Re: Lilypond v 2.24.1, segno repeat question where segno and coda sign are adjacent

[Kenneth Wolcott]

Oh, darn :-)

I forgot to attach my Lilypond source code.

Thanks,
Ken

On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 3:16 PM Kenneth Wolcott
 wrote:
>
> HI;
>
>   Lilypond v 2.24.1, segno repeat question where segno and coda sign
> are adjacent in the original.
>
>   How to engrave this (screenshot attached)?  The only segno sign is
> at this location and the only coda sign is also at this location. I'd
> like to engrave the music so that the midi output represents the segno
> in action.  What I don't understand in this case is where my \volta 1
> and \volta 2 are to be placed when the segno and coda signs are
> adjacent.
>
> Thanks,
> Ken Wolcott


Raindrops_Keep_Fallin_on_my_Head_before_introducing_segno_repeat.ly
Description: Binary data


Raindrops_Keep_Fallin_on_my_Head.ly
Description: Binary data

MusicXML beat-repeat question

[Jacques Menu]

Hello folks,

I’m trying to understand how  is working in MusicXML.

The example at 
https://usermanuals.musicxml.com/MusicXML/Content/EL-MusicXML-beat-repeat.htm 
is the only one I found, and:

- the first measure has three two-notes chords, and a fourth one is 
missing;

- adding the fourth one leads to the following with the attached file:
- musicxml2ly crashes, see below;
- MuseScore and Sibelius 7.1.3 produce 4 two-notes chords, but 
no slashes;
- Finale 2014 produces 4 slashes, but no notes.

I’ve been wondering whether this example has ever been tested actually.

Can someone supply me with a functional beat repeat example?

Thanks!

JM

—

menu@macbookprojm: ~/libmusicxml-git/files/samples/musicxml > musicxml2ly 
repeats/BeatRepeat.xml 
musicxml2ly: Reading MusicXML from repeats/BeatRepeat.xml ...
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/musicxml2ly", line 
3297, in 
main()
  File "/Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/musicxml2ly", line 
3291, in main
voices = convert(filename, options)
  File "/Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/musicxml2ly", line 
3168, in convert
(voices, staff_info) = get_all_voices(parts)
  File "/Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/musicxml2ly", line 
2766, in get_all_voices
all_voices = voices_in_part_in_parts(parts)
  File "/Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/musicxml2ly", line 
2756, in voices_in_part_in_parts
voices = voices_in_part(p)
  File "/Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/musicxml2ly", line 
2743, in voices_in_part
part.interpret()
  File 
"/Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/share/lilypond/current/python/musicxml.py",
 line 1361, in interpret
int(attributes_dict.get('divisions').get_text()))
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute ‘get_text’




BeatRepeat.xml
Description: XML document



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

Re: Repeat question

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

Hello David,

You’re right, there’s no point in my remark about the skip on the glissando 
stop!

JM

> Le 28 juin 2018 à 21:45, David Wright  a écrit :
> 
> On Thu 28 Jun 2018 at 14:10:10 (+0200), Jacques Menu Muzhic wrote:
>> Just found an excellent example of the ‘look at what the compiler does’ 
>> principle.
>> 
>> Demo file 04b-Glissando.xml contains:
>> 
>>
>>  
>>
>>  G
>>  4
>>
>>1
>>1
>>quarter
>>down
>>
>>  
>>
>>dashed
>>  
>>  
>>
>>  F
>>  5
>>
>>1
>>1
>>quarter
>>down
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>> 
>> There’s no lyrics attached to the F, but all of MuseScore, Finale and 
>> musicxml2ly interpret the glissando stop in that case as a skip in the 
>> lyrics:
> 
> I don't understand. Where a lyric is given, a lyric is printed.
> Where it isn't, there's a note without a lyric. In LP, that
> necessitates a skip because the lyrics in LP are sequential,
> so there has to be a cipher/null/zero/placeholder.
> 
> The first glissando has a lyric for both notes, "normal" on the
> starting note and "glissando" on the note that stops it.
> 
>  
>
>  G
>  4
>
>1
>1
>quarter
>
>  
>
>normal
>  
>  
>
>  F
>  5
>
>1
>1
>quarter
>
>  
>
>glissando
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> David.

