Re: Multi Measure Rests in Cadenzas

[Rupert Marshall-Luck]

Hallo Calvin,

(First time posting here - I hope this works!)

I've found the following (based on https://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=836) 
works well in this sort of situation. The function `cadenzatoMetre` takes two 
music expressions as arguments. The first denotes the rhythmic "frame" within 
which you want the cadenza placed - this can be a rest or a set of pitches: the 
actual content of the expression doesn't matter as it isn't printed by the 
function; it just serves as a reference. The second argument is the cadenza 
itself.

The function calculates a "scaling factor" based on the metrical lengths of the 
two arguments and uses the function `ly:music-compress` to scale the cadenza 
accordingly.


% Example begins
% ===
\version "2.24.1"

cadenzaToMetre =
#(define-music-function (nonCadenzaMusic cadenzaMusic)
  (ly:music? ly:music?)
(let* ((cadenzaLength (ly:music-length cadenzaMusic))
   (nonCadenzaLength (ly:music-length nonCadenzaMusic))
   (factor (ly:moment-div nonCadenzaLength cadenzaLength))
  )
  (ly:music-compress cadenzaMusic factor)
  )
)

% Cadenza
% 
cadenza = { c''1\fermata b'16[ c'' d'' e'' f'' g''] f''4\fermata e''\fermata }

{
  <<
\new Staff {
  e''1
  R1\fermata
  e''1
}

\new Staff{
  c''1
  \cadenzaToMetre r1 \cadenza
  c''1
}
  >>
}

% Example ends
% =

Hope this might help!

Best wishes,

Rupert


> On 31/07/2023 06:19 GMT Valentin Petzel  wrote:
> 
>  
> Hello Calvin,
> 
> MM rests and cadenzas do not play well together. The reason for this is that 
> the MM is placed centered between start and end of measure. But \cadenzaOn is 
> not really made for creating arbitrary length measures. What is does is 
> simply 
> telling Lilypond to stop counting. So when you do
> 
> \cadenzaOn a \bar "|"
> \cadenzaOff a
> 
> this is technically a single measure (where the cadenza part simply happes 
> before even the first moment). So the MM rest will be centered along the 
> whole 
> thing. (So technically this is a case where MM rests and \bar "|" within a 
> measure do not play together).
> 
> Instead of using a cadanza you might want to use \partial to create a measure 
> of arbitrary length.
> 
> Cheers,
> Valentin
> 
> Am Montag, 31. Juli 2023, 04:17:51 CEST schrieb Calvin Ransom:
> > I have a cadenza where Staff A rests while Staff B plays and after the
> > cadenza Staff A comes back in. In the below minimal example, there is an
> > extra rest added above the note when Staff A comes back in. How do I get
> > rid of this rest? If I use r1 instead of R1 I don't have this issue (but I
> > need to use R1 as my cadenzas are longer than a single measure)
> > 
> > % SNIPPET BEGINS %
> > \version "2.24.1"
> > 
> > \new ChoirStaff <<
> >   \new Staff {
> > a1
> > R1
> > a %why is there a rest above this note?
> > a
> >   }
> >   \new Staff  {
> > a1
> > \break
> > \cadenzaOn
> > a
> > \bar "|"
> > \break
> > \cadenzaOff
> > a
> > a
> >   }
> > 
> > 
> > % SNIPPET ENDS %
> > 
> > Calvin Ransom
> > 
> > Sent from my T530

Re: Multi Measure Rests in Cadenzas

[Valentin Petzel]

Hello Calvin,

MM rests and cadenzas do not play well together. The reason for this is that 
the MM is placed centered between start and end of measure. But \cadenzaOn is 
not really made for creating arbitrary length measures. What is does is simply 
telling Lilypond to stop counting. So when you do

\cadenzaOn a \bar "|"
\cadenzaOff a

this is technically a single measure (where the cadenza part simply happes 
before even the first moment). So the MM rest will be centered along the whole 
thing. (So technically this is a case where MM rests and \bar "|" within a 
measure do not play together).

Instead of using a cadanza you might want to use \partial to create a measure 
of arbitrary length.

Cheers,
Valentin

Am Montag, 31. Juli 2023, 04:17:51 CEST schrieb Calvin Ransom:
> I have a cadenza where Staff A rests while Staff B plays and after the
> cadenza Staff A comes back in. In the below minimal example, there is an
> extra rest added above the note when Staff A comes back in. How do I get
> rid of this rest? If I use r1 instead of R1 I don't have this issue (but I
> need to use R1 as my cadenzas are longer than a single measure)
> 
> % SNIPPET BEGINS %
> \version "2.24.1"
> 
> \new ChoirStaff <<
>   \new Staff {
> a1
> R1
> a %why is there a rest above this note?
> a
>   }
>   \new Staff  {
> a1
> \break
> \cadenzaOn
> a
> \bar "|"
> \break
> \cadenzaOff
> a
> a
>   }
> 
> 
> % SNIPPET ENDS %
> 
> Calvin Ransom
> 
> Sent from my T530



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Hans Åberg]

> On 21 Nov 2020, at 16:14, Kieren MacMillan  
> wrote:
> 
> I don’t think that solves the OP’s problem, as I understand it to be… I think 
> the OP wants a compressed visual representation of a whole bunch of 4/4+3/4 
> two-measure chunks, without actually seeing them written out.

I think the rule is that multi-measure rests indicate the number of measures 
regardless of their meter. But LilyPond does not seem able to handle that.

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Maximilian Marcoll]

And to make it more challenging, measure numbers should be correct afterwards, 
too...

A tagged measure attached spanner would be a workaround I guess, if there’s an 
easy way to hide (but count) the remaining but unnecessary measures. 

Thanks to you all,

Max

__
http://www.marcoll.de
http://www.stock11.de


> On Nov 21, 2020, at 17:50, Maximilian Marcoll  wrote:
> 
> Precisely! :)
> 
> 
>> On Nov 21, 2020, at 16:16, Kieren MacMillan  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I think the OP wants a compressed visual representation of a whole bunch of 
>> 4/4+3/4 two-measure chunks, without actually seeing them written out.
> 

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Maximilian Marcoll]

Precisely! :)


> On Nov 21, 2020, at 16:16, Kieren MacMillan  
> wrote:
> 
> I think the OP wants a compressed visual representation of a whole bunch of 
> 4/4+3/4 two-measure chunks, without actually seeing them written out.

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Kieren MacMillan]

> Compound meter, perhaps?

p.s. Gould explicitly notes that compound meter and strictly alternating meter 
are two distinct things.  :)

Best,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Tim,

> As far as I can tell from looking at the docs, the only way to do this using 
> multi-measure rests will be in 7/4. It will count out the same, assuming the 
> right number of measures is chosen.

Yes… That’s why I suggested a measure-attached "x" spanner. (n.b. Gould doesn’t 
explicitly address this situation, so there’s no “gospel” that I know of.) I 
really can’t think of a more elegant way, but would love to see what others 
come up with!

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Aaron,

> Compound meter, perhaps?

I don’t know whether the OP is willing to use compound meter…?
Let’s wait to hear OP’s response.

Thanks!
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Tim McNamara]

> On Nov 21, 2020, at 9:14 AM, Kieren MacMillan  
> wrote:
> 
> I don’t think that solves the OP’s problem, as I understand it to be… I think 
> the OP wants a compressed visual representation of a whole bunch of 4/4+3/4 
> two-measure chunks, without actually seeing them written out.

As far as I can tell from looking at the docs, the only way to do this using 
multi-measure rests will be in 7/4. It will count out the same, assuming the 
right number of measures is chosen.

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Aaron Hill]

On 2020-11-21 7:14 am, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

Hi Phil,

I don’t think that solves the OP’s problem, as I understand it to be…
I think the OP wants a compressed visual representation of a whole
bunch of 4/4+3/4 two-measure chunks, without actually seeing them
written out.

Of course, I might be wrong!  =)


Compound meter, perhaps?


\version "2.20.0"

\compressMMRests <<
  \new Staff {
\compoundMeter #'(4 3 4)
\repeat unfold 2
{ a'4 4 b'2 a'4 b'2 }
R4*7*14
  }
  \new Staff {
R4*7*14
\repeat unfold 2
{ b'2 2 a'4 4 4 }
  }






-- Aaron Hill

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Phil,

I don’t think that solves the OP’s problem, as I understand it to be… I think 
the OP wants a compressed visual representation of a whole bunch of 4/4+3/4 
two-measure chunks, without actually seeing them written out.

Of course, I might be wrong!  =)

Best,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Hans Åberg]

> On 20 Nov 2020, at 14:01, Maximilian Marcoll  wrote:
> 
> I’m wondering wether there is a convenient solution for the following 
> situation:
> 
> Imagine an ensemble or orchestra piece has alternating time signatures, for 
> instance repeated 4/4 | 3/4 time signature changes.
> Not multiple 7/4 measures but actually 4/4 | 3/4 | 4/4 | 3/4 and so on.
> 
> If for some instruments these measures only contain rests, could this somehow 
> be expressed with multi-measure rests?

You might rewrite it to 7/4, as there is no difference in musical performance.

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Phil Holmes]

Here's an alternative semi-automatic way (proof of concept):

\new Score {
<<
\new Staff {
  \time 3/4 c''2. \time 4/4 c''1 \time 3/4 c''2.
}

\new Staff {
  \new Voice \with {
    \remove "Rest_engraver"
    \consists "Completion_rest_engraver"
  }
  {R1*10/4}
}
>>
}


On 20/11/2020 15:45, Maximilian Marcoll wrote:

Fantastic! Thank you!
__
http://www.marcoll.de 

subscribe to newsletter 


On 20 Nov 2020, at 15:30, Kieren MacMillan mailto:kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca>> wrote:

Hi Max,


Sure, that would be great. But how would that be possible with the same 
music-content also being used for the full score?


Tags.  =)

Hope that helps!
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info 
‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info 





--
Phil Holmes

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Maximilian Marcoll]

Fantastic! Thank you!
__
http://www.marcoll.de

subscribe to newsletter 
> On 20 Nov 2020, at 15:30, Kieren MacMillan  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Max,
> 
>> Sure, that would be great. But how would that be possible with the same 
>> music-content also being used for the full score?
> 
> Tags.  =)
> 
> Hope that helps!
> Kieren.
> 
> 
> Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
> 
> 

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Maximilian Marcoll]

Hi!

Thank you for your response. 
Sure, that would be great. But how would that be possible with the same 
music-content also being used for the full score?

Cheers,

Max

__
http://www.marcoll.de
http://www.stock11.de


> On Nov 20, 2020, at 15:12, Kieren MacMillan  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Max,
> 
>> If for some instruments these measures only contain rests, could this 
>> somehow be expressed with multi-measure rests? 
> 
> What about a measure of 4/4 and a measure of 3/4 with a spanner over it 
> saying “12x” (or whatever)?
> 
> Hope that helps!
> Kieren.
> 
> 
> Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
> 
> 

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Max,

> Sure, that would be great. But how would that be possible with the same 
> music-content also being used for the full score?

Tags.  =)

Hope that helps!
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Multi-measure rests with alternating time signatures

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Max,

> If for some instruments these measures only contain rests, could this somehow 
> be expressed with multi-measure rests? 

What about a measure of 4/4 and a measure of 3/4 with a spanner over it saying 
“12x” (or whatever)?

Hope that helps!
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[David Wright]

On Tue 26 Apr 2016 at 01:21:00 (+0100), Wols Lists wrote:
> On 25/04/16 05:31, David Wright wrote:
> > But I see you've now acknowledged (indirectly) that LP can set
> > multiple marks at the same point after stating that it can't.
> > Are there other things that LP can be persuaded to do itself that you
> > have closed your mind to?
> > 
> Except I *haven't* closed my mind. That's you putting words into my
> mouth.

