me-110 wrote
> Hello list,
>
> In the below code, how do I get rid of the "a tempo" at the end of
> first line and the "poco rit." at the beginning of the second line?
\override TextSpanner #'bound-details #'left-broken #'text = ##f
the NR only mentions it with glissandi
Eluze
--
View this m
Hi,
I'm now wondering if there's a way to modify this 4-bars-per-line engraving
function I found at the forum so that it does the following:
1. print a pickup partial measure on the right-hand side of a single line
(not spanning entire line but using, say, the width that would make sense in
propo
>>> is perfectly repeatable by q.
>>
>> Do we have this in the docs?
>
> I don't think explicitly, but why wouldn't it work?.
Whether it works is not the question, but rather that people don't
have this in mind while looking for a repetition possibility of a
single note. Even I, being quite we
Jim Long writes:
> But this doesn't:
>
> \version "2.16.0"
>
> \score {
> \relative c' {
> c4 c c c
> \break
> \set Staff.explicitClefVisibility = #end-of-line-invisible
> \clef bass
> \unset Staff.explicitClefVisibility
> c4 c c c
> \break
> }
> }
>
> I couldn't i
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> is perfectly repeatable by q.
>
> Do we have this in the docs?
I don't think explicitly, but why wouldn't it work?. <>, by the way, is
not repeatable since q4 would not exactly make a lot of sense.
--
David Kastrup
___
li
> is perfectly repeatable by q.
Do we have this in the docs?
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
I just stubbed my toe on something silly, and I don't understand
why it is the way it is.
Why does this work:
\version "2.16.0"
\score {
\relative c' {
c4 c c c
\break
\set Staff.explicitClefVisibility = #end-of-line-invisible
\clef bass
c4 c c c
\unset Staff.explicitCl
Hello list,
In the below code, how do I get rid of the "a tempo" at the end of
first line and the "poco rit." at the beginning of the second line?
I couldn't find anything in the docs or the internals, but maybe I'm
not looking hard enough.
%%%
\version "2.16.0"
\relative c' {
\override Text
On 20/09/12 08:43, bthom wrote:
> Any idea how you could use this fixed-bars per line engraver in conjunction
> w/no indentation on first line of score?
>
> I tried adding
>
> After
>
> \Score
>
> I tried adding:
>
> % don't indent first line
> indent = 0.0 \cm
>
> But the first line
Any idea how you could use this fixed-bars per line engraver in conjunction
w/no indentation on first line of score?
I tried adding
After
\Score
I tried adding:
% don't indent first line
indent = 0.0 \cm
But the first line remains embedded.
Thanks for any advice on this matter.
Jim Long writes:
> A humble suggestion
>
> Please educate me if there is already a way to do this, but it
> appears that 'q' as a shorthand for the repetition of the
> previous note(s) only works for chords. It would be handy if it
> worked for single notes also, specifically in ties.
A sin
A humble suggestion
Please educate me if there is already a way to do this, but it
appears that 'q' as a shorthand for the repetition of the
previous note(s) only works for chords. It would be handy if it
worked for single notes also, specifically in ties.
\time 12/8
\partial 8
aes8
Urs Liska writes:
> But F flat _is_ different from E, especially in its relationship to
> other, 'normal' keys. F flat has a quite simple relation to G flat
> that might happen in real music. So I'm happy that LilyPond offers to
> explicitely write it down instead of refusing to do things, _she_
"Peter Gentry" writes:
> Davids second solution is even better
>
> { g'''4 -\tweak #'X-offset #-2.7 \p ( \< e'''4 \! \> d'''4 \!) }
>
> Clearly I need to do my homework on -\tweak which does seem a more
> intuitive way forward.
Well, I am working on getting rid of the - in -\tweak but it's tric
On 19 Sep 2012, at 18:42, Urs Liska wrote:
>> Just write e-major and the musicans will be thankfull ;-).