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

Re: Repeat question

[David Wright]

On Thu 28 Jun 2018 at 14:10:10 (+0200), Jacques Menu Muzhic wrote:
> Just found an excellent example of the ‘look at what the compiler does’ 
> principle.
> 
> Demo file 04b-Glissando.xml contains:
> 
> 
>   
> 
>   G
>   4
> 
> 1
> 1
> quarter
> down
> 
>   
> 
> dashed
>   
>   
> 
>   F
>   5
> 
> 1
> 1
> quarter
> down
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
> There’s no lyrics attached to the F, but all of MuseScore, Finale and 
> musicxml2ly interpret the glissando stop in that case as a skip in the lyrics:

I don't understand. Where a lyric is given, a lyric is printed.
Where it isn't, there's a note without a lyric. In LP, that
necessitates a skip because the lyrics in LP are sequential,
so there has to be a cipher/null/zero/placeholder.

The first glissando has a lyric for both notes, "normal" on the
starting note and "glissando" on the note that stops it.

  

  G
  4

1
1
quarter

  

normal
  
  

  F
  5

1
1
quarter

  

glissando
  

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Repeat question

[David Wright]

On Thu 28 Jun 2018 at 10:35:49 (+0200), Jacques Menu Muzhic wrote:
> Hello David,
> 
> I downloaded the LilyPond Unofficial Test Suite at the time when the links to 
> in lilypond.org  were dead (I’d say 2.5 years ago), 
> can’t remember where that was from, probably from the GIT repository. Don’t 
> know whether 45d-Repeats-Nested-Alternatives.xml changed between versions of 
> LilyPond.
> 
> The hookless alternative at measure 12 and the extra measure at the end I 
> added two days ago, following Torsten’s answer.
> 
> The 8 comes from:
> 
> 
>   
> 
>   
>   
> 
>   G
>   5
> 
> 4
> 1
>   
>   
> 
>   
> 

Oh, OK. I'm not sure it helps, and I still don't understand the "8"..

> The difficulty with this file is that there are nested repeats, and it’s not 
> obvious what its semantics is.
> 
> On the MuseScore output below, with bar numbers displayed:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the measures are to be played in this order:
> 
> 1 2 
> 1 3 4 5
> 1 6 7 8 9 10 
> back to beginning
> 1 2 
> 1 3 4 5
> 1 6 7 8 9 11 
> back to beginning
> 1 2 
> 1 3 4 5
> 1 6 7 8 9 12 13
> 
> Of course, there’s a risk of getting lost when playing such music.

It's not just the nested repeats, but the lack of consistency in the
notation used in the XML.

> The MusicXML 3.0 DTD does not help regarding this semantics question. 
> The only 3 occurences of ‘backward’ use for repeats are the following ones 
> (in barline.mod), and the fact that repeats can be nested is not mentioned. 
> The exact same text is in barline.mod in the 3.1 DTD:
> 
> 
> 
>  direction (backward | forward) #REQUIRED
> times CDATA #IMPLIED
> winged (none | straight | curved | 
>   double-straight | double-curved) #IMPLIED

I was under the impression that the business of XML is to capture the
appearance of the music faithfully, regardless of what it means.

> So yes, MusicXML semantics is somewhat of a fuzzy target, and you have to 
> look at what some existing tools do to tackle that, which is what I do (the 
> good old ‘look at what the compiler does’). 

Presumably, the crunch comes for WYSIWYG programs when they output the
MIDI because that reveals the semantic decisions made. With LP, we can
also examine the source generated. But it means there could be a
plurality of interpretations.