The exact words were "The problem really is, all I want to do is stick
multiple marks on a barline (which doesn't work, lily doesn't do
multiple \mark's :-(," on Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:25:05 +0100.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[David Wright]

On Thu 28 Apr 2016 at 13:56:03 (+0100), Anthonys Lists wrote:
> On 27/04/2016 01:04, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> >On 4/26/16 3:56 PM, "Thomas Morley"  wrote:
> >
> >>2016-04-26 2:21 GMT+02:00 Wols Lists :
> >>>On 25/04/16 05:31, David Wright wrote:
> (I still don't know what you're trying to accomplish
> [...])
> 
> The problem here is the thread has drifted quite a lot. Sorry,
> David, my previous email was a bit sarky, for which I apologise, but
> as I said in my original email, this is my eternal bugbear, and you
> touched a nerve ... Incidentally, I didn't notice this earlier, but
> the house style I'm copying DOES put the tempo above the tune name
> ... :-)

Very odd. The attached shows what I would want.

The dynamic is closest because it applies directly to me as the
singer. The tempo comes next; it applies indirectly to me. I need
warning of a change, but watching the conductor would be sufficient
instead. In this particular case, the swing directive is also vital.
The tune's information is given furthest away because it's not needed
in performance. It could equally well be summarised on a contents page.
Not shown here is some legal bumf at the foot of each page where a new
tune happens to start (song copyright, arrangement copyright, rights
administration and licencing).

> >>>Copy "House Style", maybe?
> >>>And the whole point of this entire thread has been about
> >>>SAVING VERTICAL SPACE - it's just plain butt-ugly for markup to stack
> >>>vertically when a slight shift sideways could save lines - plus there's
> >>>the high price I put on page turns that could be saved by reclaiming
> >>>that wasted space.
> >>
> >>
> >>Anyway, you seem to want multiple texts applied to a the same BarLine.
> >>These texts shouldn't be stacked vertically but horizontally, right?
> >I think that the desired functionality is to allow markups to be loosely
> >tied to notes, so that if possible, they can shift horizontally some
> >amount instead of shifting vertically to avoid collisions.
> 
> Yup. Because actually, a lot of markup doesn't actually belong to a
> *note*. It belongs to a *phrase*. Which leads to the desire that,
> not only should markup shift right or left to avoid a collision, it
> should be able to push *music* out of the way. For example, I have a
> bit of code similar to the following ...

Perhaps the so-called spanners might help you here. You can even have
dashed lines to show the extent of their significance. They're really
set up for cresc etc, but can be customised.

> R1 | \mark \default \tempo "Scherzando" R1*8 | \mark \default
> 
> At present, the scherzando sits above both rehearsal marks. And if I
> had another tempo at the second mark, I'd have colliding tempi which
> doesn't make musical sense :-) If only the scherzando could say "I
> apply to the next 8 bars. The 9th bar must come after I end".
> >
> >That is, there could potentially be a shift in both X and Y to avoid
> >collisions, and the shift with the least badness is the one that is chosen
> >-- perhaps it's one line up in Y and two lines left in X, or something
> >similar.
> >
> >If we had some facility for doing such a movement, then it would be
> >relatively straightforward to assign penalties for taking up more vertical
> >space, along with penalties for moving horizontally away from the desired
> >home point.  And we'd choose the layout with the lowest penalty.

Have you tried spreading the music to take up more room? I'm not going
to bother to come up with an example as you usually just find
something else to criticise about it. Searching on the term
"newSpacingSection" should give you the idea. It changes the natural
spacing of the notes so that the stretching effect becomes unnoticeable.

> >But right now, as far as I know, we have no such facility.  I believe that
> >right now, we horizontally space the music elements to avoid collisions,
> >and then we vertically shift the outside-staff grobs to avoid collisions,
> >and then we space the skylined staves to achieve the desired spacing.  And
> >there's nothing in this algorithm that lets us simultaneously vertically
> >AND horizontally shift the outside-staff grobs.
> >
> >Such a feature would be cool to add.  But it's not trivial in any sense of
> >the word, given the current LilyPond spacing architecture, as I understand
> >it.
> >
> >
> That's what I understood, too. Because the outside-staff grobs need
> to make the music elements wider if appropriate, and coding that
> sort of feedback loop is probably a nightmare! In fact, coding it AT
> ALL seems to be a nightmare with the current state of lilypond. You
> need some way of allocating a minumum width to a random fragment of
> music (like above - I need those 8 bars to take a minumum width, but
> while the current part is all rests, another part may be all notes,
> so I can't even say "make this rest that wide" because next time
> round it might not be a rest!
> 

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Anthonys Lists]

On 27/04/2016 01:04, Carl Sorensen wrote:

On 4/26/16 3:56 PM, "Thomas Morley"  wrote:


2016-04-26 2:21 GMT+02:00 Wols Lists :

On 25/04/16 05:31, David Wright wrote:

(I still don't know what you're trying to accomplish
[...])


The problem here is the thread has drifted quite a lot. Sorry, David, my 
previous email was a bit sarky, for which I apologise, but as I said in 
my original email, this is my eternal bugbear, and you touched a nerve 
... Incidentally, I didn't notice this earlier, but the house style I'm 
copying DOES put the tempo above the tune name ... :-)

Copy "House Style", maybe?
And the whole point of this entire thread has been about
SAVING VERTICAL SPACE - it's just plain butt-ugly for markup to stack
vertically when a slight shift sideways could save lines - plus there's
the high price I put on page turns that could be saved by reclaiming
that wasted space.



Anyway, you seem to want multiple texts applied to a the same BarLine.
These texts shouldn't be stacked vertically but horizontally, right?

I think that the desired functionality is to allow markups to be loosely
tied to notes, so that if possible, they can shift horizontally some
amount instead of shifting vertically to avoid collisions.


Yup. Because actually, a lot of markup doesn't actually belong to a 
*note*. It belongs to a *phrase*. Which leads to the desire that, not 
only should markup shift right or left to avoid a collision, it should 
be able to push *music* out of the way. For example, I have a bit of 
code similar to the following ...


R1 | \mark \default \tempo "Scherzando" R1*8 | \mark \default

At present, the scherzando sits above both rehearsal marks. And if I had 
another tempo at the second mark, I'd have colliding tempi which doesn't 
make musical sense :-) If only the scherzando could say "I apply to the 
next 8 bars. The 9th bar must come after I end".


That is, there could potentially be a shift in both X and Y to avoid
collisions, and the shift with the least badness is the one that is chosen
-- perhaps it's one line up in Y and two lines left in X, or something
similar.

If we had some facility for doing such a movement, then it would be
relatively straightforward to assign penalties for taking up more vertical
space, along with penalties for moving horizontally away from the desired
home point.  And we'd choose the layout with the lowest penalty.

But right now, as far as I know, we have no such facility.  I believe that
right now, we horizontally space the music elements to avoid collisions,
and then we vertically shift the outside-staff grobs to avoid collisions,
and then we space the skylined staves to achieve the desired spacing.  And
there's nothing in this algorithm that lets us simultaneously vertically
AND horizontally shift the outside-staff grobs.

Such a feature would be cool to add.  But it's not trivial in any sense of
the word, given the current LilyPond spacing architecture, as I understand
it.


That's what I understood, too. Because the outside-staff grobs need to 
make the music elements wider if appropriate, and coding that sort of 
feedback loop is probably a nightmare! In fact, coding it AT ALL seems 
to be a nightmare with the current state of lilypond. You need some way 
of allocating a minumum width to a random fragment of music (like above 
- I need those 8 bars to take a minumum width, but while the current 
part is all rests, another part may be all notes, so I can't even say 
"make this rest that wide" because next time round it might not be a rest!


And apologies if I am grumpy about this topic, but as I said earlier in 
the thread, it seems that every time I work around one problem, a 
different one replaces it - that's why the original post just asked "any 
pointers?".


I always used to deal with the multiple markups problem by doing 
"s4\markup s2.", except that this time round I noticed the problem with 
it breaking up multi-measure-rests. So I (re)found the trick of 
"<>\markup", except that moved the markup to the left and exacerbated 
the collision problem.


Now I've been given the trick of "\markup "   text" " (ie leading 
spaces) but that seems temperamental - with pretty much identical code I 
have two markups where, in the first instance, the rehearsal mark has 
fallen through the blank space to rest on the stave, as required. But 
the second instance - near as dammit identical as far as I can see - the 
rehearsal mark has only fallen to the horizontal centre line of the 
markup, despite there being nothing underneath it preventing it falling 
to the stave.


It's just so  frustrating :-(

Cheers,
Wol

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Carl Sorensen]

On 4/26/16 3:56 PM, "Thomas Morley"  wrote:

>2016-04-26 2:21 GMT+02:00 Wols Lists :
>> On 25/04/16 05:31, David Wright wrote:
>>> (I still don't know what you're trying to accomplish
>>> [...])
>>>
>> Copy "House Style", maybe?
>> And the whole point of this entire thread has been about
>> SAVING VERTICAL SPACE - it's just plain butt-ugly for markup to stack
>> vertically when a slight shift sideways could save lines - plus there's
>> the high price I put on page turns that could be saved by reclaiming
>> that wasted space.
>
>
>
>Anyway, you seem to want multiple texts applied to a the same BarLine.
>These texts shouldn't be stacked vertically but horizontally, right?

I think that the desired functionality is to allow markups to be loosely
tied to notes, so that if possible, they can shift horizontally some
amount instead of shifting vertically to avoid collisions.

That is, there could potentially be a shift in both X and Y to avoid
collisions, and the shift with the least badness is the one that is chosen
-- perhaps it's one line up in Y and two lines left in X, or something
similar.

If we had some facility for doing such a movement, then it would be
relatively straightforward to assign penalties for taking up more vertical
space, along with penalties for moving horizontally away from the desired
home point.  And we'd choose the layout with the lowest penalty.

But right now, as far as I know, we have no such facility.  I believe that
right now, we horizontally space the music elements to avoid collisions,
and then we vertically shift the outside-staff grobs to avoid collisions,
and then we space the skylined staves to achieve the desired spacing.  And
there's nothing in this algorithm that lets us simultaneously vertically
AND horizontally shift the outside-staff grobs.

Such a feature would be cool to add.  But it's not trivial in any sense of
the word, given the current LilyPond spacing architecture, as I understand
it.

Carl


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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Thomas Morley]

2016-04-26 2:21 GMT+02:00 Wols Lists :
> On 25/04/16 05:31, David Wright wrote:
>> (I still don't know what you're trying to accomplish
>> [...])
>>
> Copy "House Style", maybe?
> And the whole point of this entire thread has been about
> SAVING VERTICAL SPACE - it's just plain butt-ugly for markup to stack
> vertically when a slight shift sideways could save lines - plus there's
> the high price I put on page turns that could be saved by reclaiming
> that wasted space.

Pretty late to the party.

Though, I've to agree with David W.
At least for several mails with lines over lines of text it was _not_
clear to me what you want and I'm not sure I understand now.
As a non-native speaker I always think it may be due to language issues.
Though, the amount of code-lines is remarkable low in the whole thread...
And sometimes images indeed help, even if put together with some
graphic-program.

Anyway, you seem to want multiple texts applied to a the same BarLine.
These texts shouldn't be stacked vertically but horizontally, right?

In LSR and elsewhere some methods for multiple RehearsalMarks are
known, stacking vertically.

Should be possible to adapt it.

How should this texts be aligned over the BarLine?
More general, how should it look?

Maybe you told already, then I missed it.


Cheers,
  Harm

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Wols Lists]

On 25/04/16 05:31, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 24 Apr 2016 at 19:18:01 (+0100), Anthonys Lists wrote:
>> On 24/04/2016 03:13, David Wright wrote:

>>
>> Ah - does that mean the rehearsal mark would happily overwrite the
>> blank space at the start of the other markup string?
> 
> Typically, yes.

