Re: Ties between voices

[Jean Abou Samra]

> Le 27 juil. 2022 à 10:41, Thomas Morley  a écrit :
> 
> Am Di., 26. Juli 2022 um 11:48 Uhr schrieb Thomas Morley
> :
>> 
>>> Am Sa., 23. Juli 2022 um 19:15 Uhr schrieb Jean Abou Samra 
>>> :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 23/07/2022 à 12:49, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit :
 
 Hi Andrew,
 
 Am 23.07.22 um 03:49 schrieb Andrew Bernard:
> I know that we can't natively make ties between notes in different
> voices. I know that there was a Google Summer of Code task that could
> not be completed.
 
 A few weeks ago, I sent you the following privately (I was too timid
 to post in on the list):
 
 My idea was to \consist the Tie_engraver to the Staff context not
 _instead_ of to the Voice context, but _in addition_. Then we have two
 Tie engravers and need a mechanism by which to tell if a given tie
 should be collected by the Voice-level Tie_engraver or at Staff level
 (in order to connect ties between different voices).
 
 During my experiments I re-implemented the Tie_engraver in Scheme;
 although it turned out that (contrary to my expectations) the
 necessary adjustments could just as easily have been made in C++, the
 advantage is that we can test this approach without the need to
 re-compile a custom LilyPond build.
 
 The attached file (requiring 2.23.6 and above) generates
 
 
 as easily as:
 
 \new Staff \with { \consists #New_tie_engraver }
 {
  <<
\relative {
  4 c8 b a g~ 4
}
\\
\relative {
  s4 c'2 e4
}
>> 
 }
 
 Of course the same mechanism might be implemented for, e.g., the
 Slur_engraver. But this requires additional work, as the slur
 positioning mechanism is not quite up to positioning Staff-level slurs
 correctly.
 
 The attached Scheme Tie_engraver may be used as a drop-in replacement
 for the standard C++ Tie_engraver; in my local branch, it compiles the
 full regression test suite without causing differences.)
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Interesting, Lukas! Now, this approach fails on cases where
>>> ties are physically but not mentally interrupted, as pianists
>>> sometimes encounter, like
>>> 
>>> \version "2.23.10"
>>> 
>>> \new Staff <<
>>>   \relative {
>>> <%{ tie this %} c' c'>2
>>> c'8 b a g
>>>   }
>>>   \\
>>>   \relative { s2 %{ to this %} c'4 g }
>>>   \\
>>>   \relative { g16 a c d e a g e f4 d }
> 
>>> 
>>> but this might be rare enough that not catering for it
>>> would be good enough?
>> 
>> To make it visible, Jean's example, with Lukas' coding reads:
>> 
>> \new Staff \with { \consists #New_tie_engraver }
>> <<
>>   \relative {
>> <%{ tie this %} c'\to Staff ~ c'>2
>> c'8 b a g
>>   }
>>   \\
>>   \relative { s2 %{ to this %} c'4 g }
>>   \\
>>   \relative { g16 a c d e a g e f4 d }
 
>> 
>> and gives the attached output.
>> 
>> We probably need something like NoteColumn.tie-skip similar to 
>> 'glissando-skip.
>> Though, why not something more general like 'spanner-skip for all
>> spanners (usually) terminated at following NoteColumn?
>> 
>> @Lukas
>> You use hash-tables in your rewrite of the engraver.
>> Does the C++-engraver do so?
>> From a users point of view hash-tables are always inconvenient, imho.
>> Is the performance advantage really as huge not to use more simple alists?
>> 
>> Many thanks for your work!
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>  Harm
> 
> @ Jean
> I've got your last mail off-list. By accident?



Yes, sorry. To make it shorter, I was just saying that you could select the end 
note of the tie not as the first note with the right pitch that comes, but the 
first with the right pitch _and after the end of the tied note_, which would do 
the Right Thing automatically in the example being discussed.

Also, on further thinking it’s probably a bad idea to let \to broadcast the 
event only in one context, as other engravers might need it as well (eg 
Accidental_engraver). Refining this idea, in the same fashion as the recently 
added "once" listener feature (which I just made available to Scheme, it 
existed in C++ for a long time), we could have

(listeners
 ((event-class engraver event #:exclusive)
   …))

where #:exclusive means it’s not triggered if the engraver is not in the 
context adressed by \to (or some default context, probably specified in a 
property?).

Cheers,
Jean




> @ Lukas
> I have not yet understood all subtleties of your engraver code.
> Though, as a proof of concept I implemented a possibility to select
> and skip NoteHeads which should not be considered for ending a Tie.
> See attachment.
> 
> I stumbled across a certain condition. In tie-column::add_tie there is
>  (> (car (ly:grob-spanned-column-rank-interval tie-column))
> (car (ly:grob-spanned-column-rank-interval tie-column)))
> How could this ever be true?
> 
> Cheers,
>  Harm


tie-engraver-02-skip.ly
Description: Binary data

Re: Ties between voices

[Aaron Hill]

On 2022-07-27 1:41 am, Thomas Morley wrote:

I stumbled across a certain condition. In tie-column::add_tie there is
  (> (car (ly:grob-spanned-column-rank-interval 
tie-column))
 (car (ly:grob-spanned-column-rank-interval 
tie-column)))

How could this ever be true?


Looks to be a transcription error.  The original C++ looks like this:


if (!me->get_bound (LEFT)
  || (me->get_bound (LEFT)->get_column ()->get_rank ()
  > tie->get_bound (LEFT)->get_column ()->get_rank ()))
{
  me->set_bound (LEFT, Tie::head (tie, LEFT));
  me->set_bound (RIGHT, Tie::head (tie, RIGHT));
}


The relevant conditional check is regarding the "me" grob versus the 
"tie" grob.



-- Aaron Hill

Re: Ties between voices

[Thomas Morley]

Am Di., 26. Juli 2022 um 11:48 Uhr schrieb Thomas Morley
:
>
> Am Sa., 23. Juli 2022 um 19:15 Uhr schrieb Jean Abou Samra 
> :
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 23/07/2022 à 12:49, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit :
> > >
> > > Hi Andrew,
> > >
> > > Am 23.07.22 um 03:49 schrieb Andrew Bernard:
> > >> I know that we can't natively make ties between notes in different
> > >> voices. I know that there was a Google Summer of Code task that could
> > >> not be completed.
> > >
> > > A few weeks ago, I sent you the following privately (I was too timid
> > > to post in on the list):
> > >
> > > My idea was to \consist the Tie_engraver to the Staff context not
> > > _instead_ of to the Voice context, but _in addition_. Then we have two
> > > Tie engravers and need a mechanism by which to tell if a given tie
> > > should be collected by the Voice-level Tie_engraver or at Staff level
> > > (in order to connect ties between different voices).
> > >
> > > During my experiments I re-implemented the Tie_engraver in Scheme;
> > > although it turned out that (contrary to my expectations) the
> > > necessary adjustments could just as easily have been made in C++, the
> > > advantage is that we can test this approach without the need to
> > > re-compile a custom LilyPond build.
> > >
> > > The attached file (requiring 2.23.6 and above) generates
> > >
> > >
> > > as easily as:
> > >
> > > \new Staff \with { \consists #New_tie_engraver }
> > > {
> > >   <<
> > > \relative {
> > >   4 c8 b a g~ 4
> > > }
> > > \\
> > > \relative {
> > >   s4 c'2 e4
> > > }
> > >   >>
> > > }
> > >
> > > Of course the same mechanism might be implemented for, e.g., the
> > > Slur_engraver. But this requires additional work, as the slur
> > > positioning mechanism is not quite up to positioning Staff-level slurs
> > > correctly.
> > >
> > > The attached Scheme Tie_engraver may be used as a drop-in replacement
> > > for the standard C++ Tie_engraver; in my local branch, it compiles the
> > > full regression test suite without causing differences.)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Interesting, Lukas! Now, this approach fails on cases where
> > ties are physically but not mentally interrupted, as pianists
> > sometimes encounter, like
> >
> > \version "2.23.10"
> >
> > \new Staff <<
> >\relative {
> >  <%{ tie this %} c' c'>2
> >  c'8 b a g
> >}
> >\\
> >\relative { s2 %{ to this %} c'4 g }
> >\\
> >\relative { g16 a c d e a g e f4 d }
> >  >>
> >
> > but this might be rare enough that not catering for it
> > would be good enough?
>
> To make it visible, Jean's example, with Lukas' coding reads:
>
> \new Staff \with { \consists #New_tie_engraver }
> <<
>\relative {
>  <%{ tie this %} c'\to Staff ~ c'>2
>  c'8 b a g
>}
>\\
>\relative { s2 %{ to this %} c'4 g }
>\\
>\relative { g16 a c d e a g e f4 d }
>  >>
>
> and gives the attached output.
>
> We probably need something like NoteColumn.tie-skip similar to 
> 'glissando-skip.
> Though, why not something more general like 'spanner-skip for all
> spanners (usually) terminated at following NoteColumn?
>
> @Lukas
> You use hash-tables in your rewrite of the engraver.
> Does the C++-engraver do so?
> From a users point of view hash-tables are always inconvenient, imho.
> Is the performance advantage really as huge not to use more simple alists?
>
> Many thanks for your work!
>
> Cheers,
>   Harm

@ Jean
I've got your last mail off-list. By accident?

@ Lukas
I have not yet understood all subtleties of your engraver code.
Though, as a proof of concept I implemented a possibility to select
and skip NoteHeads which should not be considered for ending a Tie.
See attachment.

I stumbled across a certain condition. In tie-column::add_tie there is
  (> (car (ly:grob-spanned-column-rank-interval tie-column))
 (car (ly:grob-spanned-column-rank-interval tie-column)))
How could this ever be true?