> To be fair, it is known that describing the semantics of a computer language 
> in a complete and consistent manner is quite difficult.

Programs are far more complex that a piece of music.

It would be tedious but I could write a score in MusicXML that makes
no musical sense, but is it productive to then use it as a test?
Alternatively, where is the "right answer" that these test snippets
are supposed to represent?

> > Le 28 juin 2018 à 02:18, David Wright  a écrit :
> > 
> > [I haven't reattached the images.]
> > 
> > On Tue 26 Jun 2018 at 18:22:00 (+0200), Jacques Menu Muzhic wrote:
> >> Hello David & Torsten,
> >> 
> >> The snippet file in my OP is actually a shortened version of a file 
> >> contained in the LilyPond Unofficial Test Suite.
> > 
> > Which version?
> > 
> >> 
> >> Adding the missing 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >> MuseScore 2.1.0 ignores , hence the quarter notes, but is 
> >> otherwise OK:
> > 
> > Could you give us the sequence of notes that this score represents.
> > I get as far as:
> > 
> > c' d' (1st ending)
> > c' e' f' g' (2nd ending, then a :| missing)
> > c' a' b' c'' d'' e'' (3rd ending's 1st ending)
> > c' a' b' c'' d'' (3rd ending's… ) f'' (2nd ending? "5"?)
> > c' (whither now?)
> > 
> >> Finale 2014 is OK, and I discovered on this occasion that the alternative 
> >> lines with 2 hooks, one a each end, are in fact two superposed lines, each 
> >> one with a hook at one end. Moving them apart give:
> > 
> > Should we have more colours? Which hook closes which volta?
> > 
> >> musicxml2ly does not do a good job in that case on alternatives 2 et 3:
> > 
> > What defines a good job? I assume I could replicate the MuseScore 2.1.0
> > with LP by using a few Score.repeatCommands (though I don't feel I'll
> > learn anything in the attempt) but in order to get useful LP code, one
> > has to decide what the score's semantics are. For me, duplicating the
> > notational syntax is a waste of time.
> > 
> >> Interesting!
> > 
> > Knowing little about XML, let alone MusicXML, I don't know how much of
> > the semantics of repeats can be expressed and enforced.
> > 
> >> Le 26 juin 2018 à 15:41, David Wright  a écrit :
> > 
> > [one spurious quote marker removed]
> > 
> >>> On Mon 25 Jun 2018 at 12:34:13 (-0700), Torsten Hämmerle wrote:
>  Ok, when looking at the XML data, I'll have to admit that Finale, 
>  Musescore
>  and Sibelius (just tested it) are closer to the XML reality, whereas
>  LilyPond fills in missing parts.
> >>> 
> >>> I'd agree, and would say that the XML is simply malformed, so the
> >>> 

Re: Repeat question

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

Just found an excellent example of the ‘look at what the compiler does’ 
principle.

Demo file 04b-Glissando.xml contains:


  

  G
  4

1
1
quarter
down

  

dashed
  
  

  F
  5

1
1
quarter
down

  

  

There’s no lyrics attached to the F, but all of MuseScore, Finale and 
musicxml2ly interpret the glissando stop in that case as a skip in the lyrics:



An there too, no mention of this in note.mod:





A nice day!