Ah good ...
> 
>> But as for "why would I want to do that" - to serve as an example
>> maybe. Let's change it then. Get rid of the tempo. The title would
>> still collide with the rehearsal mark, and it would still take three
>> lines - I wouldn't save a line. But shift the title a couple of mill
>> to the right, and it would drop down and save us a line. SAVING
>> VERTICAL SPACE is the point.
>>>

>>
>> Most people? Most people probably give up and go back to Sibelius,
>> or Finale, or whatever. My day job was programming, and I haven't
>> managed to get to grips with Scheme (it was FORTRAN/C, so Scheme is
>> a bit of a culture shock :-) because time to concentrate and learn
>> is a luxury :-(
> 
> Fair enough. I was making the point that LP sometimes looks like a
> programming language but isn't actually one.
> 
> But it never ceases to amaze me how, if you post a reasonably
> well-defined problem here, someone often posts a scheme solution.
> But you have to factorise your problem into chunks that people
> will feel inclined to tackle.

Well, I would like to tackle them myself. But, as I said, time to
concentrate is a luxury (I'm a carer, and dealing with someone with
memory problems can be very difficult :-(
> 
>>> Why not push the rehearsal mark left if you want loads of text to the right?
>>> I don't get the bit about notes in a MMR. Isn't that a contradiction?
>>
>> Not really. My modus operandi is
>>
>> voiceStaff = ...
>> voiceInstrument1 = ...
>> voiceInstrument2 = ...
>>
>> \score {
>>   <<
>> voiceStaff
>> voiceInstrument1
>>   >>
>> }
>> \score {
>>   <<
>> voiceStaff
>> voiceInstrument2
>>   >>
>> }
>>
>> The problem is that the contents of voiceInstrumentx has a *major*
>> influence on the way the contents of voiceStaff is displayed :-(
>> Instrument1 may have an MMR, Instrument2 may have notes, they affect
>> the bar spacing in different ways, and I may get markup collisions
>> in one part, and no collisions in the other. Basically, lily is
>> setting the notes, and then fitting the markup over the notes. There
>> are occasions when you want to set the markup and then fit the notes
>> under it.
> 
> Without wishing to imply that I could code it, that's why you might
> have fragments of markup suitable for notes, and others for MMRs,
> and then select between them to assemble each part.

In other words, put loads of \tags or instrument-specific stuff in
voiceStaff, which is supposed to be instrument-independent :-(
> 
> Why would you "go back to" Sibelius? Would that automate this?
> Even if you had to assemble the fragments manually for each part,
> that would be simpler, I'd have thought. You may or may not end up
> with a part like one of mine:
> texttenorsA = \lyricmode {
>   \Tteetuka \Tteetuka \Tteetuka \Tteetuka \Tteetuka \Tteetuka \Tteetuka 
> \Tteetuka
>   \barNumberCheck #17
>   \Tteetuka \Tteetuka \Ttravi \Ttravs \Ttravs \Ttravr \Ttravs \Ttravs
>   \Ttravz
>   \barNumberCheck #27
>   \Tzumpaka \Tzumpaka \Tzumpaka \Tzumpaka \Tzumpaka \Tzumpaka \Tzumpaka 
> \Tzumpaka \Tzumpakaz
>   Oo __ _ _
>   \barNumberCheck #35
>   \Tvumtb \Ttravs
> }
> where I'm selecting from a menu of lyrics fragments.
> 
?

And let's say the piece is SSAATTBB, could you combine that single
lyrics part with two different tenor melody parts, to give two different
part-sheets? Because THAT is the problem I would like to solve.

>>>
>>>
>> And you've given me a wonderful example of what I want :-) Let's say
>> a new tune starts at B, so I put a tune name there. You can't play
>> two tunes at once, can you? But you've got two tune names stacked
>> one above the other ... (Yes I know you can play two tunes at once,
>> but it's not normal :-) And you could get stacking tempi the same
>> way...
> 
> If the names of the tunes are so important (which is pretty
> unusual for a part), then why not place them underneath (like "halt!"
> in my example) so they don't interfere with the tempos.

Because I don't give a monkeys about interfering with tempi? Because I
*DO* give a massive monkeys about wasting vertical space, and moving the
tune-name underneath gains me nothing?

> If the names of the tunes are long, you're already going to have to
> deal with how they mesh with your linebreaks (which is tricky
> because you usually don't know where the latter will fall).
> 
> You could shrink the names of the tunes. You could print them in a
> heap at the foot of the page. You could leave them out of the parts,
> as is conventional. You could decide on your priorities.
> 
>> At the end of the day, the basic problem is that lily, by default,
>> stacks markup upwards. There is no way to tell it that markup should
>> 

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[David Wright]

On Sun 24 Apr 2016 at 19:18:01 (+0100), Anthonys Lists wrote:
> On 24/04/2016 03:13, David Wright wrote:
> >On Sat 23 Apr 2016 at 11:25:05 (+0100), Wols Lists wrote:
> >>On 22/04/16 19:36, David Wright wrote:
> >>>On Fri 22 Apr 2016 at 15:47:59 (+0100), Anthonys Lists wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 14:31, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> >David K wrote:
> >>>Hm?  How could you even have a compressed multi-measure rest when there
> >>>is anything like an "8-bar phrase" in parallel?
> >>>That sounds like a problem that cannot occur.
> >I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens 
> >in the part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use 
> >multiple \tag constructs just to handle this issue.
> Exactly... I write my music with "voiceStaff" to contain all the
> score-level stuff eg tempi, tune names, rehearsal marks etc, and
> "voiceInstrument" to contain the stuff that varies by instrument, eg
> notes, dynamics, anything else like that ...
> 
> In the case example, the phrase is eight bars long, commencing with
> a two-bar rest. For another instrument, it won't have a rest. And I
> don't want the output to change dramatically depending on what's in
> the part.
> 
> So of course, because voiceStaff is not meant to contain notes, it
> uses "s" all the time. And I very rarely produce scores, this case
> is absolutely typical for me in that we only have a bass-clef part,
> and because while some players in our section can read both, we have
> some players who can only read bass or treble clef so transposing is
> a regular requirement. So I'll have three parts to do, 1st, 2nd and
> bass.
> >>>I haven't followed all that. Is this the sort of thing you want?
> >>>
> >>Pretty much. In your example it's exactly okay - the "poco allegretto"
> >>is to the right of the rehearsal mark, so the four marks take three
> >>lines to display. (Note I tend to use box-barnumber, so my rehearsal
> >>marks can get quite wide :-)
> >>
> >>Now, imagine the "poco allegretto" and "This is the army mr jones" were
> >>the other way round - the "This" would collide with the rehearsal mark,
> >>and it would take four lines.
> >I'm not quite sure why you'd do that. The tempo is part of the
> >music. The tune titles that you want to include are not. But you can
> >add spaces to the beginnings of strings to avoid collisions.
> 
> Ah - does that mean the rehearsal mark would happily overwrite the
> blank space at the start of the other markup string?

Typically, yes.

> But as for "why would I want to do that" - to serve as an example
> maybe. Let's change it then. Get rid of the tempo. The title would
> still collide with the rehearsal mark, and it would still take three
> lines - I wouldn't save a line. But shift the title a couple of mill
> to the right, and it would drop down and save us a line. SAVING
> VERTICAL SPACE is the point.
> >
> >>I want some semi-automatic way so I can push the other markup to the
> >>right of the rehearsal mark and make sure I only use three lines. Oh -
> >>and if I use "extra-spacing-width" (which iirc works fine with
> >>multi-measure-rests), as soon as I have another part which actually has
> >>some notes in the first bar of the MMR, that first bar will be the same
> >>width as the markup so that then looks awful :-(
> >A lot in there. Your OP didn't have automation specified. Most people
> >drop into scheme for that, don't they?
> 
> Most people? Most people probably give up and go back to Sibelius,
> or Finale, or whatever. My day job was programming, and I haven't
> managed to get to grips with Scheme (it was FORTRAN/C, so Scheme is
> a bit of a culture shock :-) because time to concentrate and learn
> is a luxury :-(

Fair enough. I was making the point that LP sometimes looks like a
programming language but isn't actually one.

But it never ceases to amaze me how, if you post a reasonably
well-defined problem here, someone often posts a scheme solution.
But you have to factorise your problem into chunks that people
will feel inclined to tackle.

> >Why not push the rehearsal mark left if you want loads of text to the right?
> >I don't get the bit about notes in a MMR. Isn't that a contradiction?
> 
> Not really. My modus operandi is
> 
> voiceStaff = ...
> voiceInstrument1 = ...
> voiceInstrument2 = ...
> 
> \score {
>   <<
> voiceStaff
> voiceInstrument1
>   >>
> }
> \score {
>   <<
> voiceStaff
> voiceInstrument2
>   >>
> }
> 
> The problem is that the contents of voiceInstrumentx has a *major*
> influence on the way the contents of voiceStaff is displayed :-(
> Instrument1 may have an MMR, Instrument2 may have notes, they affect
> the bar spacing in different ways, and I may get markup collisions
> in one part, and no collisions in the other. Basically, lily is
> setting the notes, and then fitting the markup over the notes. There
> are occasions when you 

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Anthonys Lists]

On 24/04/2016 03:13, David Wright wrote:

On Sat 23 Apr 2016 at 11:25:05 (+0100), Wols Lists wrote:

On 22/04/16 19:36, David Wright wrote:

On Fri 22 Apr 2016 at 15:47:59 (+0100), Anthonys Lists wrote:

On 22/04/2016 14:31, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

David K wrote:

Hm?  How could you even have a compressed multi-measure rest when there
is anything like an "8-bar phrase" in parallel?
That sounds like a problem that cannot occur.

I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens in the 
part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use multiple \tag 
constructs just to handle this issue.

Exactly... I write my music with "voiceStaff" to contain all the
score-level stuff eg tempi, tune names, rehearsal marks etc, and
"voiceInstrument" to contain the stuff that varies by instrument, eg
notes, dynamics, anything else like that ...

In the case example, the phrase is eight bars long, commencing with
a two-bar rest. For another instrument, it won't have a rest. And I
don't want the output to change dramatically depending on what's in
the part.

So of course, because voiceStaff is not meant to contain notes, it
uses "s" all the time. And I very rarely produce scores, this case
is absolutely typical for me in that we only have a bass-clef part,
and because while some players in our section can read both, we have
some players who can only read bass or treble clef so transposing is
a regular requirement. So I'll have three parts to do, 1st, 2nd and
bass.

I haven't followed all that. Is this the sort of thing you want?


Pretty much. In your example it's exactly okay - the "poco allegretto"
is to the right of the rehearsal mark, so the four marks take three
lines to display. (Note I tend to use box-barnumber, so my rehearsal
marks can get quite wide :-)

Now, imagine the "poco allegretto" and "This is the army mr jones" were
the other way round - the "This" would collide with the rehearsal mark,
and it would take four lines.

I'm not quite sure why you'd do that. The tempo is part of the
music. The tune titles that you want to include are not. But you can
add spaces to the beginnings of strings to avoid collisions.


Ah - does that mean the rehearsal mark would happily overwrite the blank 
space at the start of the other markup string?


But as for "why would I want to do that" - to serve as an example maybe. 
Let's change it then. Get rid of the tempo. The title would still 
collide with the rehearsal mark, and it would still take three lines - I 
wouldn't save a line. But shift the title a couple of mill to the right, 
and it would drop down and save us a line. SAVING VERTICAL SPACE is the 
point.



I want some semi-automatic way so I can push the other markup to the
right of the rehearsal mark and make sure I only use three lines. Oh -
and if I use "extra-spacing-width" (which iirc works fine with
multi-measure-rests), as soon as I have another part which actually has
some notes in the first bar of the MMR, that first bar will be the same
width as the markup so that then looks awful :-(

A lot in there. Your OP didn't have automation specified. Most people
drop into scheme for that, don't they?


Most people? Most people probably give up and go back to Sibelius, or 
Finale, or whatever. My day job was programming, and I haven't managed 
to get to grips with Scheme (it was FORTRAN/C, so Scheme is a bit of a 
culture shock :-) because time to concentrate and learn is a luxury :-(



Why not push the rehearsal mark left if you want loads of text to the right?
I don't get the bit about notes in a MMR. Isn't that a contradiction?