Cheers,
  Harm
%% https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2022-07/msg00353.html
%% by Lukas-Fabian Moser

%% Change-log Harm
%%   - drop support for guilev1
%%   - exclude NoteHeads with details.tie-me set to #f
%%   - move some definitions out of engraver
%%   - reformating

\version "2.23.9"

% TODO: Rename variables for clarity
% TODO: Turn re-implementations of C++ helper functions into exported callbacks

#(define (hash-non-empty? hash-table)
  (positive? (hash-count (const #t) hash-table)))

#(define (tie-column::add_tie tie-column tie)
;;; TODO: Make callback from C++
  (when (not (grob::has-interface (ly:grob-parent tie Y) 'tie-column-interface))
(when (or (null? (ly:spanner-bound tie-column LEFT))
  (> (car (ly:grob-spanned-column-rank-interval tie-column))
 ; THINK: is this exactly equivalent to the C++ original?
 (car (ly:grob-spanned-column-rank-interval tie-column
  (ly:spanner-set-bound! tie-column LEFT (ly:spanner-bound tie LEFT))
  

Re: Ties between voices

[Thomas Morley]

Am Sa., 23. Juli 2022 um 19:15 Uhr schrieb Jean Abou Samra :
>
>
>
> Le 23/07/2022 à 12:49, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Am 23.07.22 um 03:49 schrieb Andrew Bernard:
> >> I know that we can't natively make ties between notes in different
> >> voices. I know that there was a Google Summer of Code task that could
> >> not be completed.
> >
> > A few weeks ago, I sent you the following privately (I was too timid
> > to post in on the list):
> >
> > My idea was to \consist the Tie_engraver to the Staff context not
> > _instead_ of to the Voice context, but _in addition_. Then we have two
> > Tie engravers and need a mechanism by which to tell if a given tie
> > should be collected by the Voice-level Tie_engraver or at Staff level
> > (in order to connect ties between different voices).
> >
> > During my experiments I re-implemented the Tie_engraver in Scheme;
> > although it turned out that (contrary to my expectations) the
> > necessary adjustments could just as easily have been made in C++, the
> > advantage is that we can test this approach without the need to
> > re-compile a custom LilyPond build.
> >
> > The attached file (requiring 2.23.6 and above) generates
> >
> >
> > as easily as:
> >
> > \new Staff \with { \consists #New_tie_engraver }
> > {
> >   <<
> > \relative {
> >   4 c8 b a g~ 4
> > }
> > \\
> > \relative {
> >   s4 c'2 e4
> > }
> >   >>
> > }
> >
> > Of course the same mechanism might be implemented for, e.g., the
> > Slur_engraver. But this requires additional work, as the slur
> > positioning mechanism is not quite up to positioning Staff-level slurs
> > correctly.
> >
> > The attached Scheme Tie_engraver may be used as a drop-in replacement
> > for the standard C++ Tie_engraver; in my local branch, it compiles the
> > full regression test suite without causing differences.)
> >
>
>
>
> Interesting, Lukas! Now, this approach fails on cases where
> ties are physically but not mentally interrupted, as pianists
> sometimes encounter, like
>
> \version "2.23.10"
>
> \new Staff <<
>\relative {
>  <%{ tie this %} c' c'>2
>  c'8 b a g
>}
>\\
>\relative { s2 %{ to this %} c'4 g }
>\\
>\relative { g16 a c d e a g e f4 d }
>  >>
>
> but this might be rare enough that not catering for it
> would be good enough?

To make it visible, Jean's example, with Lukas' coding reads:

\new Staff \with { \consists #New_tie_engraver }
<<
   \relative {
 <%{ tie this %} c'\to Staff ~ c'>2
 c'8 b a g
   }
   \\
   \relative { s2 %{ to this %} c'4 g }
   \\
   \relative { g16 a c d e a g e f4 d }
 >>

and gives the attached output.

We probably need something like NoteColumn.tie-skip similar to 'glissando-skip.
Though, why not something more general like 'spanner-skip for all
spanners (usually) terminated at following NoteColumn?

@Lukas
You use hash-tables in your rewrite of the engraver.
Does the C++-engraver do so?
>From a users point of view hash-tables are always inconvenient, imho.
Is the performance advantage really as huge not to use more simple alists?

Many thanks for your work!

Cheers,
  Harm

Re: Ties between voices

[William Rehwinkel]

Andrew, did you get a chance to try Lukas-Fabian's extension yet? Was it 
working for you or were there something wrong?


-William

On 7/23/22 18:03, Andrew Bernard wrote:
Gosh. There's no 'smell'. In piano music that has polyphony it is very 
common, and indeed necessary  to tie across voices. Dorico enables it 
with ease (and if it did not make sense, I can assure you Dorico which 
is heavily rule bound would not allow it). Lilypond cannot do it 
natively. This is well known. Same with slurs, but that is not the 
present topic. We are not talking about singing, and 'voices' in this 
context does not relate to the human voice. Perhaps you are conflating 
sung voices with voices in polyphony for keyboards.


I'll find a few examples to post later on to illustrate.

This has been a long standing limitation with LilyPond, not something 
that I have suddenly cooked up. I encounter this extensively in the 
modernist music I set, but I am doing the JSB WTC at the moment and 
even he does it quite a lot, especially in the four and five part works.


Andrew

On 24/07/2022 3:27 am, Stephan Schöll wrote:

But from time to time I encounter things that don't make sense to me
from a semantical perspective. Ties across voices is such a thing. How
would that make sense? Yes, there has been a master in the past who did
it, but nevertheless, it has (in developer speak) has a smell. Should I
omit or correct that in my score? After all ties describe the
relationship between two or several notes within a voice (i.e. that can
be sung).




--
William Rehwinkel

will...@williamrehwinkel.net
https://williamrehwinkel.net

Re: Ties between voices

[Andrew Bernard]

Gosh. There's no 'smell'. In piano music that has polyphony it is very 
common, and indeed necessary  to tie across voices. Dorico enables it 
with ease (and if it did not make sense, I can assure you Dorico which 
is heavily rule bound would not allow it). Lilypond cannot do it 
natively. This is well known. Same with slurs, but that is not the 
present topic. We are not talking about singing, and 'voices' in this 
context does not relate to the human voice. Perhaps you are conflating 
sung voices with voices in polyphony for keyboards.


I'll find a few examples to post later on to illustrate.

This has been a long standing limitation with LilyPond, not something 
that I have suddenly cooked up. I encounter this extensively in the 
modernist music I set, but I am doing the JSB WTC at the moment and even 
he does it quite a lot, especially in the four and five part works.


Andrew

On 24/07/2022 3:27 am, Stephan Schöll wrote:

But from time to time I encounter things that don't make sense to me
from a semantical perspective. Ties across voices is such a thing. How
would that make sense? Yes, there has been a master in the past who did
it, but nevertheless, it has (in developer speak) has a smell. Should I
omit or correct that in my score? After all ties describe the
relationship between two or several notes within a voice (i.e. that can
be sung).

Re: Ties between voices

[William Rehwinkel]

This is a good question, Stephan. I think it can be explained that when 
talking about keyboard music, even though there are abstract ideas of 
things like melody from playing one note after the previous, and other 
things such as chords, engraving techniques such as including many 
noteheads on one stem to form a chord can be considered a shorthand for 
representing different notes (voices?) that have the same start and end 
point. Furthermore, splitting a single-stem chord into an upper-stem 
group of notes and lower-stem group of notes is simply a shorthand...you 
could imagine writing each note separately (as with new German organ 
tablature for example), in which case this would not be a problem. For 
keyboard music, I don't think this is too objectionable, however this 
would of course not be acceptable for closed score choral music or other 
situations where distinct instruments are represented by different 
voices on one line.


Speaking of tie-ing notes "between voices" is a bit of a 
misrepresentation, it's referring to the way that lilypond writes 
multiple polyphonic notes on the same staff using different voices.


This thinking doesn't apply to other things like Chopin piano works with 
slurs across voices but I think those can be thought of more 
practically, to hold the first note long enough that it sounds legato 
with the last.


-William

On 7/23/22 13:27, Stephan Schöll wrote:

Hi all

I'm neither a professional engraver nor composer. But I've already tried
to copy scores for my own use.

That's where I got in touch with many "creative" engraving situations.
One might ask how one could engrave something a manual engraver did 100
years ago. And then we have this fantastic list that comes up with ideas
solutions.

But from time to time I encounter things that don't make sense to me
from a semantical perspective. Ties across voices is such a thing. How
would that make sense? Yes, there has been a master in the past who did
it, but nevertheless, it has (in developer speak) has a smell. Should I
omit or correct that in my score? After all ties describe the
relationship between two or several notes within a voice (i.e. that can
be sung).

Just my philosophical 2 cents ;-)

Best regards

Stephan

Am 23.07.2022 um 08:04 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:

Le 23/07/2022 à 03:49, Andrew Bernard a écrit :

I know that we can't natively make ties between notes in different
voices. I know that there was a Google Summer of Code task that could
not be completed.

This is such a critical feature for keyboard music. When there are
hundreds of such ties in major pieces, it is just too tedious to do
all the workarounds with hidden notes and voices. I'm sorry to say
that I have switched to Dorico because of this significant
shortcoming, after having been a Lilypond user for a decade or more.

So, my question is this. Is the codebase just painted into a corner
that can't be gotten out of in this area due to architectural design
decisions?



I don't think so, but it's definitely not a trivial
problem either, and requires new design.



Are there any plans at all to develop this functionality in the
forseeable future?



Did you see this recent discussion?

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-05/msg00175.html

It's not possible to answer your question, as most
plans to develop functionality are a private decision
of a particular contributor that are not public until
(perhaps a few days before) a patch is submitted.

Best,
Jean





--
William Rehwinkel

will...@williamrehwinkel.net
https://williamrehwinkel.net

Re: Ties between voices

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 23/07/2022 à 19:14, Jean Abou Samra a écrit :

to =
#(define-music-function (ctx mus) (symbol? ly:music?)
   (make-music 'ContextExclusiveMusic 'target ctx 'element mus))



P.S. With some parser fiddling (and at the cost of making \to a
reserved identifier), it should be possible to give \to a
syntax like that of \new and \context.

\to Staff ~
\to StaffGroup = "outer" \startHighlight

Re: Ties between voices

[Stephan Schöll]

Hi all

I'm neither a professional engraver nor composer. But I've already tried
to copy scores for my own use.

That's where I got in touch with many "creative" engraving situations.
One might ask how one could engrave something a manual engraver did 100
years ago. And then we have this fantastic list that comes up with ideas
solutions.

But from time to time I encounter things that don't make sense to me
from a semantical perspective. Ties across voices is such a thing. How
would that make sense? Yes, there has been a master in the past who did
it, but nevertheless, it has (in developer speak) has a smell. Should I
omit or correct that in my score? After all ties describe the
relationship between two or several notes within a voice (i.e. that can
be sung).

Just my philosophical 2 cents ;-)

Best regards

Stephan

Am 23.07.2022 um 08:04 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:

Le 23/07/2022 à 03:49, Andrew Bernard a écrit :

I know that we can't natively make ties between notes in different
voices. I know that there was a Google Summer of Code task that could
not be completed.