JM

> Le 28 juin 2018 à 10:35, Jacques Menu Muzhic  a écrit :
> 
> Hello David,
> 
> I downloaded the LilyPond Unofficial Test Suite at the time when the links to 
> in lilypond.org  were dead (I’d say 2.5 years ago), 
> can’t remember where that was from, probably from the GIT repository. Don’t 
> know whether 45d-Repeats-Nested-Alternatives.xml changed between versions of 
> LilyPond.
> 
> The hookless alternative at measure 12 and the extra measure at the end I 
> added two days ago, following Torsten’s answer.
> 
> The 8 comes from:
> 
> 
>   
> 
>   
>   
> 
>   G
>   5
> 
> 4
> 1
>   
>   
> 
>   
> 
> 
> The difficulty with this file is that there are nested repeats, and it’s not 
> obvious what its semantics is.
> 
> On the MuseScore output below, with bar numbers displayed:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the measures are to be played in this order:
> 
> 1 2 
> 1 3 4 5
> 1 6 7 8 9 10 
> back to beginning
> 1 2 
> 1 3 4 5
> 1 6 7 8 9 11 
> back to beginning
> 1 2 
> 1 3 4 5
> 1 6 7 8 9 12 13
> 
> Of course, there’s a risk of getting lost when playing such music.
> 
> 
> The MusicXML 3.0 DTD does not help regarding this semantics question. 
> The only 3 occurences of ‘backward’ use for repeats are the following ones 
> (in barline.mod), and the fact that repeats can be nested is not mentioned. 
> The exact same text is in barline.mod in the 3.1 DTD:
> 
> 
> 
>  direction (backward | forward) #REQUIRED
> times CDATA #IMPLIED
> winged (none | straight | curved | 
>   double-straight | double-curved) #IMPLIED
> >
> 
> So yes, MusicXML semantics is somewhat of a fuzzy target, and you have to 
> look at what some existing tools do to tackle that, which is what I do (the 
> good old ‘look at what the compiler does’). 
> 
> To be fair, it is known that describing the semantics of a computer language 
> in a complete and consistent manner is quite difficult.
> 
> Decades ago, that was done for Algol-68, which resulted in a textual formal 
> specification a great number of pages.
> An anecdote: Laurent Trilling, one of the tenants of this language, told me 
> that part of a night was spent by attendants of an Algol-68 conference trying 
> to determine the semantics of a given code snippet, which was not clear. That 
> took time, but the formal specification finally gave the answer!
> 
> JM
> 
> 
>> Le 28 juin 2018 à 02:18, David Wright > > a écrit :
>> 
>> [I haven't reattached the images.]
>> 
>> On Tue 26 Jun 2018 at 18:22:00 (+0200), Jacques Menu Muzhic wrote:
>>> Hello David & Torsten,
>>> 
>>> The snippet file in my OP is actually a shortened version of a file 
>>> contained in the LilyPond Unofficial Test Suite.
>> 
>> Which version?
>> 
>>> 
>>> Adding the missing 
>>> 
>>>   > 
>>> MuseScore 2.1.0 ignores , hence the quarter notes, but is 
>>> otherwise OK:
>> 
>> Could you give us the sequence of notes that this score represents.
>> I get as far as:
>> 
>> c' d' (1st ending)
>> c' e' f' g' (2nd ending, then a :| missing)
>> c' a' b' c'' d'' e'' (3rd ending's 1st ending)
>> c' a' b' c'' d'' (3rd ending's… ) f'' (2nd ending? "5"?)
>> c' (whither now?)
>> 
>>> Finale 2014 is OK, and I discovered on this occasion that the alternative 
>>> lines with 2 hooks, one a each end, are in fact two superposed lines, each 
>>> one with a hook at one end. Moving them apart give:
>> 
>> Should we have more colours? Which hook closes which volta?
>> 
>>> musicxml2ly does not do a good job in that case on alternatives 2 et 3:
>> 
>> What defines a good job? I assume I could replicate the MuseScore 2.1.0
>> with LP by using a few Score.repeatCommands (though I don't feel I'll
>> learn anything in the attempt) but in order to get useful LP code, one
>> has to decide what the score's semantics are. For me, duplicating the
>> notational syntax is a waste of time.
>> 
>>> Interesting!
>> 
>> Knowing little about XML, let alone MusicXML, I don't know how much of
>> the semantics of repeats can be expressed and enforced.
>> 
>>> Le 26 juin 2018 à 15:41, David Wright >> > a écrit :
>> 
>> [one spurious quote marker removed]
>> 
 On Mon 25 Jun 2018 at 12:34:13 (-0700), Torsten Hämmerle wrote:
> Ok, 

Re: Repeat question

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

Hello David,

I downloaded the LilyPond Unofficial Test Suite at the time when the links to 
in lilypond.org  were dead (I’d say 2.5 years ago), can’t 
remember where that was from, probably from the GIT repository. Don’t know 
whether 45d-Repeats-Nested-Alternatives.xml changed between versions of 
LilyPond.