Not really. My modus operandi is

voiceStaff = ...
voiceInstrument1 = ...
voiceInstrument2 = ...

\score {
  <<
voiceStaff
voiceInstrument1
  >>
}
\score {
  <<
voiceStaff
voiceInstrument2
  >>
}

The problem is that the contents of voiceInstrumentx has a *major* 
influence on the way the contents of voiceStaff is displayed :-( 
Instrument1 may have an MMR, Instrument2 may have notes, they affect the 
bar spacing in different ways, and I may get markup collisions in one 
part, and no collisions in the other. Basically, lily is setting the 
notes, and then fitting the markup over the notes. There are occasions 
when you want to set the markup and then fit the notes under it.





The problem really is, all I want to do is stick multiple marks on a
barline (which doesn't work, lily doesn't do multiple \mark's :-(, and I
want to be able to move those markups to the right so they don't collide
with the rehearsal mark. \tempo *partly* solves my problem.

Well, that's a relief. BTW you can have multiple marks. My example had
one \tempo and the rest were marks.


The trouble
is, all the tweaks I've come up with (like for example "s1 s1*11") all
have side effects that don't matter in certain cases, and matter
enormously in others.

I haven't yet seen an example of what you want, not anything that
you've produced in the dim and distant past that 

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[David Wright]

On Sat 23 Apr 2016 at 11:25:05 (+0100), Wols Lists wrote:
> On 22/04/16 19:36, David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 22 Apr 2016 at 15:47:59 (+0100), Anthonys Lists wrote:
> >> On 22/04/2016 14:31, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> >>> David K wrote:
> > Hm?  How could you even have a compressed multi-measure rest when there
> > is anything like an "8-bar phrase" in parallel?
> > That sounds like a problem that cannot occur.
> >>> I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens 
> >>> in the part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use 
> >>> multiple \tag constructs just to handle this issue.
> >> Exactly... I write my music with "voiceStaff" to contain all the
> >> score-level stuff eg tempi, tune names, rehearsal marks etc, and
> >> "voiceInstrument" to contain the stuff that varies by instrument, eg
> >> notes, dynamics, anything else like that ...
> >>
> >> In the case example, the phrase is eight bars long, commencing with
> >> a two-bar rest. For another instrument, it won't have a rest. And I
> >> don't want the output to change dramatically depending on what's in
> >> the part.
> >>
> >> So of course, because voiceStaff is not meant to contain notes, it
> >> uses "s" all the time. And I very rarely produce scores, this case
> >> is absolutely typical for me in that we only have a bass-clef part,
> >> and because while some players in our section can read both, we have
> >> some players who can only read bass or treble clef so transposing is
> >> a regular requirement. So I'll have three parts to do, 1st, 2nd and
> >> bass.
> > 
> > I haven't followed all that. Is this the sort of thing you want?
> > 
> Pretty much. In your example it's exactly okay - the "poco allegretto"
> is to the right of the rehearsal mark, so the four marks take three
> lines to display. (Note I tend to use box-barnumber, so my rehearsal
> marks can get quite wide :-)
> 
> Now, imagine the "poco allegretto" and "This is the army mr jones" were
> the other way round - the "This" would collide with the rehearsal mark,
> and it would take four lines.

I'm not quite sure why you'd do that. The tempo is part of the
music. The tune titles that you want to include are not. But you can
add spaces to the beginnings of strings to avoid collisions.

> I want some semi-automatic way so I can push the other markup to the
> right of the rehearsal mark and make sure I only use three lines. Oh -
> and if I use "extra-spacing-width" (which iirc works fine with
> multi-measure-rests), as soon as I have another part which actually has
> some notes in the first bar of the MMR, that first bar will be the same
> width as the markup so that then looks awful :-(

A lot in there. Your OP didn't have automation specified. Most people
drop into scheme for that, don't they?
Why not push the rehearsal mark left if you want loads of text to the right?
I don't get the bit about notes in a MMR. Isn't that a contradiction?

> The problem really is, all I want to do is stick multiple marks on a
> barline (which doesn't work, lily doesn't do multiple \mark's :-(, and I
> want to be able to move those markups to the right so they don't collide
> with the rehearsal mark. \tempo *partly* solves my problem.

Well, that's a relief. BTW you can have multiple marks. My example had
one \tempo and the rest were marks.

> The trouble
> is, all the tweaks I've come up with (like for example "s1 s1*11") all
> have side effects that don't matter in certain cases, and matter
> enormously in others.

I haven't yet seen an example of what you want, not anything that
you've produced in the dim and distant past that you barely remember.

> As Kieren said, this stuff is generic across all parts, so he and I want
> to store it in a generic variable that then gets merged with the notes.
> But there doesn't appear to be a syntax that isn't crucially dependent
> on the notes being merged, other than filling the generic variable with
> a whole bunch of special-case formatting tags, which totally misses the
> point of having a generic variable :-( (plus I haven't used tags yet,
> another learning curve ...)

Again, isn't that why people use scheme. Then you can see if a given
moment has a note or not, and choose your markup appropriately.
LP never looks very automatic to me. It doesn't even have an "if"
construction to make a decision.

Anyway, I made mr jones into a nonsensical "\tempo". The rehearsal
letter now appears above it of course. I stuck a note in before the
MMR for some reason though nothing is anchored to it; everything but
mr jones is a \mark. I'm just doodling—not sure why I bothered.

Cheers,
David.


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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Anthonys Lists]

On 23/04/2016 12:23, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

Hi Wol,


if I use "extra-spacing-width" (which iirc works fine with
multi-measure-rests), as soon as I have another part which actually has
some notes in the first bar of the MMR, that first bar will be the same
width as the markup so that then looks awful

\textLengthOff

?

Hope this helps,
Kieren.


BRILLIANT (but not the way you intended :-)

As far as I can tell, \textLengthOff is the default, but I looked it up 
in the manual, and found out how to attach a markup to a zero-length 
note! Just attach it to an empty chord!


So instead of doing "s4\markup s2. s1*7", I can simply do "<>\markup 
s1*8", and that stops my multi-measure-rests mucking up. (I think I'd 
found that before ages ago, but forgotten it ...)


I'll need to play a bit more, but that's another niggle fixed ... :-)

Cheers,
Wol

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Wol,

> if I use "extra-spacing-width" (which iirc works fine with
> multi-measure-rests), as soon as I have another part which actually has
> some notes in the first bar of the MMR, that first bar will be the same
> width as the markup so that then looks awful

\textLengthOff

?

Hope this helps,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions

[Wols Lists]

On 23/04/16 01:52, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
>> It strikes me as conceptually problematic to try to put a fermata on a 
>> multi-measure rest.
>> Who does this, and what does it mean, musically?
>> In this example, you are actually placing a fermata on a single bar of rest.
>> In which case, this works fine:
>> { \compressFullBarRests f1->\fermata R1*3 r1\fermata }
> 
> Except r1\fermata and R1\fermataMarkup look and behave differently.
> And the difference gets even more obvious when you have a measure not in 4/4.
> =)
> 
And my mind is still stuck in the old days when neither of those worked,
but

\bar "||" \fermata

did :-) I think a load of my old code still has \markup #script.ufermata
or whatever it was all over the place trying to get them above notes ...

Cheers,
Wol


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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Wols Lists]

On 22/04/16 19:36, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 22 Apr 2016 at 15:47:59 (+0100), Anthonys Lists wrote:
>> On 22/04/2016 14:31, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>>> David K wrote:
> Hm?  How could you even have a compressed multi-measure rest when there
> is anything like an "8-bar phrase" in parallel?
> That sounds like a problem that cannot occur.
>>> I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens in 
>>> the part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use multiple 
>>> \tag constructs just to handle this issue.
>> Exactly... I write my music with "voiceStaff" to contain all the
>> score-level stuff eg tempi, tune names, rehearsal marks etc, and
>> "voiceInstrument" to contain the stuff that varies by instrument, eg
>> notes, dynamics, anything else like that ...
>>
>> In the case example, the phrase is eight bars long, commencing with
>> a two-bar rest. For another instrument, it won't have a rest. And I
>> don't want the output to change dramatically depending on what's in
>> the part.
>>
>> So of course, because voiceStaff is not meant to contain notes, it
>> uses "s" all the time. And I very rarely produce scores, this case
>> is absolutely typical for me in that we only have a bass-clef part,
>> and because while some players in our section can read both, we have
>> some players who can only read bass or treble clef so transposing is
>> a regular requirement. So I'll have three parts to do, 1st, 2nd and
>> bass.
> 
> I haven't followed all that. Is this the sort of thing you want?
> 
Pretty much. In your example it's exactly okay - the "poco allegretto"
is to the right of the rehearsal mark, so the four marks take three
lines to display. (Note I tend to use box-barnumber, so my rehearsal
marks can get quite wide :-)

Now, imagine the "poco allegretto" and "This is the army mr jones" were
the other way round - the "This" would collide with the rehearsal mark,
and it would take four lines.

I want some semi-automatic way so I can push the other markup to the
right of the rehearsal mark and make sure I only use three lines. Oh -
and if I use "extra-spacing-width" (which iirc works fine with
multi-measure-rests), as soon as I have another part which actually has
some notes in the first bar of the MMR, that first bar will be the same
width as the markup so that then looks awful :-(

The problem really is, all I want to do is stick multiple marks on a
barline (which doesn't work, lily doesn't do multiple \mark's :-(, and I
want to be able to move those markups to the right so they don't collide
with the rehearsal mark. \tempo *partly* solves my problem. The trouble
is, all the tweaks I've come up with (like for example "s1 s1*11") all
have side effects that don't matter in certain cases, and matter
enormously in others.

As Kieren said, this stuff is generic across all parts, so he and I want
to store it in a generic variable that then gets merged with the notes.
But there doesn't appear to be a syntax that isn't crucially dependent
on the notes being merged, other than filling the generic variable with
a whole bunch of special-case formatting tags, which totally misses the
point of having a generic variable :-( (plus I haven't used tags yet,
another learning curve ...)

Cheers,
Wol


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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions

[Simon Albrecht]

On 23.04.2016 02:06, Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote:
It strikes me as conceptually problematic to try to put a fermata on a 
multi-measure rest.

Who does this, and what does it mean, musically?


You must be kidding. While calling R1 a MultiMeasureRest may be slightly 
confusing in LilyPond terminology, honestly it’s not so difficult to 
grasp. And of course it’s totally standard notation to use R, not r, for 
full-bar rests.


Regards, Simon

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David,

> It strikes me as conceptually problematic to try to put a fermata on a 
> multi-measure rest.
> Who does this, and what does it mean, musically?
> In this example, you are actually placing a fermata on a single bar of rest.
> In which case, this works fine:
> { \compressFullBarRests f1->\fermata R1*3 r1\fermata }

Except r1\fermata and R1\fermataMarkup look and behave differently.
And the difference gets even more obvious when you have a measure not in 4/4.
=)

Hope that helps!
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

> Try the following ...
>
> f1->\fermata R1*3 R1\fermata
>
> The first fermata prints fine. The second fermata prints
> "programming error: Object is not a markup." in the log and doesn't
> print.


It strikes me as conceptually problematic to try to put a fermata on a
multi-measure rest.
Who does this, and what does it mean, musically?

In this example, you are actually placing a fermata on a single bar of rest.
In which case, this works fine:

{ \compressFullBarRests f1->\fermata R1*3 r1\fermata }


As such, \fermataMarkup seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Unless I'm missing the reason why you would consider a single bar of rest
to be multiple bars of rest.


I think I must be missing more of the subtlety of this issue.

