page 
settings etc.

///

In an older project:

 http://turkos.aspodata.se/git/musik/HPurcell/dido/

I used part and voice specific variables, and used a perl script to 
generate the score block.

///

Currently I prefer my requiem way of setting up the files.
I still have to think how to use the same music.ily and to be able
to use it in different context: a simple a4 sheet of music, a choir 
booklet, mix and match booklet with different music extracts of a
vareity of composers, etc.

So, how do I cope with:
 different pages sizes
 with or without \header
 at different staff-sizes
 as collection, on that day we sing theese songs - here is the booklet

and that preferable generated on the fly.

Regards,
/Karl Hammar

---
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57



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

Re: Best Practices for file structures, score and parts

[N. Andrew Walsh]

Hi Malte,

well, if I go by your setup, I could theoretically move the six \score
blocks into my master file, so long as I rename the instruments for each
movement (and then eventually for each mass as well, if I wanted to combine
all six masses into one document), and then make a parts.ly file to make
the parts. That seems the simplest approach to get what I want.

This is the kind of thing I really hope gets into the eventual Lily course
manual: how to set up a file structure for larger ensemble works, with
diagrams and case examples for, say, duo, chamber ensemble, orchestra,
opera, and large-scale collaborative works requiring distributed note-entry
on a git server.

Thanks for the help. I'll get to (sigh) restructuring all my files and
renaming all the Voices.

Cheers,

A

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Malte Meyn  wrote:

>
>
> Am 02.10.2015 um 09:58 schrieb N. Andrew Walsh:
>
>> Is there a better way to structure the files? How do I extract the
>> instrument variables into separate part files? Can I just \include all the
>> separate movement files, and then add the Voice variables in sequence? In
>> other words: each movement is a separate file, but in each file the
>> instruments have the same name for their variable. How do I set up part
>> files so that each part has all the movements, from all the masses, in
>> order and correctly transposed and everything?
>>
>> This gets back to what I was asking the thread about a few months ago:
>> what
>> is the "best practice" (good heavens I hate that term; corporate
>> management-babble totally ruined what is otherwise a perfectly defensible
>> concept) for putting together a work such as this, with multiple
>> individual
>> pieces, each in multiple movements, for an ensemble of nontrivial size? If
>> each instrument (11 total), in each movement (five in a normal mass,
>> right?), in each mass (six total) is a separate file, I'm looking at a
>> file
>> structure of over 300 individual files. That seems … excessive.
>>
>> This many files are good for collaborating (see Urs’ project “Das trunkne
> Lied”) but when you’re alone you could rely on LilyPond’s/Frescobaldi’s
> point-and-click functionality. For a symphony I have the following files:
>
> global.ily: contains things like title, including custom headers (f. e.
> for a different music font), and other global settings (like the
> markFormatter)
>
> I.ily to IV.ily: contain the music of the movements I to IV (in concert
> pitch):
> Iglobal = { \key … }
> IfluteI = \relative { … } \addQuote "IfluteI" \IfluteI
> IfluteII = \relative …
> They include global.ily.
>
> score.ly: contains paper and layout settings for the full score, also
> partcombine and transpose/transposition; has a \score block for every
> movement. This includes I.ily to IV.ily. Outputs score.pdf.
>
> parts.ly: this contains a \book block (with custom \bookOutputName) for
> every instrument. Includes I.ily to IV.ily. Outputs fluteI.pdf, …,
> doublebass.pdf.
>
> midiI.ly to midiIV.ly: like score.ly but without layout, instrumentNames,
> transposition, StaffGroups, partcombine and all that ‘unnecessary stuff’.
> Could’ve used only one file with several \book blocks.
>
>
> ___
> 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

Best Practices for file structures, score and parts

[N. Andrew Walsh]

Hi List,

So, I'm in the process of transcribing some masses from part-books, and I'm
trying to figure out the best way to set up the file/variable/include
structure so that I have a minimum of clutter.

There are six masses, with two brass (alternating between trumpet, horn,
and tacet), tympani, two violins, cello (which is just a double of basso
continuo, confusing me as to exactly how many celli there actually should
be), SATB voice parts (solo and tutti/chorus passages), and an organ
doubling basso continuo.

What I'd been doing previously is have each movement of the mass in its own
file, containing the following rough structure:

each instrument is a block at the top, formatted thus:

ClarinoOneMusic = \new Voice \relative c'' {

  some notes

}

then a silent voice added to the top staff for tempo/meter changes, special
barlines, etc, like this:

systembreaks = \new Voice {
   \tempo \markup {\sans \medium \fontsize #4 "Adagio" }
   s2.*6 \break
   s2.*6 \bar "||" \break %% End of Adagio, Bar 12
   \time 2/4
   \tempo \markup {\sans \medium \fontsize #4 "Andantè"}
   s2*72  \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.break-visibility =
#begin-of-line-invisible
   \mark \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.ufermata" } \bar "||" \break %%
End first part

then a big \score block putting all the Voice variables together, starting
like this:

\score {
  <<
\new StaffGroup = "StaffGroup_banda" <<
  \new Staff = "Staff_ClarinoOne" <<
\override Staff.InstrumentName.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
\set Staff.instrumentName = \markup \left-column { \abs-fontsize
#10 \line {Corno I ex F } \line {\italic {ad lib. } } }
\global \ClarinoOneMusic \systembreaks
  >>
  \new Staff = "Staff_ClarinoTwo" {
%% [SNIP] etc etc.
\layout {
  \context {
\Staff \RemoveEmptyStaves
  }
  }
  \midi {}
  \header {
  piece = \markup { \abs-fontsize #18 \left-align { Kyrie } }
}
}

This is in each of five files that are \included in a master file
specifying title, composer, etc, and setting them in order. My problem is
now this: having reached a mass with transposing instruments, I realize
that I want the two transposing Voices to be in concert pitch in the score,
but transposed in the parts (and I'm reading from transposed part-books).
Questions:

do I enter the transposing instruments into the score in concert pitch or
transposed? Can Frescobaldi (my editor of choice) take an entire Voice and
transpose it into concert pitch after I've edited, or should I enter the
content in concert pitch (transposing back into C on the fly as I type)?