The hookless alternative at measure 12 and the extra measure at the end I added 
two days ago, following Torsten’s answer.

The 8 comes from:


  

  
  

  G
  5

4
1
  
  

  


The difficulty with this file is that there are nested repeats, and it’s not 
obvious what its semantics is.

On the MuseScore output below, with bar numbers displayed:



I guess the measures are to be played in this order:

1 2 
1 3 4 5
1 6 7 8 9 10 
back to beginning
1 2 
1 3 4 5
1 6 7 8 9 11 
back to beginning
1 2 
1 3 4 5
1 6 7 8 9 12 13

Of course, there’s a risk of getting lost when playing such music.


The MusicXML 3.0 DTD does not help regarding this semantics question. 
The only 3 occurences of ‘backward’ use for repeats are the following ones (in 
barline.mod), and the fact that repeats can be nested is not mentioned. The 
exact same text is in barline.mod in the 3.1 DTD:





So yes, MusicXML semantics is somewhat of a fuzzy target, and you have to look 
at what some existing tools do to tackle that, which is what I do (the good old 
‘look at what the compiler does’). 

To be fair, it is known that describing the semantics of a computer language in 
a complete and consistent manner is quite difficult.

Decades ago, that was done for Algol-68, which resulted in a textual formal 
specification a great number of pages.
An anecdote: Laurent Trilling, one of the tenants of this language, told me 
that part of a night was spent by attendants of an Algol-68 conference trying 
to determine the semantics of a given code snippet, which was not clear. That 
took time, but the formal specification finally gave the answer!

JM


> Le 28 juin 2018 à 02:18, David Wright  a écrit :
> 
> [I haven't reattached the images.]
> 
> On Tue 26 Jun 2018 at 18:22:00 (+0200), Jacques Menu Muzhic wrote:
>> Hello David & Torsten,
>> 
>> The snippet file in my OP is actually a shortened version of a file 
>> contained in the LilyPond Unofficial Test Suite.
> 
> Which version?
> 
>> 
>> Adding the missing 
>> 
>>
>> MuseScore 2.1.0 ignores , hence the quarter notes, but is 
>> otherwise OK:
> 
> Could you give us the sequence of notes that this score represents.
> I get as far as:
> 
> c' d' (1st ending)
> c' e' f' g' (2nd ending, then a :| missing)
> c' a' b' c'' d'' e'' (3rd ending's 1st ending)
> c' a' b' c'' d'' (3rd ending's… ) f'' (2nd ending? "5"?)
> c' (whither now?)
> 
>> Finale 2014 is OK, and I discovered on this occasion that the alternative 
>> lines with 2 hooks, one a each end, are in fact two superposed lines, each 
>> one with a hook at one end. Moving them apart give:
> 
> Should we have more colours? Which hook closes which volta?
> 
>> musicxml2ly does not do a good job in that case on alternatives 2 et 3:
> 
> What defines a good job? I assume I could replicate the MuseScore 2.1.0
> with LP by using a few Score.repeatCommands (though I don't feel I'll
> learn anything in the attempt) but in order to get useful LP code, one
> has to decide what the score's semantics are. For me, duplicating the
> notational syntax is a waste of time.
> 
>> Interesting!
> 
> Knowing little about XML, let alone MusicXML, I don't know how much of
> the semantics of repeats can be expressed and enforced.
> 
>> Le 26 juin 2018 à 15:41, David Wright  a écrit :
> 
> [one spurious quote marker removed]
> 
>>> On Mon 25 Jun 2018 at 12:34:13 (-0700), Torsten Hämmerle wrote:
 Ok, when looking at the XML data, I'll have to admit that Finale, Musescore
 and Sibelius (just tested it) are closer to the XML reality, whereas
 LilyPond fills in missing parts.
>>> 
>>> I'd agree, and would say that the XML is simply malformed, so the
>>> musicxml2ly program is trying to correct it. AFAICT the output is
>>> consistent with prioritising the earliest elements encountered in
>>> the source, ie the volta brackets.
>>> 
 Import into Sibelius:
  