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread, you can also place text
at the start of a multi-measure rest using the empty chord structure:

{ \compressFullBarRests f1->\fermata R1*3 <>^\markup{ "hold me" } R1 }




David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[David Wright]

On Fri 22 Apr 2016 at 15:47:59 (+0100), Anthonys Lists wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 14:31, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> >David K wrote:
> >>>Hm?  How could you even have a compressed multi-measure rest when there
> >>>is anything like an "8-bar phrase" in parallel?
> >>>That sounds like a problem that cannot occur.
> >I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens in 
> >the part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use multiple 
> >\tag constructs just to handle this issue.
> Exactly... I write my music with "voiceStaff" to contain all the
> score-level stuff eg tempi, tune names, rehearsal marks etc, and
> "voiceInstrument" to contain the stuff that varies by instrument, eg
> notes, dynamics, anything else like that ...
> 
> In the case example, the phrase is eight bars long, commencing with
> a two-bar rest. For another instrument, it won't have a rest. And I
> don't want the output to change dramatically depending on what's in
> the part.
> 
> So of course, because voiceStaff is not meant to contain notes, it
> uses "s" all the time. And I very rarely produce scores, this case
> is absolutely typical for me in that we only have a bass-clef part,
> and because while some players in our section can read both, we have
> some players who can only read bass or treble clef so transposing is
> a regular requirement. So I'll have three parts to do, 1st, 2nd and
> bass.

I haven't followed all that. Is this the sort of thing you want?

Cheers,
David.


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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Anthonys Lists]

On 22/04/2016 16:55, David Kastrup wrote:

>The first fermata prints fine. The second fermata prints "programming
>error: Object is not a markup." in the log and doesn't print. So
>that's another bug tracked down in my piece,

That's_explicitly_  what \fermataMarkup is for.  If people consulted the
manual before reporting known quirks...


Oops - I *used* to know the manuals very well - I proofread them from 
cover to cover back in Graham's day ...


I know a lot has changed since then - as I said \fermata didn't even 
work on notes back then - but there's a lot that's changed since then. 
Having a comprehensive out-of-date knowledge can bite you ... and I 
don't use lily enough to keep up with the changes.


That said, this *is* the user list, and sometimes RTFM is a good answer. 
Although I hate it when they don't tell you where in the FM to R. 
(That's not the case here, though, I ought to be able to find it very 
easily :-) Often it's not knowing WHAT to look for that's the problem, 
as in here I thought I knew about fermata ...




We'd probably have less inclination to address the quirks eventually.
As David Wright said, it seems MMRs are just one big quirk (as I'm 
finding out with this piece), so that's probably a big job to address :-(


Cheers,
Wol

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Noeck]

Hi,

> f1->\fermata R1*3 R1\fermata

You can use \fermataMarkup

{ R1\fermataMarkup }

I know it looks more like a workaround than something one would expect,
but it works.

Cheers,
Joram

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[David Wright]

On Fri 22 Apr 2016 at 16:24:06 (+0100), Anthonys Lists wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 14:49, Paul Scott wrote:
> >>I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens
> >>>in the part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use
> >>>multiple \tag constructs just to handle this issue.
> >Me too.  I asked a long time ago and got the idea that I was the only
> >one concerned about this.  Essentially why is alignment different for
> >multi-measure rests than notes.
> And other things too? Try the following ...
> 
> f1->\fermata R1*3 R1\fermata
> 
> The first fermata prints fine. The second fermata prints
> "programming error: Object is not a markup." in the log and doesn't
> print. So that's another bug tracked down in my piece, but - from a
> musician's pov - it doesn't make sense that the first example on a
> note should work fine, and the second on a rest produces an error.
> (It never used to work on notes at all, iirc, only as a mark on
> barlines, so maybe I should be grateful for small mercies :-)
> 
> It's easy enough to fix - something like "\markup #symbol.fermata" -
> I'll have to look up the syntax - but it's just frustrating that
> it's not consistent.

That's because whole-bar and multimeasure rests are themselves not
consistent with music notation in general. They have the "wrong"
duration and the "wrong" alignment (placement). They're a convenience
for musicians (especially instrumentalists; singers often hate them)
and a pain for engraving programs.

AIUI I can anchor things horizontally to either barlines or to
notes/rests/spacers. Unfortunately once a whole-bar rest has
jumped to the middle of a bar, it's no longer a useful anchor
for most purposes.

I haven't tried to set your OP's snippet. It might be an idea to post
a sketch of what you want. Possibly you'll improve your chances of
suggestions.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[David Kastrup]

Anthonys Lists  writes:

> On 22/04/2016 14:49, Paul Scott wrote:
>>> I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens
>>> >in the part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use
>>> >multiple \tag constructs just to handle this issue.
>> Me too.  I asked a long time ago and got the idea that I was the only
>> one concerned about this.  Essentially why is alignment different for
>> multi-measure rests than notes.
> And other things too? Try the following ...
>
> f1->\fermata R1*3 R1\fermata
>
> The first fermata prints fine. The second fermata prints "programming
> error: Object is not a markup." in the log and doesn't print. So
> that's another bug tracked down in my piece,

That's _explicitly_ what \fermataMarkup is for.  If people consulted the
manual before reporting known quirks...

We'd probably have less inclination to address the quirks eventually.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Anthonys Lists]

On 22/04/2016 14:49, Paul Scott wrote:

I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens
>in the part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use
>multiple \tag constructs just to handle this issue.

Me too.  I asked a long time ago and got the idea that I was the only
one concerned about this.  Essentially why is alignment different for
multi-measure rests than notes.

And other things too? Try the following ...

f1->\fermata R1*3 R1\fermata

The first fermata prints fine. The second fermata prints "programming 
error: Object is not a markup." in the log and doesn't print. So that's 
another bug tracked down in my piece, but - from a musician's pov - it 
doesn't make sense that the first example on a note should work fine, 
and the second on a rest produces an error. (It never used to work on 
notes at all, iirc, only as a mark on barlines, so maybe I should be 
grateful for small mercies :-)


It's easy enough to fix - something like "\markup #symbol.fermata" - 
I'll have to look up the syntax - but it's just frustrating that it's 
not consistent.


Cheers,
Wol

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Anthonys Lists]

On 22/04/2016 14:31, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

Wol: Scan through the thread starting 
at  and 
see if anything there helps.

Good luck,
Kieren.
Just scanned it - unfortunately I'm using \markup on an s, rather than 
\mark, for my tune name (because I've already got two colliding marks, 
rehearsal and tempo), so that thread saying "compress MMRs when they 
don't contain blah blah" will fail because I've got a markup in there :-(


If I had some mark I could stick the tune name in that wouldn't collide 
with and be suppressed by the rehearsal mark, then maybe it would work. 
But without writing some new kind of mark (is there one already 
available? it might have been added at some point?) I don't know what 
else to do - using markup seemed the best option. And I don't fancy 
trying to write a new mark, I've dug into this on a couple of occasions 
and got out of my depth rather quickly.


Losing an MMR isn't really a problem, it just looks a little bit odd :-( 
and I come across plenty of music that (imho) has weird MMR settings 
anyway. Usually because they've compressed the end of one phrase into 
the start of another - I really don't like it when a single MMR spans 
several incomplete musical phrases.


Oh well. I'll carry on fiddling :-) But it is frustrating when all I 
want to do is move a bit of text a smidgeon to one side, and I just can 
NOT work out how to do it without all sorts of other unintended side 
effects ...


Cheers,
Wol

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Anthonys Lists]

On 22/04/2016 14:31, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

David K wrote:

>Hm?  How could you even have a compressed multi-measure rest when there
>is anything like an "8-bar phrase" in parallel?
>That sounds like a problem that cannot occur.

I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens in the 
part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use multiple \tag 
constructs just to handle this issue.
Exactly... I write my music with "voiceStaff" to contain all the 
score-level stuff eg tempi, tune names, rehearsal marks etc, and 
"voiceInstrument" to contain the stuff that varies by instrument, eg 
notes, dynamics, anything else like that ...


In the case example, the phrase is eight bars long, commencing with a 
two-bar rest. For another instrument, it won't have a rest. And I don't 
want the output to change dramatically depending on what's in the part.


So of course, because voiceStaff is not meant to contain notes, it uses 
"s" all the time. And I very rarely produce scores, this case is 
absolutely typical for me in that we only have a bass-clef part, and 
because while some players in our section can read both, we have some 
players who can only read bass or treble clef so transposing is a 
regular requirement. So I'll have three parts to do, 1st, 2nd and bass.


And because text seems to centre on the "s" (or something like that), as 
you say, its appearance is affected greatly by what happens to be in the 
part :-( I just want markups to be able to shunt stuff out of the way 
*sideways*. Bearing in mind the parts I'm setting, often the cost of a 
page turn is unacceptable, so to lose a huge amount of space because a 
markup increases staff spacing (or wastes horizontal space pushing music 
aside) is a nightmare. A march part, for example, has to cram an entire 
piece onto a piece of A5 paper (half-letter size, for Americans). And 
no, you can't just turn over ...



Wol: Scan through the thread starting 
at  and 
see if anything there helps.

Thanks, I'll investigate.

Cheers,
Wol

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Paul Scott]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 09:31:17AM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi Wol,
> 
> > My usual bugbear ... :-(
> > I have a couple of instances where I have a rehearsal mark, a tempo mark, 
> > […]
> 
> Yeah… this causes me no end of grief, too.
> It probably represents a good 10% of my score/part tweaking time.
> 
> David K wrote:
> > Hm?  How could you even have a compressed multi-measure rest when there
> > is anything like an "8-bar phrase" in parallel?
> > That sounds like a problem that cannot occur.
> 
> I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens
> in the part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use
> multiple \tag constructs just to handle this issue.

Me too.  I asked a long time ago and got the idea that I was the only
one concerned about this.  Essentially why is alignment different for
multi-measure rests than notes.

Paul


> 
> Wol: Scan through the thread starting at
> 
> and see if anything there helps.
> 
> Good luck,
> Kieren.
> 
> 
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
> 
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Wol,

> My usual bugbear ... :-(
> I have a couple of instances where I have a rehearsal mark, a tempo mark, […]

Yeah… this causes me no end of grief, too.
It probably represents a good 10% of my score/part tweaking time.

David K wrote:
> Hm?  How could you even have a compressed multi-measure rest when there
> is anything like an "8-bar phrase" in parallel?
> That sounds like a problem that cannot occur.

I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens in the 
part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use multiple \tag 
constructs just to handle this issue.

Wol: Scan through the thread starting at 
 and see 
if anything there helps.

Good luck,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

[David Kastrup]

Anthonys Lists  writes:

> My usual bugbear ... :-(
>
> I have a couple of instances where I have a rehearsal mark, a tempo
> mark, and a tune name all wanting to be over the same barline (this is
> an arrangement, where there are several tunes and each is identified
> where it occurs).
>
> So I have something along the lines of
>
> <<
> { s1 | \mark \default \tempo "poco allegretto" s1^\markup "This is the
> army mr jones" s1*7 }
> { c1 | R1*2 }
>>>
>
> However, the two "s1"s are causing the R1*2 to print as two separate
> bars :-( I'm also getting
>
> warning: MultiMeasureRestText has empty extent and non-empty stencil.
>
> in the log, which I guess is related. Any ideas how to get the rest to
> print as a multi-measure rest? The problem, from my pov, is that the
> first, markup, line is meant to be shared across multiple parts, so if
> I do s1*8^\markup, the text is centred over the 8-bar phrase or some
> other wrongness,

Hm?  How could you even have a compressed multi-measure rest when there
is anything like an "8-bar phrase" in parallel?

That sounds like a problem that cannot occur.

> The other problem I have, is is there any way I can shunt markup left
> or right (both tempo and text)? I've been using extra-spacing-width,
> which works a treat sometimes, and is dreadful elsewhere. It's been
> fine for rehearsal marks, but when I use it on tempo and text, it's
> been shoving the music out of the way, which then looks awful. I just
> want to push the text slightly to the right to avoid colliding with
> the rehearsal mark (and I have tried extra-spacing-width leaving one
> or other argument at its default +-infinity, and again it seems to
> work sometimes and be a nightmare elsewhere ...) All the horizontal
> adjustment stuff I've seen seems to be for in-staff objects like
> lines, noteheads, accidentals ... will they work on markups?