This is such a critical feature for keyboard music. When there are
hundreds of such ties in major pieces, it is just too tedious to do
all the workarounds with hidden notes and voices. I'm sorry to say
that I have switched to Dorico because of this significant
shortcoming, after having been a Lilypond user for a decade or more.

So, my question is this. Is the codebase just painted into a corner
that can't be gotten out of in this area due to architectural design
decisions?



I don't think so, but it's definitely not a trivial
problem either, and requires new design.



Are there any plans at all to develop this functionality in the
forseeable future?



Did you see this recent discussion?

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-05/msg00175.html

It's not possible to answer your question, as most
plans to develop functionality are a private decision
of a particular contributor that are not public until
(perhaps a few days before) a patch is submitted.

Best,
Jean

Re: Ties between voices

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 23/07/2022 à 12:49, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit :


Hi Andrew,

Am 23.07.22 um 03:49 schrieb Andrew Bernard:
I know that we can't natively make ties between notes in different 
voices. I know that there was a Google Summer of Code task that could 
not be completed.


A few weeks ago, I sent you the following privately (I was too timid 
to post in on the list):


My idea was to \consist the Tie_engraver to the Staff context not 
_instead_ of to the Voice context, but _in addition_. Then we have two 
Tie engravers and need a mechanism by which to tell if a given tie 
should be collected by the Voice-level Tie_engraver or at Staff level 
(in order to connect ties between different voices).


During my experiments I re-implemented the Tie_engraver in Scheme; 
although it turned out that (contrary to my expectations) the 
necessary adjustments could just as easily have been made in C++, the 
advantage is that we can test this approach without the need to 
re-compile a custom LilyPond build.


The attached file (requiring 2.23.6 and above) generates


as easily as:

\new Staff \with { \consists #New_tie_engraver }
{
  <<
    \relative {
  4 c8 b a g~ 4
    }
    \\
    \relative {
  s4 c'2 e4
    }
  >>
}

Of course the same mechanism might be implemented for, e.g., the 
Slur_engraver. But this requires additional work, as the slur 
positioning mechanism is not quite up to positioning Staff-level slurs 
correctly.


The attached Scheme Tie_engraver may be used as a drop-in replacement 
for the standard C++ Tie_engraver; in my local branch, it compiles the 
full regression test suite without causing differences.)






Interesting, Lukas! Now, this approach fails on cases where
ties are physically but not mentally interrupted, as pianists
sometimes encounter, like

\version "2.23.10"

\new Staff <<
  \relative {
    <%{ tie this %} c' c'>2
    c'8 b a g
  }
  \\
  \relative { s2 %{ to this %} c'4 g }
  \\
  \relative { g16 a c d e a g e f4 d }
>>

but this might be rare enough that not catering for it
would be good enough?

Amusingly, I was thinking about pretty much the same concept
yesterday, but in a completely different context and without
cross-staff spanners in mind. I was musing about contributing
a "highlight" feature to colorize a music passage, and how
highlighting different contexts, like a full StaffGroup
or just a Staff, would be handled internally. I thought
that the engraver could refrain from handling an event
if it detected that context the event wanted to highlight
(stored in an event property) was not matching the engraver's
context, but I wondered if it could be more general, which
leads to thinking about your \to command being implemented
as

to =
#(define-music-function (ctx mus) (symbol? ly:music?)
   (make-music 'ContextExclusiveMusic 'target ctx 'element mus))

where ContextExclusiveMusic would be recognized by
Music_iterator::report_event (see find_above_by_music_type)
to make any event within ContextExclusiveMusic only
broadcast in engravers of the context addressed by \to.

Just in case that helps you further your idea ...

Cheers,
Jean

Re: Ties between voices

[William Rehwinkel]

I second Kieren's sentiment, thanks for this extension Lukas-Fabian. 
I'll remember this extension if the need for it pops up!


-William
On 7/23/22 06:49, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:


Hi Andrew,

Am 23.07.22 um 03:49 schrieb Andrew Bernard:
I know that we can't natively make ties between notes in different 
voices. I know that there was a Google Summer of Code task that could 
not be completed.


A few weeks ago, I sent you the following privately (I was too timid 
to post in on the list):


My idea was to \consist the Tie_engraver to the Staff context not 
_instead_ of to the Voice context, but _in addition_. Then we have two 
Tie engravers and need a mechanism by which to tell if a given tie 
should be collected by the Voice-level Tie_engraver or at Staff level 
(in order to connect ties between different voices).


During my experiments I re-implemented the Tie_engraver in Scheme; 
although it turned out that (contrary to my expectations) the 
necessary adjustments could just as easily have been made in C++, the 
advantage is that we can test this approach without the need to 
re-compile a custom LilyPond build.


The attached file (requiring 2.23.6 and above) generates

as easily as:

\new Staff \with { \consists #New_tie_engraver }
{
  <<
    \relative {
  4 c8 b a g~ 4
    }
    \\
    \relative {
  s4 c'2 e4
    }
  >>
}

Of course the same mechanism might be implemented for, e.g., the 
Slur_engraver. But this requires additional work, as the slur 
positioning mechanism is not quite up to positioning Staff-level slurs 
correctly.


The attached Scheme Tie_engraver may be used as a drop-in replacement 
for the standard C++ Tie_engraver; in my local branch, it compiles the 
full regression test suite without causing differences.)


Lukas


--
William Rehwinkel

will...@williamrehwinkel.net
https://williamrehwinkel.net

Re: Ties between voices

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Lukas!

As someone who writes/engraves a LOT of keyboard music: THANK YOU!!
Excited that there might even be a Slur version in the [near] future.

Best,
Kieren.

Re: Ties between voices

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Hi Andrew,

Am 23.07.22 um 03:49 schrieb Andrew Bernard:
I know that we can't natively make ties between notes in different 
voices. I know that there was a Google Summer of Code task that could 
not be completed.


A few weeks ago, I sent you the following privately (I was too timid to 
post in on the list):


My idea was to \consist the Tie_engraver to the Staff context not 
_instead_ of to the Voice context, but _in addition_. Then we have two 
Tie engravers and need a mechanism by which to tell if a given tie 
should be collected by the Voice-level Tie_engraver or at Staff level 
(in order to connect ties between different voices).


During my experiments I re-implemented the Tie_engraver in Scheme; 
although it turned out that (contrary to my expectations) the necessary 
adjustments could just as easily have been made in C++, the advantage is 
that we can test this approach without the need to re-compile a custom 
LilyPond build.


The attached file (requiring 2.23.6 and above) generates

as easily as:

\new Staff \with { \consists #New_tie_engraver }
{
  <<
    \relative {
  4 c8 b a g~ 4
    }
    \\
    \relative {
  s4 c'2 e4
    }
  >>
}

Of course the same mechanism might be implemented for, e.g., the 
Slur_engraver. But this requires additional work, as the slur 
positioning mechanism is not quite up to positioning Staff-level slurs 
correctly.


The attached Scheme Tie_engraver may be used as a drop-in replacement 
for the standard C++ Tie_engraver; in my local branch, it compiles the 
full regression test suite without causing differences.)


Lukas
\version "2.23.6"

% TODO: Rename variables for clarity
% TODO: Turn re-implementations of C++ helper functions into exported callbacks

% Not in guile core for 1.8 (remove for Guile2)
#(define (hash-count pred table)
   (count identity (hash-map->list pred table)))

#
(define (hash-non-empty? hash-table)
  ;; For Guile2, simplfy to
  ;; (positive? (hash-count (const #t) hash-table)))
  (pair? (hash-map->list (lambda (key handle) '()) hash-table)))

#
(define (tie-column::add_tie tie-column tie)
;;; TODO: Make callback from C++
  (if (not (grob::has-interface (ly:grob-parent tie Y) 'tie-column-interface))
  (begin
   (if
(or (null? (ly:spanner-bound tie-column LEFT))
(> (car (ly:grob-spanned-column-rank-interval tie-column))
   ; THINK: is this exactly equivalent to the C++ original?
   (car (ly:grob-spanned-column-rank-interval tie-column
(begin
 (ly:spanner-set-bound! tie-column LEFT (ly:spanner-bound tie LEFT))
 (ly:spanner-set-bound! tie-column RIGHT (ly:spanner-bound tie RIGHT

   (ly:grob-set-parent! tie Y tie-column)
   (ly:pointer-group-interface::add-grob tie-column 'ties tie

%{
head-event-alist has the fields:
   '((end-moment . #f)
 (tie-stream-event . #f)
 (tie-articulation-event . #f)
 (tie-from-chord-created . #f)
 (tie . #f)
   )
%}

#
(define (ly:enharmonic-equivalent? p1 p2)
  (= (ly:pitch-tones p1) (ly:pitch-tones p2)))

#
(define (ly:tie::head tie dir)
  (let ((it (ly:spanner-bound tie dir)))
(if (grob::has-interface it 'note-head-interface)
it #f)))

#
(define-public (New_tie_engraver context)
  (define (report-unterminated-tie notehead alist)
;; give notehead argument in order to simplify use of
;; report-unterminated-tie as a proc in hash-for-each
(if (not (assq-ref alist 'tie-from-chord-created))
(begin
 (ly:warning (G_ "unterminated tie")) ; TODO: Warn with source position
 (ly:grob-suicide! (assq-ref alist 'tie)
  (let
   ((event-processed #f)
(tie-stream-event #f)   ; corresponds to event_ in C++
(tie-column #f)
(now-heads '())
(heads-to-tie (make-hash-table))
(ties '())
(target (ly:context-name context)))

   (define (typeset-tie her)
 ;; this seems not to change anything for "her" if both bounds
 ;; are note heads ???
 (let ((left-head (ly:tie::head her LEFT))
   (right-head (ly:tie::head her RIGHT)))

   (if (not (and left-head right-head))
   (begin
(ly:warning "lonely tie")
(if (not left-head)
(set! left-head right-head)
(set! right-head left-head
   (ly:spanner-set-bound! her LEFT left-head)
   (ly:spanner-set-bound! her RIGHT right-head)))

   (define (tie-notehead engraver head enharmonic?)
 (let ((found #f))
   (hash-for-each
(lambda (registered-head alist)
  (let*
   ((right-ev (event-cause head))
(left-head registered-head)
(left-ev (event-cause left-head)))
   (if (and (not found) left-ev right-ev)
   (let ((p1 (ly:event-property left-ev 'pitch))
 (p2 (ly:event-property right-ev 'pitch)))
 (if (and
  ((if enharmonic? ly:enharmonic-equivalent? equal?) p1 p2)
  ;; Do not 

Re: Ties between voices

[Andrew Bernard]

I was just asking. It is possible to do open source to an agreed 
roadmap, but that's not how it is for LilyPond, so now I know.