 
 But I think there's a 
   
 missing in the XML file at the end of measure 2 (within )
 
 If you insert this, the missing repeat barline between the volta brackets
 will even show up in Finale/Sibelius/MuseScore. ;)
> 
> I didn't understand that then, and I don't now. Your .xml file posted
> here seemed to have a whole ending (numbered 8) added to it.
> 
>>> But if you insert a :| at the end of bar 2, then the bar sequence
>>> played becomes 1 2 1 3 1 4, so bar 4 still needs an open-ended
>>> volta |¯¯ marked with 3 for third time (open-ended, assuming that
>>> the single 

Re: Repeat question

[David Wright]

[I haven't reattached the images.]

On Tue 26 Jun 2018 at 18:22:00 (+0200), Jacques Menu Muzhic wrote:
> Hello David & Torsten,
> 
> The snippet file in my OP is actually a shortened version of a file contained 
> in the LilyPond Unofficial Test Suite.

Which version?

> 
> Adding the missing 
> 
> MuseScore 2.1.0 ignores , hence the quarter notes, but is otherwise 
> OK:

Could you give us the sequence of notes that this score represents.
I get as far as:

c' d' (1st ending)
c' e' f' g' (2nd ending, then a :| missing)
c' a' b' c'' d'' e'' (3rd ending's 1st ending)
c' a' b' c'' d'' (3rd ending's… ) f'' (2nd ending? "5"?)
c' (whither now?)

> Finale 2014 is OK, and I discovered on this occasion that the alternative 
> lines with 2 hooks, one a each end, are in fact two superposed lines, each 
> one with a hook at one end. Moving them apart give:

Should we have more colours? Which hook closes which volta?

> musicxml2ly does not do a good job in that case on alternatives 2 et 3:

What defines a good job? I assume I could replicate the MuseScore 2.1.0
with LP by using a few Score.repeatCommands (though I don't feel I'll
learn anything in the attempt) but in order to get useful LP code, one
has to decide what the score's semantics are. For me, duplicating the
notational syntax is a waste of time.

> Interesting!

Knowing little about XML, let alone MusicXML, I don't know how much of
the semantics of repeats can be expressed and enforced.

> Le 26 juin 2018 à 15:41, David Wright  a écrit :

[one spurious quote marker removed]

> > On Mon 25 Jun 2018 at 12:34:13 (-0700), Torsten Hämmerle wrote:
> >> Ok, when looking at the XML data, I'll have to admit that Finale, Musescore
> >> and Sibelius (just tested it) are closer to the XML reality, whereas
> >> LilyPond fills in missing parts.
> > 
> > I'd agree, and would say that the XML is simply malformed, so the
> > musicxml2ly program is trying to correct it. AFAICT the output is
> > consistent with prioritising the earliest elements encountered in
> > the source, ie the volta brackets.
> > 
> >> Import into Sibelius:
> >>  
> >> 
> >> But I think there's a 
> >>
> >> missing in the XML file at the end of measure 2 (within )
> >> 
> >> If you insert this, the missing repeat barline between the volta brackets
> >> will even show up in Finale/Sibelius/MuseScore. ;)

I didn't understand that then, and I don't now. Your .xml file posted
here seemed to have a whole ending (numbered 8) added to it.