Some will.  It's probably easiest fiddling with self-alignment-X if that
is heeded, making one more or less right-aligned and the other left.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: multi measure rests

[bobr...@centrum.is]

- Original Message -
From: Sarah k Alawami marri...@gmail.com
To: lilly pond discuss discuss lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 4:13:44 PM
Subject: multi measure rests

I read the docs on how to do this but is there an easier way to memorize how to 
do this? the fractions confuse the heck out of me lol! I'm in 12/8 so I'll have 
4 doted quarter notes so would the multi measure rest look like this for one 
measure

R4. R4. R4. R4. |
for example?

Thanks all. and sorry for all of the questions.

Take care.

For one measure rest in 12/8:

R1.

Several measures rest in 12/8, for example, 8 measures:

R1.*8

-David

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

Re: multi measure rests

[Noeck]

Am 03.05.2013 18:13, schrieb Sarah k Alawami:
 I read the docs on how to do this but is there an easier way to memorize how 
 to do this? the fractions confuse the heck out of me lol! I'm in 12/8 so I'll 
 have 4 doted quarter notes so would the multi measure rest look like this for 
 one measure
 
 R4. R4. R4. R4. |
 for example?

Hi Sarah,

multimeasure rests have a duration of the full measure (4/4 = 1  in a
4/4 measure for example). So in your 12/8 measure you can only have one
single 12/8 full measure rest in it:

R1*12/8  or R1.

If you want to have 4 dotted quarter rests you have to use the lower
case rests because they do not fill the measure:

r4. r4. r4. r4. |

If you want to repeat them:
\repeat unfold 5 { r4. r4. r4. r4. }

Cheers,
Joram

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

Re: multi measure rests

[Sarah k Alawami]

Ok. I see there a dotted hole note, but  a dotted whole note or in this case 
whole rest is only 8 eithgh notes if I counted correctly which my coffee 
deprived brain probably did not lol!  I get the feeling that i'm making this 
harder then it really is.  lol!

Take care all and thanks.
On May 3, 2013, at 9:23 AM, bobr...@centrum.is wrote:

 
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Sarah k Alawami marri...@gmail.com
 To: lilly pond discuss discuss lilypond-user@gnu.org
 Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 4:13:44 PM
 Subject: multi measure rests
 
 I read the docs on how to do this but is there an easier way to memorize how 
 to do this? the fractions confuse the heck out of me lol! I'm in 12/8 so I'll 
 have 4 doted quarter notes so would the multi measure rest look like this for 
 one measure
 
 R4. R4. R4. R4. |
 for example?
 
 Thanks all. and sorry for all of the questions.
 
 Take care.
 
 For one measure rest in 12/8:
 
 R1.
 
 Several measures rest in 12/8, for example, 8 measures:
 
 R1.*8
 
 -David


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

Re: multi measure rests

[Noeck]

Am 03.05.2013 18:44, schrieb Sarah k Alawami:
 Ok. I see there a dotted hole note, but  a dotted whole note or in this case 
 whole rest is only 8 eithgh notes if I counted correctly which my coffee 
 deprived brain probably did not lol!  I get the feeling that i'm making this 
 harder then it really is.  lol!

A dotted whole note is 1 + 1/2 note = 4/4 + 2/4 = 8/8 + 4/8 = 12/8

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

Re: multi measure rests

[Urs Liska]

A MultiMeasureRest for one measure always _looks_ like a whole note rest, no 
matter how long its real duration is.
Maybe it's this what you mix up?

Best
Urs



Sarah k Alawami marri...@gmail.com schrieb:

Ok. I see there a dotted hole note, but  a dotted whole note or in this
case whole rest is only 8 eithgh notes if I counted correctly which my
coffee deprived brain probably did not lol!  I get the feeling that i'm
making this harder then it really is.  lol!

Take care all and thanks.
On May 3, 2013, at 9:23 AM, bobr...@centrum.is wrote:

 
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Sarah k Alawami marri...@gmail.com
 To: lilly pond discuss discuss lilypond-user@gnu.org
 Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 4:13:44 PM
 Subject: multi measure rests
 
 I read the docs on how to do this but is there an easier way to
memorize how to do this? the fractions confuse the heck out of me lol!
I'm in 12/8 so I'll have 4 doted quarter notes so would the multi
measure rest look like this for one measure
 
 R4. R4. R4. R4. |
 for example?
 
 Thanks all. and sorry for all of the questions.
 
 Take care.
 
 For one measure rest in 12/8:
 
 R1.
 
 Several measures rest in 12/8, for example, 8 measures:
 
 R1.*8
 
 -David


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

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: multi measure rests

[Wim van Dommelen]

I remember and use it this way:

R length times so many

so: R1*3 is three times the length of one whole note. Always calculate  
the total length you need and that it gets there.


I tried simply this: Assume you want 4/4 followed by 3/4 and three  
full measures rest in each:


{
\time 4/4
c''1
R1*3
\time 3/4
c''2.
R1*3
}

what you get is: one whole c'', 3 whole measures rest, time change,  
one dotted half note c'', FOUR(!) measures rest


This is because 3 times a whole note rest equals 3 times 4 quarters =  
12 quarters, which is four time a full measure of three quarters.


To get three rest measures in the 3/4 time you need:

{
\time 4/4
c''1
R1*3
\time 3/4
c''2.
R2.*3
}

I can get exactly the same by specifying R4*9, which is also 9 quarters.

Setting \compressFullBarRests in this doesn't make a difference. So  
the statement this is no matter its real duration is not correct  
i.m.h.o., it IS the real duration you need tp specify.


Regards,
Wim.




On 3 May 2013, at 18:58 , Urs Liska wrote:

A MultiMeasureRest for one measure always _looks_ like a whole note  
rest, no matter how long its real duration is.

Maybe it's this what you mix up?

Best
Urs



Sarah k Alawami marri...@gmail.com schrieb:
Ok. I see there a dotted hole note, but  a dotted whole note or in  
this case whole rest is only 8 eithgh notes if I counted correctly  
which my coffee deprived brain probably did not lol!  I get the  
feeling that i'm making this harder then it really is.  lol!


Take care all and thanks.
On May 3, 2013, at 9:23 AM, bobr...@centrum.is wrote:



- Original Message -
From: Sarah k Alawami marri...@gmail.com
To: lilly pond discuss discuss lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 4:13:44 PM
Subject: multi measure rests

I read the docs on how to do this but is there an easier way to  
memorize how to do this? the fractions confuse the heck out of me  
lol! I'm in 12/8 so I'll have 4
doted quarter notes so would the multi measure rest look like this  
for one measure


R4. R4. R4. R4. |
for example?

Thanks all. and sorry for all of the questions.

Take care.

For one measure rest in 12/8:

R1.

Several measures rest in 12/8, for example, 8 measures:

R1.*8

-David



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

--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail  
gesendet.

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


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

Re: multi measure rests

[Sarah k Alawami]

Possibally. Like I said I'm so new to lily pound   and I'm trying to read the 
docs as best I could but sometimes the explanations are just a tad unclear. 
lol! and I'm trying to do my final assignment from a transcription in braille 
gone wrong. lol!

Take care.
On May 3, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote:

 A MultiMeasureRest for one measure always _looks_ like a whole note rest, no 
 matter how long its real duration is.
 Maybe it's this what you mix up?
 
 Best
 Urs
 
 
 
 Sarah k Alawami marri...@gmail.com schrieb:
 Ok. I see there a dotted hole note, but  a dotted whole note or in this case 
 whole rest is only 8 eithgh notes if I counted correctly which my coffee 
 deprived brain probably did not lol!  I get the feeling that i'm making this 
 harder then it really is.  lol!
 
 Take care all and thanks.
 On May 3, 2013, at 9:23 AM, bobr...@centrum.is wrote:
 
 
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Sarah k Alawami marri...@gmail.com
 To: lilly pond discuss discuss lilypond-user@gnu.org
 Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 4:13:44 PM
 Subject: multi measure rests
 
 I read the docs on how to do this but is there an easier way to memorize how 
 to do this? the fractions confuse the heck out of me lol! I'm in 12/8 so I'll 
 have 4
 doted quarter notes so would the multi measure rest look like this for one 
 measure
 
 R4. R4. R4. R4. |
 for example?
 
 Thanks all. and sorry for all of the questions.
 
 Take care.
 
 For one measure rest in 12/8:
 
 R1.
 
 Several measures rest in 12/8, for example, 8 measures:
 
 R1.*8
 
 -David
 
 
 
 lilypond-user mailing list
 lilypond-user@gnu.org
 https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
 
 -- 
 Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

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

Re: multi measure rests

[Noeck]

Hi,

I also have a question for you: You seem to use braille music output
from LilyPond. Is that builtin in LilyPond? Could you (or anyone) point
me to some documentation how to use that? I would like to try it.

Cheers,
Joram

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

Re: Re: multi measure rests

[Evan Driscoll]

On 05/03/2013 03:11 PM, Wim van Dommelen wrote:
 I remember and use it this way:
 
 R length times so many
 
 so: R1*3 is three times the length of one whole note. Always calculate
 the total length you need and that it gets there.

FWIW, the general form of what I do is

  R1*time signature*number of measures

So instead of typing R2.*3 for a three-measure rest in 3/4 time, I
would spell that as R1*3/4*3. Instead of a full measure of rest in
12/8 being written as R1., I would write it as R1*12/8.

I'll leave out the *time signature part for 4/4 time, but everything
else gets written out even if there is a more succinct way of expressing
it. I'll usually leave out the *number of measures bit if there's only
one. But the point is I always start with R1 and then scale as necessary.

BTW, I make no claim that this is particularly good practice or that
you'll like it; I'm not an experienced Lilypond user by any means. (I
got into this habit as I'm very very slowly working on typesetting the
parts to Mars, which of course is in 5/4 time. I'm not sure if there
even is another way to mark a full-measure of rest in 5/4 time without
using a scaling.) I just bring it up to show my own view and also to
point out that you can use * to scale the length of a measure in
addition to specifying multiple measures. (Really they're both doing the
same thing, but I think of them as being for different reasons.)

Evan



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

Re: multi measure rests

[Sarah k Alawami]

Actually I'm not. The university brailled my piano transcript Im working off 
of. It would be nice though if maybe a musk student could learn lily pond and 
output it in to braille so all of my stuff could be done in house. using music 
vml or some such thing.

Take care.
On May 3, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Noeck noeck.marb...@gmx.de wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I also have a question for you: You seem to use braille music output
 from LilyPond. Is that builtin in LilyPond? Could you (or anyone) point
 me to some documentation how to use that? I would like to try it.
 
 Cheers,
 Joram
 
 ___
 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: Multi measure rests vertical positioning

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Werner,

 I must solve everything for R manually while r works fine.
 Any ideas to solve that?

Can you write a callback function to determine the position of the r and apply 
it to the R?

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and counter in piano staff

[Helge Kruse]

2012/10/19 David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com

 to comment #21 at
 http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2445 .  Understand
 that this version might cause problems if you're running a batch of
 files (which won't happen with the version that's in the review
 process.) The engraver could be added to a Dynamics context, or you
 could put it in one of the Staff contexts and adjust the positioning.


This looks very intresting. In the first try I get some errors when I add
it to my more complex score. I will break it down to see, what I did wrong.

This measure counter allows a start and a stop. I did not find an option to
start at a specific number. Image you start at rehearsel mark H, have a
multi-measure rest of 16 bars. In the 17th measure you have some cue notes.
It would be nice to start the measure counter hear at 17 to count until
your intstrument has to play. Therefore the start at a specific number
would be great. Do you think this can be added?

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

Re: Multi-measure rests and counter in piano staff

[Marc Hohl]

Am 21.10.2012 15:51, schrieb Helge Kruse:

[...]