On 23/07/2022 4:42 pm, Jean Abou Samra wrote:

Le 23/07/2022 à 08:11, Andrew Bernard a écrit :
I thought there may be a roadmap that contributors create? Or is 
current development just more or less ad hoc?



Like most community-driven free software projects, LilyPond is
developed as a hobby by contributors who do that each for their
own reasons, as a loosely assembled team of people all around the
world. There is no manager. There isn't, can't be and shouldn't
be a precise roadmap. Each person works on what they have the
motivation for at a given point of time.

For large projects, it's often a good idea to discuss proposals
on the mailing list, but this is more to get approval and discuss
the big picture of a plan than anything else. Implementing the plan
remains contingent on the contributor who proposes it.

This is not a description of LilyPond's current development, but
of how LilyPond's and many software projects' development has
always worked. Would you imagine a roadmap for openLilyLib, for
example? You can't imagine what contributors are going to come
up with, and if you put a feature on your roadmap, is there
a way to get it implemented other than doing it yourself?

Best,
Jean

Re: Ties between voices

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 23/07/2022 à 08:11, Andrew Bernard a écrit :
I thought there may be a roadmap that contributors create? Or is 
current development just more or less ad hoc?



Like most community-driven free software projects, LilyPond is
developed as a hobby by contributors who do that each for their
own reasons, as a loosely assembled team of people all around the
world. There is no manager. There isn't, can't be and shouldn't
be a precise roadmap. Each person works on what they have the
motivation for at a given point of time.

For large projects, it's often a good idea to discuss proposals
on the mailing list, but this is more to get approval and discuss
the big picture of a plan than anything else. Implementing the plan
remains contingent on the contributor who proposes it.

This is not a description of LilyPond's current development, but
of how LilyPond's and many software projects' development has
always worked. Would you imagine a roadmap for openLilyLib, for
example? You can't imagine what contributors are going to come
up with, and if you put a feature on your roadmap, is there
a way to get it implemented other than doing it yourself?

Best,
Jean

Re: Ties between voices

[Andrew Bernard]

I thought there may be a roadmap that contributors create? Or is current 
development just more or less ad hoc?


I am aware that it is currently a difficult problem, as I said.


On 23/07/2022 4:04 pm, Jean Abou Samra wrote:


It's not possible to answer your question, as most
plans to develop functionality are a private decision
of a particular contributor that are not public until
(perhaps a few days before) a patch is submitted.

Re: Ties between voices

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 23/07/2022 à 03:49, Andrew Bernard a écrit :
I know that we can't natively make ties between notes in different 
voices. I know that there was a Google Summer of Code task that could 
not be completed.


This is such a critical feature for keyboard music. When there are 
hundreds of such ties in major pieces, it is just too tedious to do 
all the workarounds with hidden notes and voices. I'm sorry to say 
that I have switched to Dorico because of this significant 
shortcoming, after having been a Lilypond user for a decade or more.


So, my question is this. Is the codebase just painted into a corner 
that can't be gotten out of in this area due to architectural design 
decisions?



I don't think so, but it's definitely not a trivial
problem either, and requires new design.


Are there any plans at all to develop this functionality in the 
forseeable future?



Did you see this recent discussion?

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-05/msg00175.html

It's not possible to answer your question, as most
plans to develop functionality are a private decision
of a particular contributor that are not public until
(perhaps a few days before) a patch is submitted.

Best,
Jean

Re: Ties between voices

[William Rehwinkel]

Hey Andrew, this might not help but did you try the technique in this 
snippet? 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2012-03/msg00663.html


Just found this while looking around for people discussing slurs across 
voices previously.



(pasted from url incase website is dead)

 Snippet

\version "2.15.33" % also works with 2.23.10

\score {
  \new Staff {
    \time 2/4
    <<
  \new Voice {
    \relative c'' {
  \voiceOne
  d16( c8. a16( g8.
    }
  }
  \new Voice {
    \relative c'' {
  \voiceTwo
  g8 g') c,,8 c'8)
    }
  }
    >>
  }
  \layout {
    \context {
  \Voice
  \remove "Slur_engraver"
  \remove "Slur_performer"
    }
    \context {
  \Staff
  \consists "Slur_engraver"
  \consists "Slur_performer"
    }
  }
}

 End of snippet

-William

On 7/22/22 21:49, Andrew Bernard wrote:
I know that we can't natively make ties between notes in different 
voices. I know that there was a Google Summer of Code task that could 
not be completed.


This is such a critical feature for keyboard music. When there are 
hundreds of such ties in major pieces, it is just too tedious to do 
all the workarounds with hidden notes and voices. I'm sorry to say 
that I have switched to Dorico because of this significant 
shortcoming, after having been a Lilypond user for a decade or more.


So, my question is this. Is the codebase just painted into a corner 
that can't be gotten out of in this area due to architectural design 
decisions? Are there any plans at all to develop this functionality in 
the forseeable future?


Andrew




--
William Rehwinkel

will...@williamrehwinkel.net
https://williamrehwinkel.net

Re: Ties between voices

[Andrew Bernard]

Complete coincidence.

Andrew

Kevin Cole wrote on 4/06/2022 4:28 AM:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 2:10 PM Andrew Bernard 
mailto:andrew.bern...@mailbox.org>> wrote:


I've been away from LilyPond for a long time. Can we now make ties
and
or/slurs between notes in different voices? I can't seem to find any
documentation on this.


Was this prompted by my thread from 21 hours ago?
Or did you just coincidentally find a need to do the same thing?
(Or am I completely misunderstanding your question? Probably the most 
likely answer.)

Re: Ties between voices

[Andrew Bernard]

Thanks Jean, I recall this now. A pity this hit a brick wall. In my 
scores I need it a lot. Dorico does it with ease, so I am going to have 
to go back to that. Sigh.


Jean Abou Samra wrote on 4/06/2022 5:49 AM:

See the recent thread

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-05/msg00175.html

Re: Ties between voices

[Jean Abou Samra]

> Le 3 juin 2022 à 20:09, Andrew Bernard  a écrit :
> 
> I've been away from LilyPond for a long time. Can we now make ties and 
> or/slurs between notes in different voices? I can't seem to find any 
> documentation on this.


See the recent thread

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-05/msg00175.html

Jean

Re: ties between voices

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Hi Carl,
I think you misunderstood.  The \voices command does not let slurs go 
across voices.  Rather, it allows existing voices to go into the << \\ 
>> polyphony expression.


Previously (and still, if you don't use the \voices command), << \\ >> 
created two temporary voices, neither one related to the 
voice containing the << \\ >> construct.  With the \voices command 
(strictly speaking it's a music function, IIUC), the voices within the 
<< \\ >> construct can be specified, such that the slurs/ties/etc. go 
between entities in the same voice, rather than trying to go between 
entities in different voices.


It might be worth pointing out that it has always been possible to let 
existing voices continue into a polyphonic section by working without 
the double backslash \\.


So, you can always write

\fixed c' {
   << { \voiceOne f8) b~ } \new Voice { \voiceTwo d4 } >> 4 


}

at the price of having to state \voiceOne etc. manually.

Of course you know this, but it's my impression that beginners often are 
not aware that it's possible to use << >> (inside a staff) without \\, 
so I thought I'd mention it.


(Of course, the tricky part begins as soon as _both_ voices of a << >> 
construct are to be "connected" via ties/slurs to the surrounding 
homophonic music, but that doesn't change with \voices either.)


Lukas

Re: ties between voices

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Hi Mark,
Here you go:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/learning/i_0027m-hearing-voices#index-voices-and-stem-directions
I could not find the discussion David's referring to.
Cheers,
Pierre

Le mer. 1 juil. 2020 à 03:59, Mark Stephen Mrotek  a
écrit :

> David,
>
> Would you, or someone else, direct me to "\voices" in the manual.
> I might be using incorrect search terms.
> Thank you,
>
> Mark
>
> -Original Message-
> From: lilypond-user
> [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of
> David Zelinsky
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 6:23 PM
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: ties between voices
>
> David Zelinsky  writes:
>
> > I've done some reasonably complicated things in Lilypond, but still
> > have lots to learn.  My current conundrum is to typeset the attached
> snippet.
> > I can't figure out how to get the tie between the G's, without
> > breaking the double stops in the first measure into two separate
> > voices, and so breaking their stems.  Can someone show me how to do this?
>
> Thanks to everone for all the responses!  I now have at 3 or 4 different
> ways to do this!
>
> I had seen "\voices" in the manual, but it did not say anything about
> continuing phrasing or dynamics across voices.  I fact it said it can't be
> done.  But after seeing people's responses, I looked further and found
> where
> it explained this feature.  So there seems to be an inconsistency in the
> manual.  What's the best way to go about reporting/fixing this?
>
> -David
>
>
>

RE: ties between voices

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

David,

Thank you.

Mark

-Original Message-
From: lilypond-user
[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of
David Zelinsky
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 7:32 PM
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: ties between voices

"Mark Stephen Mrotek"  writes:

> David Zelinsky  writes:
>
>> I had seen "\voices" in the manual, but it did not say anything about 
>> continuing phrasing or dynamics across voices.  I fact it said it 
>> can't be done.  But after seeing people's responses, I looked further 
>> and found where it explained this feature.  So there seems to be an 
>> inconsistency in the manual.  What's the best way to go about
reporting/fixing this?
> 
> Would you, or someone else, direct me to "\voices" in the manual.
> I might be using incorrect search terms.
> Thank you,
>
> Mark

Here's where it says "Lyrics and spanners (such as slurs, ties, hairpins,
etc.) cannot be created *across* voices.":

 
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/multiple-voices#index-_
005cvoices

And here's where it says they can:

 
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/available-music-functio
ns

(Scroll down to "\voices".)


-David

Re: ties between voices

[Carl Sorensen]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 8:32 PM David Zelinsky  wrote:

>
> Here's where it says "Lyrics and spanners (such as slurs, ties,
> hairpins, etc.) cannot be created *across* voices.":
>
>
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/multiple-voices#index-_005cvoices
>
> And here's where it says they can:
>
>
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/available-music-functions
>
> (Scroll down to "\voices".)
>
>

David,

I think you misunderstood.  The \voices command does not let slurs go
across voices.  Rather, it allows existing voices to go into the << \\ >>
polyphony expression.