> > But if you insert a :| at the end of bar 2, then the bar sequence
> > played becomes 1 2 1 3 1 4, so bar 4 still needs an open-ended
> > volta |¯¯ marked with 3 for third time (open-ended, assuming that
> > the single bar 4 is a placeholder for a passage of music).

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Repeat question

[David Wright]

On Mon 25 Jun 2018 at 12:34:13 (-0700), Torsten Hämmerle wrote:
> Ok, when looking at the XML data, I'll have to admit that Finale, Musescore
> and Sibelius (just tested it) are closer to the XML reality, whereas
> LilyPond fills in missing parts.

I'd agree, and would say that the XML is simply malformed, so the
musicxml2ly program is trying to correct it. AFAICT the output is
consistent with prioritising the earliest elements encountered in
the source, ie the volta brackets.

> Import into Sibelius:
>  
> 
> But I think there's a 
> 
> missing in the XML file at the end of measure 2 (within )
> 
> If you insert this, the missing repeat barline between the volta brackets
> will even show up in Finale/Sibelius/MuseScore. ;)

But if you insert a :| at the end of bar 2, then the bar sequence
played becomes 1 2 1 3 1 4, so bar 4 still needs an open-ended
volta |¯¯ marked with 3 for third time (open-ended, assuming that
the single bar 4 is a placeholder for a passage of music).

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Repeat question

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Ok, when looking at the XML data, I'll have to admit that Finale, Musescore
and Sibelius (just tested it) are closer to the XML reality, whereas
LilyPond fills in missing parts.

Import into Sibelius:
 

But I think there's a 

missing in the XML file at the end of measure 2 (within )

If you insert this, the missing repeat barline between the volta brackets
will even show up in Finale/Sibelius/MuseScore. ;)


And when even specifying 
whole
within , MuseScore will correctly import semibreve notes instead of
crotchets plus rests.

All the best,
Torsten




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

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

Re: Repeat question

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

Thanks Torsten!

For completeness, here is the MusicXML data.

It’s interesting to observe that MusicXML import is not done the same way by 
different tools, hence my post.

JM

--


http://www.musicxml.org/dtds/partwise.dtd;>

  

  Nested repeats, each with 
  alternative endings.

  
  

  MusicXML Part

  
  
  

  
1

  0
  major


  4
  4


  G
  2

  
  

  C
  4

4
1
  



  

  
  

  E
  5

4
1
  
  

  



  

  
  

  F
  5

4
1
  
  
light-heavy


  



  

  G
  5

4
1
  
  
light-heavy
  

  
  





> Le 25 juin 2018 à 20:08, Torsten Hämmerle  a écrit :
> 
> Hello Jacques,
> 
> Without knowing the original MusicXML file, the LilyPond solution looks much
> more like a standard volta repeat with alternatives than the
> Finale/Musescore output.
> 
> In any case, nested or not, a repeat barline will have to be set between
> adjacent volta brackets.
> Finale/Musescore misses out this repeat barline between the two volta
> brackets, whereas LilyPond's output is correct.
> 
> Apart from that, these nested repeats can be confusing for several reasons
> and there may be better alternatives. But, in the end, this about faithful
> MusicXML representation and I'd say LilyPond wins this time.
> 
> HTH,
> Torsten
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

Re: Repeat question

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Hello Jacques,

Without knowing the original MusicXML file, the LilyPond solution looks much
more like a standard volta repeat with alternatives than the
Finale/Musescore output.

In any case, nested or not, a repeat barline will have to be set between
adjacent volta brackets.
Finale/Musescore misses out this repeat barline between the two volta
brackets, whereas LilyPond's output is correct.

Apart from that, these nested repeats can be confusing for several reasons
and there may be better alternatives. But, in the end, this about faithful
MusicXML representation and I'd say LilyPond wins this time.