This measure counter allows a start and a stop. I did not find an 
option to start at a specific number. Image you start at rehearsel 
mark H, have a multi-measure rest of 16 bars. In the 17th measure you 
have some cue notes. It would be nice to start the measure counter 
hear at 17 to count until your intstrument has to play. Therefore the 
start at a specific number would be great. Do you think this can be added?


This is implemented in David's patch already:

\override Staff.MeasureCounter #'count-from = #17

should do the trick.

HTH,

Marc


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

Re: Multi-measure rests and counter in piano staff

[Helge Kruse]

Do you  have any idea how to combine the two multi-rest bar counts in a
piano staff?

Helge

2012/10/17 Helge Kruse helge.kr...@gmx.net

 When playing in an orchestra it's important to count rests. To make this
 tasks easier you can write numbers into rest measures.

 Especially for a piano staff it gives a calm picture when the empty space
 between the staves is used. The attached picture shows this starting at
 Allegretto. Further it would be good to have the number of multi-measure
 rests between the staves.

 How can I write _one_ multi measure rest number in piano staff between the
 staff lines?
 How can I add a counter starting at a measure n and counting to measure
 n+x? This should not be the current bar number but an arbitrary counter. If
 this is not supported, how can I place the counter numbers to the middle of
 the piano staff?

 Regards
 Helge

 \version 2.16.0

 up = \relative c' {
   R1*20 \mark E R1*26 | R1*3
   \time 6/4
   \tempo Allegretto
   a'2.\ppp r | r a | r a
 }

 down = \relative c {
   \clef bass
   R1*20  R1*26 | R1*3^\markup{rall.}
   \time 6/4
   a'2. r | r a | r a
 }

 \score {
   \new PianoStaff  {
 
   \new Staff { \compressFullBarRests \up }
   \new Staff { \compressFullBarRests \down }
 
   }
 }



 ___
 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: Multi-Measure Rests: Adding to what gets printed?

[rasAK]

Alexander,

I don't have time to look into this, but wanted you to be aware: I went
ahead and used the BarNumberStaff rather than the BarNumberVoice.  In trying
to adjust the Y-Offset of the BarNumberVoice, it moves the lyrics down as
well.  The BarNumberStaff does not.

\new BarNumberVoice \with {
\override MultiMeasureRestNumber #'Y-offset = #-7
\override MultiMeasureRestNumber #'font-size = #-2 }
{ \compressFullBarRests \global \TemplateMelody } 

Randy


Alexander Kobel wrote:
 
 me - stanford wrote:
 2) Also, do you think #'outside-staff-priority = #150 is a reasonable 
 priority setting for the MMR Text?  I'm not sure what most objects' 
 settings are for this property.  I was just trying to get it to win over 
 the Lyrics setting.
 
 Oh, and just a few words about this before I leave for today.
 
 AFAICS, the Lyrics as well as the BarNumberStaff form a vertically
 aligned group (Is this a VerticalAxisGroup? I'm not sure here...) of
 their own - I think of them as normal staves, basically.
 I _think_ that it should not be possible for grobs of those neighboring
 groups to cross; you're merely pushing the MultiMeasureRestNumbers far
 above the center baseline of the BarNumberStaff, and since there are no
 lyrics under a MMR, the skylines of the two squeeze together.  So I
 wonder why 'outside-staff-priority should change anything at all (and
 also didn't test it, to be honest).
 
 That's why I prefer the approach with an additional voice a single
 staff:  Both MMRNumbers belong to voices in the same staff (read:
 vertical group), just with different directions in which they are
 attached. Thus, your settings are unaffected by, say, a second stanza,
 larger lyrics, dynamics between staff and lyrics, and so on.  An in this
 case, you could also use 'outside-staff-priority and '...-padding, but
 I'm almost certain you won't need them.
 
 
 Cheers,
 Alexander
 
 
 
 ___
 lilypond-user mailing list
 lilypond-user@gnu.org
 http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
 
 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Multi-Measure-Rests%3A-Adding-to-what-gets-printed--tp27288983p27337870.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



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

Re: Multi-Measure Rests: Adding to what gets printed?

[Alexander Kobel]

rasAK wrote:

I don't have time to look into this, but wanted you to be aware: I went
ahead and used the BarNumberStaff rather than the BarNumberVoice.  In trying
to adjust the Y-Offset of the BarNumberVoice, it moves the lyrics down as
well.  The BarNumberStaff does not.


Ah, I think I see the problem.  A MMRNumber is added under every MMR; 
it's just a  string for the single measure rests, but even this 
affects the spacing.  No clue why this does not seem to hurt with the 
BarNumberStaff approach.


Maybe I should take the time and test whether an empty stencil instead 
of the null text helps, but it's not quite on top of my priority queue 
if you're fine with your current solution.



Cheers,
Alexander


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

Re: Multi-Measure Rests: Adding to what gets printed?

[rasAK]

Alexander,

Yes, I've got what I need for now, so no rush on the fix.  Whenever you do
get to it, let me know and I'll be happy to test.

Randy



Alexander Kobel wrote:
 
 rasAK wrote:
 I don't have time to look into this, but wanted you to be aware: I went
 ahead and used the BarNumberStaff rather than the BarNumberVoice.  In
 trying
 to adjust the Y-Offset of the BarNumberVoice, it moves the lyrics down as
 well.  The BarNumberStaff does not.
 
 Ah, I think I see the problem.  A MMRNumber is added under every MMR; 
 it's just a  string for the single measure rests, but even this 
 affects the spacing.  No clue why this does not seem to hurt with the 
 BarNumberStaff approach.
 
 Maybe I should take the time and test whether an empty stencil instead 
 of the null text helps, but it's not quite on top of my priority queue 
 if you're fine with your current solution.
 
 
 Cheers,
 Alexander
 
 
 ___
 lilypond-user mailing list
 lilypond-user@gnu.org
 http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
 
 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Multi-Measure-Rests%3A-Adding-to-what-gets-printed--tp27288983p27348877.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



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

Re: Multi-Measure Rests: Adding to what gets printed?

[rasAK]

Alexander,

One other thing.  Your code does solve the additional wrinkle I referred
to.  In the attached, at letter I, you will see that a 20 MMR is broken up
by Rehearsal Letter I and your function calcs the 2 contiguous MMR ranges
correctly and attaches them.

Randy

http://old.nabble.com/file/p27319831/Bach_Singet_dem_Herrn_04_choir_I_bassoon_pg_2.pdf
Bach_Singet_dem_Herrn_04_choir_I_bassoon_pg_2.pdf 


Alexander Kobel wrote:
 
 rasAK wrote:
 In my orchestral parts, I would like Multi-Measure Rests to have both:
 (1) an integer representing the number of measures in the current MMR,
 centered above (default behavior)
 (2) a second text indicating which measures are included in the given
 MMR,
 in parentheses and centered BELOW the MMR.
 
 (1) happens automatically.  (2) is what I don't know how to do.
 
 Hi, Randy,
 
 http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=651 includes what you're after, just 
 that it writes a bar number on every single measure by default.  But in 
 principle you can copy most of the overrides concerning 
 MultiMeasureRestNumbers from BarNumberStaff into a second voice (for 
 (2)), which shares but the MMRs with your given voices (which do (1)).
 
 To add the parentheses, replace lines 99 to 102 by:
 (if (= start-measure end-measure)
  (string-append ( (number-string start-measure) ))  ;; or only 
  in this line if you don't want single bars numbered at all
  (string-append
   ( (number-string start-measure)  –  (number-string 
 end-measure) )
 
 If you just want to plug in a BarNumberStaff as shown in the LSR 
 snippet, you just have to write  in line 100, as stated above, and 
 you're basically done, since single measures won't have a visible 
 BarNumber text in this case.
 
 As an additional wrinkle, if Rehearsal Letter A happened to fall at mm.
 9,
 Example 1b should output 2 MMRs ( |--4--| and |--6--|) with ( 4 - 7 )
 and
 ( 8 - 13 ) below.
 
 Sorry, no idea on this one.
 
 
 Cheers,
 Alexander
 
 
 ___
 lilypond-user mailing list
 lilypond-user@gnu.org
 http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
 
 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Multi-Measure-Rests%3A-Adding-to-what-gets-printed--tp27288983p27319831.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



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

Re: Multi-Measure Rests: Adding to what gets printed?

[Alexander Kobel]

rasAK wrote:

Alexander,

The only remaining issue is the positioning of the text that results from
your function.  It is currently being placed above the number (which is
above the MMR).  I tried to adjust some of the Y-offset and Y-extent
numbers, but could only get the text to move up.  I would like for it to
print below the MMR (but keeping the number of measures in the MMR above the
MMR).  Something like the following:

 6
 |-|
 ( 121 - 126 )

Thoughts?



Hi, Randy,

I assume you're using a two-voices approach then, where one of the 
voices only contains the MMRs for the measure numbers?
In this case, I _believe_ it should be enough to \override 
MultiMeasureRestNumber #'direction = #DOWN.


If this should not work, can you post your current code?  It should be 
easier to find the tweaks if I see what's going on behind the masks.



Cheers,
Alexander


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

Re: Multi-Measure Rests: Adding to what gets printed?

[Alexander Kobel]

me - stanford wrote:
2) Also, do you think #'outside-staff-priority = #150 is a reasonable 
priority setting for the MMR Text?  I'm not sure what most objects' 
settings are for this property.  I was just trying to get it to win over 
the Lyrics setting.


Oh, and just a few words about this before I leave for today.

AFAICS, the Lyrics as well as the BarNumberStaff form a vertically
aligned group (Is this a VerticalAxisGroup? I'm not sure here...) of
their own - I think of them as normal staves, basically.
I _think_ that it should not be possible for grobs of those neighboring
groups to cross; you're merely pushing the MultiMeasureRestNumbers far
above the center baseline of the BarNumberStaff, and since there are no
lyrics under a MMR, the skylines of the two squeeze together.  So I
wonder why 'outside-staff-priority should change anything at all (and
also didn't test it, to be honest).

That's why I prefer the approach with an additional voice a single
staff:  Both MMRNumbers belong to voices in the same staff (read:
vertical group), just with different directions in which they are
attached. Thus, your settings are unaffected by, say, a second stanza,
larger lyrics, dynamics between staff and lyrics, and so on.  An in this
case, you could also use 'outside-staff-priority and '...-padding, but
I'm almost certain you won't need them.


Cheers,
Alexander



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

Re: Multi-Measure Rests: Adding to what gets printed?

[rasAK]

Alexander,

I've modified the BarNumberStaff code as you suggested.  I also changed one
line in your \layout block.  I commented out the Mark_engraver as I was
getting double boxed rehearsal letters:

%\consists Mark_engraver

The only remaining issue is the positioning of the text that results from
your function.  It is currently being placed above the number (which is
above the MMR).  I tried to adjust some of the Y-offset and Y-extent
numbers, but could only get the text to move up.  I would like for it to
print below the MMR (but keeping the number of measures in the MMR above the
MMR).  Something like the following:

 6
 |-|
 ( 121 - 126 )

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Randy
 


Alexander Kobel wrote:
 
 rasAK wrote:
 In my orchestral parts, I would like Multi-Measure Rests to have both:
 (1) an integer representing the number of measures in the current MMR,
 centered above (default behavior)
 (2) a second text indicating which measures are included in the given
 MMR,
 in parentheses and centered BELOW the MMR.
 
 (1) happens automatically.  (2) is what I don't know how to do.
 
 Hi, Randy,
 
 http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=651 includes what you're after, just 
 that it writes a bar number on every single measure by default.  But in 
 principle you can copy most of the overrides concerning 
 MultiMeasureRestNumbers from BarNumberStaff into a second voice (for 
 (2)), which shares but the MMRs with your given voices (which do (1)).
 