Is there a better way to structure the files? How do I extract the
instrument variables into separate part files? Can I just \include all the
separate movement files, and then add the Voice variables in sequence? In
other words: each movement is a separate file, but in each file the
instruments have the same name for their variable. How do I set up part
files so that each part has all the movements, from all the masses, in
order and correctly transposed and everything?

This gets back to what I was asking the thread about a few months ago: what
is the "best practice" (good heavens I hate that term; corporate
management-babble totally ruined what is otherwise a perfectly defensible
concept) for putting together a work such as this, with multiple individual
pieces, each in multiple movements, for an ensemble of nontrivial size? If
each instrument (11 total), in each movement (five in a normal mass,
right?), in each mass (six total) is a separate file, I'm looking at a file
structure of over 300 individual files. That seems … excessive.

Thanks for the advice.

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

Re: Best Practices for file structures, score and parts

[Malte Meyn]

Am 02.10.2015 um 09:58 schrieb N. Andrew Walsh:

do I enter the transposing instruments into the score in concert pitch or
transposed? Can Frescobaldi (my editor of choice) take an entire Voice and
transpose it into concert pitch after I've edited, or should I enter the
content in concert pitch (transposing back into C on the fly as I type)?



I prefer entering everything in concert pitch (transposing back when 
copying music and simply writing what I want to hear when composing) and 
doing the transposition in the \score block. This makes correct quoting 
easier IMO (unisono voices, cue notes). And it allows you to have a 
score in concert pitch whithout transposing back.


Frescobaldi is able to transpose music (tools→pitches→transpose) but I 
remember an issue with note names in german (and perhaps other 
languages) when you have several names (asas and ases) for the same 
pitch (a flat). I’m not sure whether this has been fixed.


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

Re: Best Practices for file structures, score and parts

[Malte Meyn]

Am 02.10.2015 um 09:58 schrieb N. Andrew Walsh:

Is there a better way to structure the files? How do I extract the
instrument variables into separate part files? Can I just \include all the
separate movement files, and then add the Voice variables in sequence? In
other words: each movement is a separate file, but in each file the
instruments have the same name for their variable. How do I set up part
files so that each part has all the movements, from all the masses, in
order and correctly transposed and everything?

This gets back to what I was asking the thread about a few months ago: what
is the "best practice" (good heavens I hate that term; corporate
management-babble totally ruined what is otherwise a perfectly defensible
concept) for putting together a work such as this, with multiple individual
pieces, each in multiple movements, for an ensemble of nontrivial size? If
each instrument (11 total), in each movement (five in a normal mass,
right?), in each mass (six total) is a separate file, I'm looking at a file
structure of over 300 individual files. That seems … excessive.

This many files are good for collaborating (see Urs’ project “Das 
trunkne Lied”) but when you’re alone you could rely on 
LilyPond’s/Frescobaldi’s point-and-click functionality. For a symphony I 
have the following files:


global.ily: contains things like title, including custom headers (f. e. 
for a different music font), and other global settings (like the 
markFormatter)


I.ily to IV.ily: contain the music of the movements I to IV (in concert 
pitch):

Iglobal = { \key … }
IfluteI = \relative { … } \addQuote "IfluteI" \IfluteI
IfluteII = \relative …
They include global.ily.

score.ly: contains paper and layout settings for the full score, also 
partcombine and transpose/transposition; has a \score block for every 
movement. This includes I.ily to IV.ily. Outputs score.pdf.


parts.ly: this contains a \book block (with custom \bookOutputName) for 
every instrument. Includes I.ily to IV.ily. Outputs fluteI.pdf, …, 
doublebass.pdf.


midiI.ly to midiIV.ly: like score.ly but without layout, 
instrumentNames, transposition, StaffGroups, partcombine and all that 
‘unnecessary stuff’. Could’ve used only one file with several \book blocks.


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

Re: Best Practices for file structures, score and parts

[Anthonys Lists]

On 02/10/2015 08:58, N. Andrew Walsh wrote:
do I enter the transposing instruments into the score in concert pitch 
or transposed? Can Frescobaldi (my editor of choice) take an entire 
Voice and transpose it into concert pitch after I've edited, or should 
I enter the content in concert pitch (transposing back into C on the 
fly as I type)?
Playing trombone as I do, I get parts in any combination of bass clef, 
tenor clef, or treble/Bf. I need some sort of convention to avoid 
getting messed up, and the obvious one for me is:


All parts are entered as variables. All parts are copied in in the pitch 
they are written. All parts are wrapped in a transpose to make the 
variable concert pitch. So the notes are entered as either


voiceTromboneI = \transpose c' bf { c e g }

or

voiceTromboneI = \transpose c' c' { bf d f }

When outputting a treble clef part I can then do the following no 
problem ...


\transpose bf c' \voiceTromboneI

Cheers,
Wol

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

Re: Best Practices for file structures, score and parts

[Simon Albrecht]

On 02.10.2015 12:03, Malte Meyn wrote:
I remember an issue with note names in german (and perhaps other 
languages) when you have several names (asas and ases) for the same 
pitch (a flat). I’m not sure whether this has been fixed. 


You might check at the issue tracker: 
, post updates or raise a 
new issue.


Thanks, Simon

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