HTH,
Torsten



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

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

Repeat question

[Menu Jacques]

Hello folks,

I have a MusicXML file that displays differently with musicxml2ly:



than with MuseScore or Finale:



In order to obtain the same score a MuseScore or Finale, I have to uncomment 
the enclosing \repeat in the code.

Is it right then that there are two nested repeats in such a score?

Thanks for your help!

JM




\version "2.19.58"
% automatically converted by musicxml2ly from BackwardStopBarline.xml_inter.xml


\header {
  texidoc =
  "Nested repeats, each with 
  alternative endings."
}

\layout {
  \context {
\Score
autoBeaming = ##f
  }
}
PartPOneVoiceOne =  \relative c' {
 % \repeat volta 2 {
\repeat volta 2 {
  \clef "treble" \key c \major \time 4/4 | % 1
  c1
}
\alternative {
  {
| % 2
e'1
  }
  {
| % 3
f1
  }
} | % 4
 % }
  g1 \bar "|."
}


% The score definition
\score {
  <<

\new Staff
<<

  \context Staff <<
\mergeDifferentlyDottedOn\mergeDifferentlyHeadedOn
\context Voice = "PartPOneVoiceOne" {  \PartPOneVoiceOne }
  >>
>>

  >>
  \layout {}
  % To create MIDI output, uncomment the following line:
  %  \midi {\tempo 4 = 100 }
}


%%%

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

Repeat question - cross staff slur

[Vivian Barty-Taylor]

I posted this question some time ago but haven't had
any responses as yet - maybe it didn't get through. I
want a cross-staff slur within a PianoStaff context.
I've tried putting all the notes into one voice and
then putting the \change Staff command within the
voice context. The start of the slur is not anywhere
near the first note, though, and I can't decipher the
documentation to work out how to manually move this
point.

Could somebody help?

Many thanks,
Vivian, Netherlands.

My new website - www.vivbt.tk



___ 
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars 
online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/


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

Re: Repeat question - cross staff slur

[Mats Bengtsson]

In the Regression Tests document, you can find an example called
slur-cross-staff.ly which illustrates how well/bad LilyPond handles
this for the moment. The desirable layout in these situations is probably
a slur that is printed below the upper stave and above the lower stave,
looking something like


_/
/

or

\___
   \

However, this is not yet supported in LilyPond as far as I know.
You may want to take a look at the example in the Tips and Tricks
document called slur-manual.ly though.

 /Mats

Vivian Barty-Taylor wrote:


I posted this question some time ago but haven't had
any responses as yet - maybe it didn't get through. I
want a cross-staff slur within a PianoStaff context.
I've tried putting all the notes into one voice and
then putting the \change Staff command within the
voice context. The start of the slur is not anywhere
near the first note, though, and I can't decipher the
documentation to work out how to manually move this
point.

Could somebody help?

Many thanks,
Vivian, Netherlands.

My new website - www.vivbt.tk



___ 
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/



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



--
=
Mats Bengtsson
Signal Processing
Signals, Sensors and Systems
Royal Institute of Technology
SE-100 44  STOCKHOLM
Sweden
Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 
   Fax:   (+46) 8 790 7260
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe
=



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

Re: \unfold repeat question

[Rune Zedeler]

Jule Slootbeek wrote:

  warning: Too many clashing notecolumns.  Ignoring them.


see

http://lilypond.org/stable/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/More-basics.html#More%20basics

at the bottom - just above the summary.

-Rune




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

Re: \unfold repeat question [solved]

[Jule Slootbeek]

aaah, thanks a lot...fixed it
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 12:53 , Rune Zedeler wrote:

 Jule Slootbeek wrote:

  warning: Too many clashing notecolumns.  Ignoring them.


 see

 http://lilypond.org/stable/Documentation/user/out-
 www/lilypond/More-basics.html#More%20basics

 at the bottom - just above the summary.

 -Rune




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


Jule Slootbeek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maywood 403b
x6858



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