 To add the parentheses, replace lines 99 to 102 by:
 (if (= start-measure end-measure)
  (string-append ( (number-string start-measure) ))  ;; or only 
  in this line if you don't want single bars numbered at all
  (string-append
   ( (number-string start-measure)  –  (number-string 
 end-measure) )
 
 If you just want to plug in a BarNumberStaff as shown in the LSR 
 snippet, you just have to write  in line 100, as stated above, and 
 you're basically done, since single measures won't have a visible 
 BarNumber text in this case.
 
 As an additional wrinkle, if Rehearsal Letter A happened to fall at mm.
 9,
 Example 1b should output 2 MMRs ( |--4--| and |--6--|) with ( 4 - 7 )
 and
 ( 8 - 13 ) below.
 
 Sorry, no idea on this one.
 
 
 Cheers,
 Alexander
 
 
 ___
 lilypond-user mailing list
 lilypond-user@gnu.org
 http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
 
 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Multi-Measure-Rests%3A-Adding-to-what-gets-printed--tp27288983p27318719.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



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

Re: Multi-Measure Rests: Adding to what gets printed?

[Alexander Kobel]

rasAK wrote:

In my orchestral parts, I would like Multi-Measure Rests to have both:
(1) an integer representing the number of measures in the current MMR,
centered above (default behavior)
(2) a second text indicating which measures are included in the given MMR,
in parentheses and centered BELOW the MMR.

(1) happens automatically.  (2) is what I don't know how to do.


Hi, Randy,

http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=651 includes what you're after, just 
that it writes a bar number on every single measure by default.  But in 
principle you can copy most of the overrides concerning 
MultiMeasureRestNumbers from BarNumberStaff into a second voice (for 
(2)), which shares but the MMRs with your given voices (which do (1)).


To add the parentheses, replace lines 99 to 102 by:
   (if (= start-measure end-measure)
(string-append ( (number-string start-measure) ))  ;; or only 
 in this line if you don't want single bars numbered at all

(string-append
 ( (number-string start-measure)  –  (number-string 
end-measure) )


If you just want to plug in a BarNumberStaff as shown in the LSR 
snippet, you just have to write  in line 100, as stated above, and 
you're basically done, since single measures won't have a visible 
BarNumber text in this case.



As an additional wrinkle, if Rehearsal Letter A happened to fall at mm. 9,
Example 1b should output 2 MMRs ( |--4--| and |--6--|) with ( 4 - 7 ) and
( 8 - 13 ) below.


Sorry, no idea on this one.


Cheers,
Alexander


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

Re: Multi-Measure Rests: Adding to what gets printed?

[rasAK]

Alexander,

Thanks so much.  I'll take a look at your suggestion in detail.

Randy



rasAK wrote:
 
 In my orchestral parts, I would like Multi-Measure Rests to have both:
 (1) an integer representing the number of measures in the current MMR,
 centered above (default behavior)
 (2) a second text indicating which measures are included in the given MMR,
 in parentheses and centered BELOW the MMR.
 
 (1) happens automatically.  (2) is what I don't know how to do.  I'm
 thinking I would have to figure out how to write a Scheme function to do
 this, but as I have never written one before, I wanted to know whether
 there was an existing, non-Scheme solution.
 
 As an example, given the following input:
 
 %EXAMPLE 1a
 \time 4/4
 \key c \major
 c4 d e f
 R1*10
 c d e f
 
 ...output will generate 10 above the MMR.  I would like ( 2 - 11 )
 generated automatically and centered below it.
 
 If the input were changed to:
 
 %EXAMPLE 1b
 \time 4/4
 \key c \major
 c4 d e f
 c d e f
 c d e f
 R1*10
 c d e f
 
 ...then the output should remain 10 above but change to ( 4 - 13 )
 below the MMR.
 
 As an additional wrinkle, if Rehearsal Letter A happened to fall at mm.
 9, Example 1b should output 2 MMRs ( |--4--| and |--6--|) with ( 4 - 7 )
 and ( 8 - 13 ) below.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Randy
 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Multi-Measure-Rests%3A-Adding-to-what-gets-printed--tp27288983p27292508.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



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

Re: Multi-measure rests again again

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
 
 Added this to the doco:
 
 If you want to have a text on the left end of a multi-measure rest,
 attach the text to a zero-length skip note, i.e.
 
 @example
   s1*0^Allegro
   R1*4 
 @end example
 
 This makes the multimeasure excessively wide and actually steals space 
 from a following MM rest.

Ah, that seems to be a bug. I fixed it partially in 2.0 CVS.
For the moment, you might want to put the allegro atop the 72 \mark.

-- 

Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen 


___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests again again

[Paul Scott]

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 

This makes the multimeasure excessively wide and actually steals space 
from a following MM rest.
   

Ah, that seems to be a bug. I fixed it partially in 2.0 CVS.
For the moment, you might want to put the allegro atop the 72 \mark.
Excellent!  Thanks,

Paul



___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests again again

[Paul Scott]

Ralph Little wrote:

Hi 
Looking through the archives, there seems to be a lot of issues relating to
attaching text markup to MultiMeasure rests.
One general solutions seems to be along the lines of

	R1*10 s1^Hello there

...or somesuch.

I'm running 1.8.2 now. 
What's the recommended way of attaching text to multi-measure rests now?
Is there a better way?

The answer should be R1*2^\markup{ Allegro } but the markup hides the 
measure count.  I am waiting for a comment on that problem.

Paul Scott



___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests again again

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Ralph Little wrote:
 
 Hi 
 Looking through the archives, there seems to be a lot of issues relating to
 attaching text markup to MultiMeasure rests.
 One general solutions seems to be along the lines of
 
  R1*10 s1^Hello there
 
 ...or somesuch.
 
 I'm running 1.8.2 now. 
 What's the recommended way of attaching text to multi-measure rests now?
 Is there a better way?
 
 The answer should be R1*2^\markup{ Allegro } but the markup hides the 
 measure count.  I am waiting for a comment on that problem.

Added this to the doco:


If you want to have a text on the left end of a multi-measure rest,
attach the text to a zero-length skip note, i.e.

@example
  s1*0^Allegro
  R1*4 
@end example


-- 

Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen 


___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: Multi-measure rests again again

[Ralph Little]

Hi,
This is exactly the issue that I am having!
Same goes for:

R1*2_\markup{ Allegro }

..I guess.

Regards,
Ralph

-Original Message-
From: Paul Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 23 September 2003 10:09
To: Ralph Little
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multi-measure rests again again


Ralph Little wrote:

Hi 
Looking through the archives, there seems to be a lot of issues relating to
attaching text markup to MultiMeasure rests.
One general solutions seems to be along the lines of

   R1*10 s1^Hello there

...or somesuch.

I'm running 1.8.2 now. 
What's the recommended way of attaching text to multi-measure rests now?
Is there a better way?

The answer should be R1*2^\markup{ Allegro } but the markup hides the 
measure count.  I am waiting for a comment on that problem.

Paul Scott


-- 
Our communications with you matter to us. This e-mail and any attachments
are confidential and are sent on the basis of our copyright, e-mail and
security policy which can be inspected by visiting
http://www.tribaldata.co.uk/contact_index.asp. and clicking on the print
friendly link. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender and delete this message.  Thank you. 
-- 



___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: Multi-measure rests again again

[Ralph Little]

That's funky!
Thanks, I'll give it a try!

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: Han-Wen Nienhuys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 23 September 2003 10:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ralph Little; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multi-measure rests again again


[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Ralph Little wrote:
 
 Hi 
 Looking through the archives, there seems to be a lot of issues relating
to
 attaching text markup to MultiMeasure rests.
 One general solutions seems to be along the lines of
 
  R1*10 s1^Hello there
 
 ...or somesuch.
 
 I'm running 1.8.2 now. 
 What's the recommended way of attaching text to multi-measure rests now?
 Is there a better way?
 
 The answer should be R1*2^\markup{ Allegro } but the markup hides the 
 measure count.  I am waiting for a comment on that problem.

Added this to the doco:


If you want to have a text on the left end of a multi-measure rest,
attach the text to a zero-length skip note, i.e.

@example
  s1*0^Allegro
  R1*4 
@end example


-- 

Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen 

-- 
Our communications with you matter to us. This e-mail and any attachments
are confidential and are sent on the basis of our copyright, e-mail and
security policy which can be inspected by visiting
http://www.tribaldata.co.uk/contact_index.asp. and clicking on the print
friendly link. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender and delete this message.  Thank you. 
-- 



___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests again again

[Paul Scott]

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

Added this to the doco:

If you want to have a text on the left end of a multi-measure rest,
attach the text to a zero-length skip note, i.e.
@example
 s1*0^Allegro
 R1*4 
@end example

This makes the multimeasure excessively wide and actually steals space 
from a following MM rest.

Paul

\score {

\property Score.skipBars = ##t
\context Staff = clarinet 
{ 
\notes {
\time 3/4 \mark 72
 s1^\markup{ Largo } R4*3*11 
\mark 73 R4*3*11 \mark 74 R4*3*2
d'2\pp\fermata r4 \bar ||
}
}


\paper {}
}


mmtest2.ps
Description: PostScript document
___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests again again

[Paul Scott]

Paul Scott wrote:

(Lily 1.8.1 on Debian unstable)

This makes the multimeasure excessively wide and actually steals space 
from a following MM rest.

Paul



\score {
   
	\property Score.skipBars = ##t
	\context Staff = clarinet 
	{ 
		\notes {
		\time 3/4 \mark 72
		 s1^\markup{ Largo } R4*3*11 
		\mark 73 R4*3*11 \mark 74 R4*3*2
		d'2\pp\fermata r4 \bar ||
		}
	}
	
   
   \paper {}
}
   



___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
 





___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: multi-measure rests

[Mats Bengtsson]

The bad news: you have hit a bug, Lilypond doesn't understand that
  the multi-measure rests  need a certain minimal width.

The good news: as soon as you add a couple of more bars of music, 
  Lilypond will break the music into several lines and you won't
  suffer from the problem any more. 

The easiest solution for you (if your piece isn't longer than this)
is to add a line break manually. Just insert a \break where you
want the first line to end. 

The next time you send a question, don't forget to tell what
Lilypond version you use.

   /Mats

 The manual gives something like this for multi-measure rests.  It works 
 if I don't try the 5 bar rest before '\mark 1'.  With that rest 
 included I get everything on one line.  I tried various combinations of 
 turning Score.skipBars on and off with no success.
 
 Any ideas?
 
 TIA,
 
 Paul Scott
 
 
 \score {
  \notes {
   \relative c'' {
   \time 2/4 {
   \property Score.skipBars = ##t R2*4
   r8 b4\p ( c8~)c  a-. f-. d-. b-. r8 r4
  R2*5
   \mark 1
   r2 r8 b'\p~b16 g-. g-. e-. c8-. r8 r4
   r8 d'8~d16 b-. b-. g-. e8-. r4.
  R2*5
   r8 c'8 ( b16 a g f e8 g f16 e d ) e c4 () d c () d
   }
   }
  }
\paper {
  indent = 0.4 \in
}
 }
 
 
 
 ___
 Lilypond-user mailing list
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: multi measure rests

[Mats Bengtsson]

The only problem with your attempt it that you changed the 
padding of text scripts, but not of the multi-measure rests or
rehearsal marks that you wanted to affect. 
Try 
\property Staff.MultiMeasureRest \override #'padding = #3
or
\property Staff.MultiMeasureRest \override #'padding = #3

   /Mats


 hi all,
 
 how can i tweak the depiction of multi-measure rests? i need to change
 the position of the numbers.
 
 enclosed a file that should show my problem. it's been cut and pasted
 from an arrangement of the hornpipe from the water music that i was
 working on, and should show my problem.
 
 this problem is also related to a problem mentioned earlier on the list,
 namely text above staves, but none of the tips or tricks given helped me
 (as can be seen in the \score part of the enclosed file). if anybody can
 give me any tips for solving this problem, i'd be very grateful. if
 somebody knows of a way to right-justify text to the following bar line,
 then that would be very helpful too (for FINE and Da Capo markings for
 instance).

___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user