Previously (and still, if you don't use the \voices command), << \\ >>
created two temporary voices, neither one related to the voice containing
the << \\ >> construct.  With the \voices command (strictly speaking it's a
music function, IIUC), the voices within the << \\ >> construct can be
specified, such that the slurs/ties/etc. go between entities in the same
voice, rather than trying to go between entities in different voices.

HTH,

Carl



> -David
>

Re: ties between voices

[David Zelinsky]

"Mark Stephen Mrotek"  writes:

> David Zelinsky  writes:
>
>> I had seen "\voices" in the manual, but it did not say anything about
>> continuing phrasing or dynamics across voices.  I fact it said it can't be
>> done.  But after seeing people's responses, I looked further and found where
>> it explained this feature.  So there seems to be an inconsistency in the
>> manual.  What's the best way to go about reporting/fixing this?
> 
> Would you, or someone else, direct me to "\voices" in the manual.
> I might be using incorrect search terms.
> Thank you,
>
> Mark

Here's where it says "Lyrics and spanners (such as slurs, ties,
hairpins, etc.) cannot be created *across* voices.":

  
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/multiple-voices#index-_005cvoices

And here's where it says they can:

  http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/available-music-functions

(Scroll down to "\voices".)


-David

RE: ties between voices

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

David,

Would you, or someone else, direct me to "\voices" in the manual.
I might be using incorrect search terms.
Thank you,

Mark

-Original Message-
From: lilypond-user
[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of
David Zelinsky
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 6:23 PM
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: ties between voices

David Zelinsky  writes:

> I've done some reasonably complicated things in Lilypond, but still 
> have lots to learn.  My current conundrum is to typeset the attached
snippet.
> I can't figure out how to get the tie between the G's, without 
> breaking the double stops in the first measure into two separate 
> voices, and so breaking their stems.  Can someone show me how to do this?

Thanks to everone for all the responses!  I now have at 3 or 4 different
ways to do this!

I had seen "\voices" in the manual, but it did not say anything about
continuing phrasing or dynamics across voices.  I fact it said it can't be
done.  But after seeing people's responses, I looked further and found where
it explained this feature.  So there seems to be an inconsistency in the
manual.  What's the best way to go about reporting/fixing this?

-David

Re: ties between voices

[David Zelinsky]

David Zelinsky  writes:

> I've done some reasonably complicated things in Lilypond, but still have
> lots to learn.  My current conundrum is to typeset the attached snippet.
> I can't figure out how to get the tie between the G's, without breaking
> the double stops in the first measure into two separate voices, and so
> breaking their stems.  Can someone show me how to do this?

Thanks to everone for all the responses!  I now have at 3 or 4 different
ways to do this!

I had seen "\voices" in the manual, but it did not say anything about
continuing phrasing or dynamics across voices.  I fact it said it can't
be done.  But after seeing people's responses, I looked further and
found where it explained this feature.  So there seems to be an
inconsistency in the manual.  What's the best way to go about
reporting/fixing this?

-David

Re: ties between voices

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen  writes:

> David,
>
> This notation will greatly simplify some of the choral music I set in
> the past year.   I forgot about the discussion on the lists, and so
> didn't use it even though it was available.  Thanks for making it work
>
> Aaron,
>
> I think this is a useful enough wrapper that it should be in the NR
> (and/or the LM).  I would most likely use it just in sa or tb, since
> those are the voices that usually share a staff.  This notation might
> actually reduce my use of \partcombine.  I'll have to try it out.

My personal experience is that \partcombine is mainly useful for piano
extracts (or to some degree partitura mashing): boiling down material
without much of a view for voice relations.  For choral music (and even
polyphonic piano music) I tend to prefer fixed voice relations.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: ties between voices

[Carl Sorensen]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:44 PM David Kastrup  wrote:
>
> Aaron Hill  writes:
>
> > On 2020-06-29 2:17 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> \voices 1,3,4,2 << \soprano \\ \alto \\ \tenor \\ \bass >>
> >> which is ugly enough as it is [...]
> >
> > Does not seem that ugly to me, but I suppose one could encapsulate it
> > via the ever-handy \etc:
> >
> > 
> > \version "2.20.0"
> >
> > soprano = { c''4 }
> > alto = { a'4 }
> > tenor = { fis'4 }
> > bass = { d'4 }
> >
> > satb = \voices 1,3,4,2 \etc
> >
> > \satb << \soprano \\ \alto \\ \tenor \\ \bass >>
> > 
>
> Cute.  I mean, for SATB one would likely use explicit voices anyway, but
> it's a nice shortcutlery nevertheless.
>

David,

This notation will greatly simplify some of the choral music I set in
the past year.   I forgot about the discussion on the lists, and so
didn't use it even though it was available.  Thanks for making it work

Aaron,

I think this is a useful enough wrapper that it should be in the NR
(and/or the LM).  I would most likely use it just in sa or tb, since
those are the voices that usually share a staff.  This notation might
actually reduce my use of \partcombine.  I'll have to try it out.

Thanks!

Carl

Re: ties between voices

[David Kastrup]

Aaron Hill  writes:

> On 2020-06-29 2:17 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
>> \voices 1,3,4,2 << \soprano \\ \alto \\ \tenor \\ \bass >>
>> which is ugly enough as it is [...]
>
> Does not seem that ugly to me, but I suppose one could encapsulate it
> via the ever-handy \etc:
>
> 
> \version "2.20.0"
>
> soprano = { c''4 }
> alto = { a'4 }
> tenor = { fis'4 }
> bass = { d'4 }
>
> satb = \voices 1,3,4,2 \etc
>
> \satb << \soprano \\ \alto \\ \tenor \\ \bass >>
> 

Cute.  I mean, for SATB one would likely use explicit voices anyway, but
it's a nice shortcutlery nevertheless.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: ties between voices

[Aaron Hill]

On 2020-06-29 2:17 pm, David Kastrup wrote:

\voices 1,3,4,2 << \soprano \\ \alto \\ \tenor \\ \bass >>

which is ugly enough as it is [...]


Does not seem that ugly to me, but I suppose one could encapsulate it 
via the ever-handy \etc:



\version "2.20.0"

soprano = { c''4 }
alto = { a'4 }
tenor = { fis'4 }
bass = { d'4 }

satb = \voices 1,3,4,2 \etc

\satb << \soprano \\ \alto \\ \tenor \\ \bass >>



-- Aaron Hill

Re: ties between voices

[David Kastrup]

Pierre Perol-Schneider  writes:

> Le lun. 29 juin 2020 à 22:31, David Kastrup  a écrit :
>
>>
>> Just keep most stuff in the main voice, like
>>
> ...
>
>> \voices "main", 2 << { g4 f\) } \\ a,2 >>
>
> ...
> WTF???
> 'just discovered that \voices is in the 2.20 learning manual...
> One word: bravo.

The actual commits are not all that much material:


commit 4244c3a9fbf1f3ff2e20e665f92516d35b61de53
Author: David Kastrup 
Date:   Mon Apr 3 00:25:10 2017 +0200

Issue 5114/4: Document \voices

 Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely  | 65 
++---
 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely | 22 ++
 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

commit 93be41a1622bc33a01719d1d75af3dca40d75354
Author: David Kastrup 
Date:   Sun Apr 2 17:52:28 2017 +0200

Issue 5114/3: Add regtest for \voices

 input/regression/voices-command.ly | 19 +++
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

commit 40dc095e51ecfe198b9209e2a1612d44325a4bfb
Author: David Kastrup 
Date:   Sat Apr 1 13:25:57 2017 +0200

Issue 5114/2: Add a \voices command

 ly/music-functions-init.ly | 22 ++
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)

commit 13165dec9fb20fdeef2612b0d0c8276584cc9d15
Author: David Kastrup 
Date:   Sat Apr 1 11:52:10 2017 +0200

Issue 5114/1: Let voicify-music receive an optional id list

 scm/music-functions.scm | 90 
+-
 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)


Of course, there is considerable groundwork to make this a reasonably
simple addition of a music function, and there were a lot of discussions
on the mailing list.  The principal shortcoming that this feature was
supposed to address is the ability to specify more than 2 voices in
top-down manner, and that basically now means

\voices 1,3,4,2 << \soprano \\ \alto \\ \tenor \\ \bass >>

which is ugly enough as it is but better than the previous

<< \soprano \\ \bass \\ \alto \\ \tenor >>

particularly because the latter makes even more of a mess of \relative
mode than you already have.  And we couldn't agree on changing the
numbering used for << ...\\...\\... ...>>, so making it easy to override
it seemed like the next best thing.

I like the results well enough that I advertise their use where I feel
they make sense.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: ties between voices

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Le lun. 29 juin 2020 à 22:31, David Kastrup  a écrit :

>
> Just keep most stuff in the main voice, like
>
...

> \voices "main", 2 << { g4 f\) } \\ a,2 >>

...
WTF???
'just discovered that \voices is in the 2.20 learning manual...
One word: bravo.
Cheers,
Pierre

Re: ties between voices

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Sorry, forgot the list...

Lukas-Fabian Moser  schrieb am Mo., 29. Juni 2020, 22:08:

> Hi David,
>
> I can't figure out how to get the tie between the G's, without breaking
>> the double stops in the first measure into two separate voices, and so
>> breaking their stems.  Can someone show me how to do this?
>>
>
> \version "2.20"
>
> \relative {
>   \key g \major
>   \omit Staff.TimeSignature
>   8.( 16) 2^( 4~
>   \voices "",2 << { g f) } \\ a,2 >> c4( d)
> }
>
> [image: grafik.png]
>
>
>
>> It may be debatable whether it should be notated this way.  I think it
>> should.  (It's from the Glière cello duos, op. 53.)  But my question is
>> how to do it, assuming this is desired result.
>>
>
> No, I'd say this is a perfectly standard way of notating music for
> instruments that _can_  do polyphony. Piano pieces (e.g. by Schumann) are
> full of examples like these, and one might say that this is not the area
> where LilyPond particularly shines: It often involves trickery with hidden
> duplicated notes etc. But in this case, it works relatively straightforward.
>
> If it matters, I'm using version 2.20.
>>
>
> The command \voices I am using above was added by David Kastrup during the
> 2.19.xx cylce. It's also possible to avoid it using 2.18.2 constructs: you
> only have to refrain from using the \\ shortcut (because this creates named
> voices and makes it impossible to continue the main voice):
>
> \version "2.18.2"
>
> \relative {
>   \key g \major
>   \omit Staff.TimeSignature
>   8.( 16) 2^( 4~
>   << { g f) } \new Voice { \voiceTwo a,2 } >> c4( d)
> }
>
> Lukas
>

Re: ties between voices

[David Kastrup]

David Zelinsky  writes:

> I've done some reasonably complicated things in Lilypond, but still have
> lots to learn.  My current conundrum is to typeset the attached snippet.
> I can't figure out how to get the tie between the G's, without breaking
> the double stops in the first measure into two separate voices, and so
> breaking their stems.  Can someone show me how to do this?
>
> It may be debatable whether it should be notated this way.  I think it
> should.  (It's from the Glière cello duos, op. 53.)  But my question is
> how to do it, assuming this is desired result.
>
> If it matters, I'm using version 2.20.

Just keep most stuff in the main voice, like

\fixed c' \new Voice = "main"
{
  \key g \major
  8.( 16)
  \voiceOne
  2\( 4~ |
  \voices "main", 2 << { g4 f\) } \\ a,2 >>
  \oneVoice
  c4( d)
}
  

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: ties between voices

[Xavier Scheuer]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 21:37, David Zelinsky  wrote:
>
> I've done some reasonably complicated things in Lilypond, but still have
> lots to learn.  My current conundrum is to typeset the attached snippet.
> I can't figure out how to get the tie between the G's, without breaking
> the double stops in the first measure into two separate voices, and so
> breaking their stems.  Can someone show me how to do this?
>
> It may be debatable whether it should be notated this way.  I think it
> should.  (It's from the Glière cello duos, op. 53.)  But my question is
> how to do it, assuming this is desired result.

Hi David,

I would probably write it this way, but there are other possibilities
(maybe start the voiceOne already on the second beat of the first measure).

\relative c' {
  \key g \major
  8.( 16) 2^( 4 |
  <<
{ \voiceOne g'4 f) }
\new Voice = "voiceTwo" {
  \voiceTwo
  a,2
}
  >>
  \oneVoice
  c4( d) |
}

Cheers,
Xavier

-- 
Xavier Scheuer 

Re: Ties between voices?

[James Harkins]

 On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 23:15:17 +0800 Thomas Morley 
 wrote  
> > You could do \override TieColumn.positioning-done = ##t, but be aware, 
> > using it means you are now responsible yourself for the Tie's 
> > directions. 
> > You tell LilyPond "Don't bother placing the Ties, I'll do" 
>  
> Though the output is not convincing, imho. 

I think there's not really a good way.

So far, three options:

- LilyPond places ties (normal behavior): Three upper b's, two ties. The first 
tie is up and the second is down. The down-tie passes through a thick chord. I 
lose it visually.

- "positioning-done = ##t": Both upper-b ties go up. The second passes through 
a d note head and it passes under a tie that starts later, both of which are 
ugly, but I can see the tie clearly.

- \laissezVibrer: The \laissezVibrer ties go up and down, but the \repeatTies 
both go down. I could split the b's into one voice and the other chord notes 
into a different voice, but then I have an unpleasant bargain between the b's 
sitting off to the side (and, in my test, LP pushes the b's to the right, 
obscuring the \repeatTie), or smashing them into \oneVoice and then LP doesn't 
arrange the a and b properly.

To my eye, "positioning-done = ##t" is the least objectionable, so I'll go with 
that.

Thanks for all the advice -- I learned *a lot* from this and I'm happy with the 
outcome.

hjh


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

Re: Ties between voices?

[Thomas Morley]

2017-10-07 17:08 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :
> 2017-10-07 16:40 GMT+02:00 James Harkins :
>>  On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 20:49:31 +0800 Simon Albrecht 
>>  wrote 
>>> On 07.10.2017 13:55, James Harkins wrote:
>>> > But, it's a  chord where I want the lower tie to go down, and
>>> > the upper one to go up...
>>>
>>> Put the ties inside the chord:
>>> 
>>
>> Oh... I'm afraid I spoke too soon. The syntax is accepted, but ignored in 
>> the printed output. I still get two down-ties.
>>
>> It must be conflict-resolution logic. See the comment: "I remove *either* 
>> the a or the d from this chord, I get up/down ties."
>>
>> \new Score {
>>   \new Staff {
>> <<
>>   { \time 4/4 \partial 4 s4 | s4*2 }
>>   \new Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
>> \set tieWaitForNote = ##t
>> 4 ~
>> 1 1
>>   }
>>   \context Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
>> s4
>> s2.
>> \hideNotes
>> % if I remove *either* the a or the d from this chord,
>> % I get up/down ties from  above
>> \voiceTwo \tieNeutral 4 ~
>> \unHideNotes
>>   }
>>   % This displays the e-f-a-d notes
>>   % that are the source of the 4 extra ties.
>>   % Doesn't matter to  tie behavior
>>   %\new Voice = "zeroB03" \relative c' {
>>   %  s4
>>   %  \voiceTwo \tieNeutral r4 2 ~ 4 %~
>>   %}
>> >>
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> hjh
>
>
>
> You could do \override TieColumn.positioning-done = ##t, but be aware,
> using it means you are now responsible yourself for the Tie's
> directions.
> You tell LilyPond "Don't bother placing the Ties, I'll do"
>
> \new Score {
>   \new Staff {
> <<
>   { \time 4/4 \partial 4 s4 | s4*2 }
>   \new Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
> \set tieWaitForNote = ##t
> 4 ~
> 1
> \once \override TieColumn.positioning-done = ##t
> 1
>   }
>   \context Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
> s4
> s2.
> \hideNotes
> % if I remove *either* the a or the d from this chord,
> % I get up/down ties from  above
> \voiceTwo \tieNeutral 4
> \unHideNotes
>   }
>   % This displays the e-f-a-d notes
>   % that are the source of the 4 extra ties.
>   % Doesn't matter to  tie behavior
>   %\new Voice = "zeroB03" \relative c' {
>   %  s4
>   %  \voiceTwo \tieNeutral r4 2 ~ 4 %~
>   %}
> >>
>   }
> }
>
> Cheers,
>   Harm

Though the output is not convincing, imho.

I'd prefer:

\new Staff
  \relative c ' {
\time 4/4
\partial 4
4 ~
1\laissezVibrer
1\repeatTie
  }

Probably lengthen the semi-ties a bit.


Cheers,
  Harm

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

Re: Ties between voices?

[Thomas Morley]

2017-10-07 16:40 GMT+02:00 James Harkins :
>  On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 20:49:31 +0800 Simon Albrecht 
>  wrote 
>> On 07.10.2017 13:55, James Harkins wrote:
>> > But, it's a  chord where I want the lower tie to go down, and
>> > the upper one to go up...
>>
>> Put the ties inside the chord:
>> 
>
> Oh... I'm afraid I spoke too soon. The syntax is accepted, but ignored in the 
> printed output. I still get two down-ties.
>
> It must be conflict-resolution logic. See the comment: "I remove *either* the 
> a or the d from this chord, I get up/down ties."
>
> \new Score {
>   \new Staff {
> <<
>   { \time 4/4 \partial 4 s4 | s4*2 }
>   \new Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
> \set tieWaitForNote = ##t
> 4 ~
> 1 1
>   }
>   \context Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
> s4
> s2.
> \hideNotes
> % if I remove *either* the a or the d from this chord,
> % I get up/down ties from  above
> \voiceTwo \tieNeutral 4 ~
> \unHideNotes
>   }
>   % This displays the e-f-a-d notes
>   % that are the source of the 4 extra ties.
>   % Doesn't matter to  tie behavior
>   %\new Voice = "zeroB03" \relative c' {
>   %  s4
>   %  \voiceTwo \tieNeutral r4 2 ~ 4 %~
>   %}
> >>
>   }
> }
>
> hjh



You could do \override TieColumn.positioning-done = ##t, but be aware,
using it means you are now responsible yourself for the Tie's
directions.
You tell LilyPond "Don't bother placing the Ties, I'll do"

\new Score {
  \new Staff {
<<
  { \time 4/4 \partial 4 s4 | s4*2 }
  \new Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t
4 ~
1
\once \override TieColumn.positioning-done = ##t
1
  }
  \context Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
s4
s2.
\hideNotes
% if I remove *either* the a or the d from this chord,
% I get up/down ties from  above
\voiceTwo \tieNeutral 4
\unHideNotes
  }
  % This displays the e-f-a-d notes
  % that are the source of the 4 extra ties.
  % Doesn't matter to  tie behavior
  %\new Voice = "zeroB03" \relative c' {
  %  s4
  %  \voiceTwo \tieNeutral r4 2 ~ 4 %~
  %}
>>
  }
}

Cheers,
  Harm

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

Re: Ties between voices?

[James Harkins]

 On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 20:49:31 +0800 Simon Albrecht  
wrote  
> On 07.10.2017 13:55, James Harkins wrote: 
> > But, it's a  chord where I want the lower tie to go down, and  
> > the upper one to go up...  
>  
> Put the ties inside the chord: 
>  

Oh... I'm afraid I spoke too soon. The syntax is accepted, but ignored in the 
printed output. I still get two down-ties.

It must be conflict-resolution logic. See the comment: "I remove *either* the a 
or the d from this chord, I get up/down ties."

\new Score {
  \new Staff {
<<
  { \time 4/4 \partial 4 s4 | s4*2 }
  \new Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t
4 ~
1 1
  }
  \context Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
s4
s2.
\hideNotes
% if I remove *either* the a or the d from this chord,
% I get up/down ties from  above
\voiceTwo \tieNeutral 4 ~
\unHideNotes
  }
  % This displays the e-f-a-d notes
  % that are the source of the 4 extra ties.
  % Doesn't matter to  tie behavior
  %\new Voice = "zeroB03" \relative c' {
  %  s4
  %  \voiceTwo \tieNeutral r4 2 ~ 4 %~
  %}
>>
  }
}

hjh


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

Re: Ties between voices?

[James Harkins]

On October 7, 2017 20:49:38 Simon Albrecht  wrote:


On 07.10.2017 13:55, James Harkins wrote:

But, it's a  chord where I want the lower tie to go down, and
the upper one to go up...


Put the ties inside the chord:



I'm binge watching Rick & Morty season 3, but this blows my mind even more 
than that.


Never dreamed it. :-O

Thanks --
hjh

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com




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

Re: Ties between voices?

[Simon Albrecht]

On 07.10.2017 13:55, James Harkins wrote:
But, it's a  chord where I want the lower tie to go down, and 
the upper one to go up... 


Put the ties inside the chord:


Best, Simon

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

Re: Ties between voices?

[James Harkins]

On October 7, 2017 14:52:06 Werner LEMBERG  wrote:


Without looking at your example:  Use `_~' and `^~' instead of `~' to
immediately specify a tie's direction.


Crikey, I knew about that for slurs, didn't think of it for ties.

But, it's a  chord where I want the lower tie to go down, and the 
upper one to go up...


I have played with tie-configuration before but I have no idea how it works 
when the tie onsets are staggered.


hjh

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com




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

Re: Ties between voices?

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I've got one I can't quite get right. I would like the tie from the
> upper B whole note to be up instead of down.  [...]

Without looking at your example:  Use `_~' and `^~' instead of `~' to
immediately specify a tie's direction.


Werner

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

Re: Ties between voices?

[James Harkins]

Continuing with this neat "\context Voice" trick -- quite powerful. I see how 
it works: you have two expressions stuffing events into the same Voice context, 
and LP merges them into one timed list and does the best it can to make sense 
out of the tie properties.

I've got one I can't quite get right. I would like the tie from the upper B 
whole note to be up instead of down. It almost looks like it's inferring 
voiceTwo or voiceFour from somewhere, but I've been fiddling with it and I 
can't find it. Even with multiple \tieNeutral commands (which surely must be 
redundant), LP insists on pulling the ties on both B notes down.

Removing zeroB03 and zeroC03: no difference.

Removing \context Voice = "zeroA03" -- the B ties are as I expect, but then I 
don't get the ties on the other notes going into the next bar.

\new Score {
  \new Staff {
<<
  { \time 4/4 \partial 4 s4 | s4*2 }
  \new Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t
4 ~
\tieNeutral q1 ~ ) \oneVoice \tieNeutral 1
  }
  \context Voice = "zeroA03" \relative c' {
s4
s2.
\oneVoice \stemDown \tieNeutral
\hideNotes 4 ~
\unHideNotes
  }
  \new Voice = "zeroB03" \relative c' {
s4
\voiceTwo \tieNeutral r4 2 ~ 4 %~
  }
  \new Voice = "zeroC03" \relative c''' {
s4 s1
\voiceThree r8 g4. ~ g2
  }
>>
  }
}

Any suggestions?

(I know it's hard. The instrument spans two octaves, so a single staff is more 
appropriate, and it can play 6-8-note chords easily, with independent 
note-on/off. It's a stretch, even with pen and paper.)

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

Re: Ties between voices?

[James Harkins]

A-ha, got it, it was a combination of Harm's trick plus a hidden note:

\new Score {
  \new Staff {
\numericTimeSignature
<<
  \new Voice = "a" \relative c' {
\voiceOne
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t
c16 g' ~ 8 ~ q2. ~
q2 ~ 2
  }
  \context Voice = "a" \relative c' {
s1
s4 \voiceTwo \hideNotes f4 ~ \unHideNotes
  }
  \new Voice = "b" \relative c' {
\voiceTwo
r4 r8 f8
\override Beam.grow-direction = #RIGHT
f16 [ f f f  f f f f ]
\override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
f [ f f f ] ~ f4
  }
  \new Voice = "c" \relative c'' {
s1 s2 \voiceOne a8 ( g4. )
  }
>>
  }
}

Thanks, I would never have figured out "\context Voice" by myself.

hjh


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

Re: Ties between voices?

[James Harkins]

> Probably: 
>  
> \new Score { 
>   \new Staff { 
> \numericTimeSignature \time 2/4  % barline, so E must be tied 
> << 
> \new Voice = "xy" \relative c' { 
>   \set tieWaitForNote = ##t 
>   2~ 
> } 
> \context Voice = "xy" \relative c' { 
>   s4 \voiceTwo f4 ~ 2 
> } 
> \new Voice { r4 s4 a'8 g'4. } 
> >> 
> \unset tieWaitForNote 
>   } 
> } 

Ah, that's a lovely idea -- but I had oversimplified, and this doesn't quite 
scale up.

\version "2.18.2"
\language "english"

\new Score {
  \new Staff {
\numericTimeSignature
<<
  \new Voice = "a" \relative c' {
\voiceOne
c16 g' ~ 8 ~ q2. ~
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t
q2 ~
  }
  \context Voice = "a" \relative c' {
s4 s8 \voiceTwo f
\override Beam.grow-direction = #RIGHT
f16 [ %{ \override NoteHead.transparent = ##t %} f f f  f f f f ]
\override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
f [ f f %{ \revert NoteHead.transparent %} f ] ~ f4 ~ 2
  }
  \new Voice = "b" \relative c' {
\voiceTwo r4 r8 s8 s2 s2 \voiceOne a'8 g4.
  }
>>
\unset tieWaitForNote
  }
}

If you uncomment the transparent note heads, it's a right bloody mess.

I might have to rethink it. Maybe two staves are the only way.

hjh


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

Re: Ties between voices?

[Karlin High]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:56 AM, James Harkins  wrote:
> I need a tie from the e in 2 (voice 1) to the e in 2 (voice 2).
>
> How to restructure this to make it possible?

This reminds me of last year's Google Summer of Code project.

http://lilypondblog.org/2016/08/google-summer-of-code-2016-cross-voice-spanners/
-- 
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

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

Re: Ties between voices?

[Thomas Morley]

2017-10-05 10:56 GMT+02:00 James Harkins :
> Hi, been away for awhile.
>
> I'm now writing for khaen, a Thai mouth organ. Fascinating instrument. 
> Notation is usually single-staff and heavily multi-voiced.
>
> One nut I never cracked in LilyPond: how to tie a note from one Voice to 
> another, e.g.
>
> \new Score {
>   \new Staff <<
> \numericTimeSignature \time 2/4  % barline, so E must be tied
> \new Voice \relative c' {
>   \voiceOne 2 a8 g4.
> }
> \new Voice \relative c' {
>   \voiceTwo r4 f4 ~ 2
> }
>   >>
> }
>
> I need a tie from the e in 2 (voice 1) to the e in 2 (voice 2).
>
> How to restructure this to make it possible?
>
> Thanks.
>
> hjh



Probably:

\new Score {
  \new Staff {
\numericTimeSignature \time 2/4  % barline, so E must be tied
<<
\new Voice = "xy" \relative c' {
  \set tieWaitForNote = ##t
  2~
}
\context Voice = "xy" \relative c' {
  s4 \voiceTwo f4 ~ 2
}
\new Voice { r4 s4 a'8 g'4. }
>>
\unset tieWaitForNote
  }
}

Cheers,
  Harm

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

Re: Ties between voices?

[Malte Meyn]

Am 05.10.2017 um 10:56 schrieb James Harkins:

One nut I never cracked in LilyPond: how to tie a note from one Voice to 
another, e.g.


Does LSR snippet 8 (http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=8) help?

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

Re: ties between voices

[Steve D]

LilyPond 2.11.13, Linux

This message pertains to ties between single and multiple voice sections
of notation of polyphonic instruments, using a technique suggested by
Joe Neeman of moving the Tie_engraver from the default Voice context to
the Staff context instead.

A Goal
--
Piano (and presumably other polyphonic instrument) notation
often includes sections where a single polyphonic voice splits into two
or more voices for the sake of convenience and clarity of notation.
These temporary changes in number of voices per staff, often as brief as
a mere fraction of a measure, are common and there are frequently ties
between these sections of one-, two-, or three- or more voice sections.

It would be very nice if there were an easy way to allow ties to extend
from one voice to another voice, from a single voice to multiple voices, or
from multiple voices to fewer voices or a single voice, without
resorting to code that is complex, verbose or which uses tricks to
accomplish the task.

A Proposed Solution
---
One possible solution, proposed by Joe Neeman, is to cause the
Tie_engraver to act at the Staff level instead of the Voice level, by
removing it in the \layout section from the Voice context and inserting
the Tie_engraver into the Staff context.

This seems like a great solution, but because the Tie_engraver was
originally intended for a Voice context, some unexpected issues may
occur when trying to use the Tie_engraver at the Staff level instead of
the Voice level.

Issues So Far
-
In trying the technique of moving the Tie_engraver from the Voice level
to the Staff level while notating a piano piece with many instances of
single-to-multiple voices and vice versa, with many ties between the
sections of fewer and more numerous voices, I have encountered a few
issues so far.

Issue 1:
As illustrated in Figure 1 (attached PNG), LilyPond's default placement
of the tie between the top notes of chords 2 and 3 of the illustration
is so short (to avoid the flat symbol on the 3rd chord) that it is
invisible, unless the chords (and measures that contain the chords) are
spaced farther apart horizontally (which I did with the \break command
at the end of the second measure), as illustrated in Figure 2.

Issue 2:
I tried to manually add horizontal space between the second and third
chord with the following--

\once \override Score.SeparationItem #'padding = #2

--between the 2nd and 3rd chord. However, that had no effect. Does this
tweak still work, or has it been deprecated?

Issue 3:
I tried to manually configure the ties between the second and third
chords using--

ees g c8~ \once \override Score.TieColumn #'tie-configuration =
#'( (4 . 1) #t ) ees aes c4

--However, as is illustrated in Figure 3 (attached PNG image), although
the top tie was correctly formatted, the lower tie, which is supposed to
be beween the lowest notes of the 3-note chords, was misplaced for some
reason by LilyPond. Notice that instead of TieColumn I had to use
Score.TieColumn because the Tie_engraver is now in the Staff rather
than Voice context, and a simple TieColumn had no effect whatsoever.
Also note that I had to raise the top tie to staff position 4 (3 was
insufficient to cause the tie to clear the top of the flat symbol on the
3rd chord).

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

I would be _happy_to_sponsor_ whatever work these issues might require,
if Han-Wen and the developers consider the features worthy enough.  :-)

I'm sure more issues will come to light as I stress-test this idea of
moving the Tie_engraver from the Voice to the Staff context, but I think
it's a great idea and a great solution if the kinks can be worked out.
Notators of polyphonic instruments such as the piano will be very
grateful for this functionality.

Best wishes everyone,

Steve D
New Mexico, US
-- 

Seen at a bicycle enthusiasts' web forum-- Question: How many
people with Attention Deficit Disorder does it take to change a
light bulb?  Answer: Want to go on a bike ride?!



figure-1.png
Description: PNG image


figure-2.png
Description: PNG image


figure-3.png
Description: PNG image
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: ties between voices

[Steve D]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 06:21:53PM -0700, Steve D wrote:
 
 Issue 3:
 I tried to manually configure the ties between the second and third
 chords using--
 
 ees g c8~ \once \override Score.TieColumn #'tie-configuration =
 #'( (4 . 1) #t ) ees aes c4
 
 --However, as is illustrated in Figure 3 (attached PNG image), although
 the top tie was correctly formatted, the lower tie, which is supposed to
 be beween the lowest notes of the 3-note chords, was misplaced for some
 reason by LilyPond. Notice that instead of TieColumn I had to use
 Score.TieColumn because the Tie_engraver is now in the Staff rather
 than Voice context, and a simple TieColumn had no effect whatsoever.


I should have tried Staff.TieColumn instead of Score.TieColumn -- So
I did try both, but the effect (as in Figure 3 of my previous message)
was the same regardless of which (Staff... or Score...) was used.
:-)

Steve D
-- 

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his
government.  -Edward Abbey



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

Re: ties between voices

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Steve D escreveu:

 As illustrated in Figure 1 (attached PNG), LilyPond's default placement
 of the tie between the top notes of chords 2 and 3 of the illustration
 is so short (to avoid the flat symbol on the 3rd chord) that it is
 invisible, unless the chords (and measures that contain the chords) are
 spaced farther apart horizontally (which I did with the \break command
 at the end of the second measure), as illustrated in Figure 2.

hi,

please submit bugreport of this.  thanks.
 
 
 I would be _happy_to_sponsor_ whatever work these issues might require,
 if Han-Wen and the developers consider the features worthy enough.  :-)



-- 

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

LilyPond Software Design
 -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com



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

Re: ties between voices

[Steve D]

On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 08:15:24AM +0200, Joe Neeman wrote:
 We've had a few questions about ties between voices (especially ties from
 polyphony to chords). It seems that you can get this behaviour simply by
 moving the Tie_engraver form the Voice context to the Staff context. Note
 that the Tie_engraver was probably designed to live in the Voice context, so
 it may not work perfectly, but if people will test it and report problems
 then it will get fixed.
 
 \version 2.10.0
 \layout {
  \context {
\Staff
\consists Tie_engraver
  }
  \context {
\Voice
\remove Tie_engraver
  }
 }
 \new Staff {
  \relative {

  {a' b~ c d} \\
  {a, b b' c}

  }
 }

--- --- ---

Thank you very much for the suggestion, Joe. However, in LilyPond
2.11.12, if I add a layout section such as you suggested above, there is
an error message when I invoke LilyPond to process the file--

--- begin error message ---

GNU LilyPond 2.11.12
Processing `blues-in-c-1.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music... 
Interpreting music... [8][11]
Preprocessing graphical objects...
/home/xscd/lilypond/usr/bin/../share/lilypond/current/ly/init.ly:37:1:
error: GUILE signaled an error for the expression beginning here
#
 (if (or (pair? toplevel-scores) output-empty-score-list)
Wrong type argument in position 1: ()
/home/xscd/lilypond/usr/bin/../share/lilypond/current/ly/init.ly:37:5:
error: syntax error, unexpected '(', expecting '='
#(if 
 (or (pair? toplevel-scores) output-empty-score-list)
programming error: Parsed object should be dead: static
scm_unused_struct* Prob::mark_smob(scm_unused_struct*)
continuing, cross fingers
programming error: Parsed object should be dead: static
scm_unused_struct* Context_def::mark_smob(scm_unused_struct*)
continuing, cross fingers
error: failed files: blues-in-c-1.ly

--- end quote of error message ---

However, if I comment-out the layout section (with %{ %}), as in the
attached file, no error message occurs.

best wishes,

Steve D
New Mexico, US
-- 

The military was created to protect the leisure lifestyles of the
ruling class.  -Eli Khamarov


% Blues in C 1, work for piano by Stephen C. Doonan, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

\version 2.11.12

\paper { }

\header {
title = Blues in C 1
composer = \markup \center-align { Stephen C. Doonan \small (1952- ) }
piece = \markup { \bold Andantino ( \tiny \note #4 #0.75 \normalsize  
= 85-115 \bold ) }

% Mutopiaproject.org headers

mutopiatitle = Blues in C 1
mutopiacomposer = DoonanSC
mutopiainstrument = Piano
date = 2006/Sep
source = Composer
style = Jazz
copyright = Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5
maintainer = Stephen C. Doonan
maintainerEmail = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
maintainerWeb = http://www.xscd.com/pub/music/;
lastupdated = 2006/September/25
}


rightHand = \relative c'' {
% 1
\key c \major \time 4/4 \clef treble e, g c2.. ees g c8~ |
ees g c~ ees aes c4 ees aes c4 f bes d8~ f bes d4 |
g e'4 e c'   \new Voice { \voiceOne c'4. r8 } { \voiceTwo e,8 f g 
\oneVoice ees g bes8~ }  |
ees g bes4. f a8~ \afterGrace f a2 {bes16[ a]} |
e g2..  \new Voice { \voiceTwo ees8~ |
ees2 aes | }
{ \voiceOne g c8~ |
g c8 aes bes c c d ees f \oneVoice | }

% 7
c g'4  g e'  \new Voice { \voiceOne c4. r8 } { \voiceTwo e,8 f g 
\oneVoice ees g bes8~ }  |
ees g bes4. f a8~ \afterGrace f a2 {bes16[ a]} |
e g2  \new Voice { \voiceOne c'4. r8 } { \voiceTwo e, f g \oneVoice 
ees g c8~ }  |
ees g c~ ees aes c4 f a d4~ f bes d4 g bes ees8~ |
g bes ees8~ g c ees4 aes c f4~ aes d f4. |
}

leftHand = \relative c, {
% 1
\time 4/4 \key c \major \clef bass c8 g' d' e c g' d e f c'~ |
f c' ees d c bes aes g f |
c g' d' e c g' d e f c'~ |
f c' ees f g d'~ g d'2 |
}

\score {
\new PianoStaff 
#(set-accidental-style 'piano-cautionary)
\set PianoStaff.printPartCombineTexts = ##f
\new Staff = up \new Voice = rh \rightHand
\new Staff = down \new Voice = lh \leftHand
 
\midi {
\context {
\Score
tempoWholesPerMinute = #(ly:make-moment 100 4)
}
}
%{\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\consists Tie_engraver
}
\context {
\Voice
\remove Tie_engraver
}
}
%}
}

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

Re: ties between voices

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Steve D escreveu:
 On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 08:15:24AM +0200, Joe Neeman wrote:
 We've had a few questions about ties between voices (especially ties from
 polyphony to chords). It seems that you can get this behaviour simply by
 moving the Tie_engraver form the Voice context to the Staff context. Note
 that the Tie_engraver was probably designed to live in the Voice context, so
 it may not work perfectly, but if people will test it and report problems
 then it will get fixed.

 \version 2.10.0
 \layout {
  \context {
\Staff
\consists Tie_engraver
  }
  \context {
\Voice
\remove Tie_engraver
  }
 }
 \new Staff {
  \relative {

  {a' b~ c d} \\
  {a, b b' c}

  }
 }
 
 --- --- ---
 
 Thank you very much for the suggestion, Joe. However, in LilyPond
 2.11.12, if I add a layout section such as you suggested above, there is
 an error message when I invoke LilyPond to process the file--

this should be fixed in .13, currently uploading.

-- 

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

LilyPond Software Design
 -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com



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

Re: ties between voices

[Steve D]

First, on Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 08:15:24AM +0200, Joe Neeman wrote:
 We've had a few questions about ties between voices (especially ties from
 polyphony to chords). It seems that you can get this behaviour simply by
 moving the Tie_engraver form the Voice context to the Staff context. Note
 that the Tie_engraver was probably designed to live in the Voice context, so
 it may not work perfectly, but if people will test it and report problems
 then it will get fixed.

 \version 2.10.0
 \layout {
  \context {
\Staff
\consists Tie_engraver
  }
  \context {
\Voice
\remove Tie_engraver
  }
 }
 \new Staff {
  \relative {

  {a' b~ c d} \\
  {a, b b' c}

  }
 }

--- ---
 
Then, Steve D wrote:
 Thank you very much for the suggestion, Joe. However, in LilyPond
 2.11.12, if I add a layout section such as you suggested above, there is
 an error message when I invoke LilyPond to process the file--

--- ---

Then Han-Wen wrote:
 this should be fixed in .13, currently uploading.

--- ---

Steve D continues:

Yes, the error message disappears with LilyPond 2.11.13. Thank you so
much Han-Wen.

And Joe, thank *you* so much for the suggestion to move the Tie_engraver
from the default Voice context to the Staff context instead. So far,
working with staves in a PianoStaff context, your suggestion is working
brilliantly, although I have only begun to test it and the piano piece
I'm working on now will really stress-test the technique I believe,
because it has many of these temporary splitting of the notes of the
right or left hand into two or more voices per hand, often for just a
fraction of a measure or spanning just parts of two or more measures.

If this technique (removing the Tie_engraver from the Voice context to
the Staff context) continues to work well, and if any bugs it causes can
be fixed or sponsored to fix, then this is an incredibly good solution
to the problem of temporary, non-formal, intermittent voices that often
occur in the notated music of polyphonic instruments such as piano. It
*greatly* simplifies the LilyPond code in such circumstances, and I am
personally very excited and enthused about the results so far.

Thank you Joe (Neeman), and thank you Han-Wen and other developers.

-Steve D
New Mexico, US
-- 

Good fortune is what happens naturally in the life of a happy
man.



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

Re: ties between voices

[Steve D]

On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 08:15:24AM +0200, Joe Neeman wrote:
 We've had a few questions about ties between voices (especially ties from
 polyphony to chords). It seems that you can get this behaviour simply by
 moving the Tie_engraver form the Voice context to the Staff context. Note
 that the Tie_engraver was probably designed to live in the Voice context, so
 it may not work perfectly, but if people will test it and report problems
 then it will get fixed.
 
 \version 2.10.0
 
 \layout {
  \context {
\Staff
\consists Tie_engraver
  }
  \context {
\Voice
\remove Tie_engraver
  }
 }


What a great idea and suggestion! Thank you so much Joe. I'm going to
try this right away on a piano piece with many such between-voice or
multi-voice-to-single-voice ties that has had me stumped for quite a few
weeks now.

Thanks!

Steve D
New Mexico, US



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