> But F flat _is_ different from E, especially in its relationship to other,
> 'normal' keys. F flat has a quite simple relation to G flat that might happen
> in real music. So I'm happy tha
Hello Eric,
unfortunately my french is not sufficient. So I probably misread
something. But I want to to try...
> Quelqu'un peut-il m'expliquer où j'ai commis une erreur,
Probably it's a good idea to reduce the example, e.g. you could omit the
repriseaudebut since it's never used. I found the
At 17:10 on 19 Sep 2012, Urs Liska wrote:
>BTW it was also Schumann who stated that Chopin sometimes waited a few
>chord progressions too long before writing the enharmonic change.
Even Chopin chose C# minor rather than D-flat minor for the second
section of Op 28 no 15.
http://www.youtube.com/w
Am 19.09.2012 18:26, schrieb michael.str...@boehringer-ingelheim.com:
Hi,
I have to agree with david. I studied music and piano and i never saw a piece
composed with key-signature f-flat. It would be completly unreadable. Any
musician would reject to study a piece with a double-flat in the
key-si
Hi,
I have to agree with david. I studied music and piano and i never saw a piece
composed with key-signature f-flat. It would be completly unreadable. Any
musician would reject to study a piece with a double-flat in the
key-signature.
It's amazing that lilypond supports such strange things but fr
keith Luke writes:
> Does anyone know why the flats appear our of order when the key
> signature is F-flat?
I'm really only summarizing what's been said: that it's probably already
correct, that it's probably a bad idea to use it, and that the score is
truly unreadable with the size mismatch be
Am 19.09.2012 16:21, schrieb David Nalesnik:
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Vaughan McAlley wrote:
I appreciate the difference between sharps & flats more than many
musicians, but even I would introduce an enharmonic change rather than
use a key signature with a double-flat, if only
Bonjour,
Je n'arrive pas à régler un problème avec des alternatives.
À la mesure %16, ma pause n'est pas prise en compte.
Puis, je souhaiterais avoir après cette pause le symbole de reprise
suivant:
« :|| » et j'obtiens « :||: »
Enfin, à la volta, le symbole de continuation s'arrête à la lettr
On 19 September 2012 21:11, Urs Liska wrote:
> So like in a Fifo buffer the first accidentals (f sharp or b flat a.s.o.)
> are bumped out -> the double accidentals go at the end.
>
Yes, it seems the order is correct, it just looks strange because I’ve
never seen such a key signature ‘in the wild
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Vaughan McAlley wrote:
> I appreciate the difference between sharps & flats more than many
> musicians, but even I would introduce an enharmonic change rather than
> use a key signature with a double-flat, if only to save time at
> rehearsal:
>
> “Where‘s
2012/9/19 Nick Payne :
> On 19/09/12 17:39, Stefan Thomas wrote:
>> Dear Janek,
>> I've read the discussion You have mentioned but I couldn't find a
>> solution there, a working command that reduces the discance between
>> the accidentals and the music.
>
> You can use Score.AccidentalPlacement #'r
Am 19.09.2012 13:02, schrieb Mark Knoop:
At 12:43 on 19 Sep 2012, Thomas Morley wrote:
Image:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fes-dur
Theoretical text (in german):
http://books.google.de/books?id=D6ZZFHIuQ54C&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&ots=oEy-27k2LK&dq=fes-dur&hl=de
Interestingly, on the english wikipedia
At 12:43 on 19 Sep 2012, Thomas Morley wrote:
>Image:
>http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fes-dur
>Theoretical text (in german):
>http://books.google.de/books?id=D6ZZFHIuQ54C&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&ots=oEy-27k2LK&dq=fes-dur&hl=de
Interestingly, on the english wikipedia page the B double flat is
notated first,
2012/9/19 Phil Holmes :
> - Original Message - From: "Martin Tarenskeen"
>
> To: "keith Luke"
> Cc: "Lilypond-user"
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: F-flat Key Signature
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, keith Luke wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know why the fla
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Tarenskeen"
To: "keith Luke"
Cc: "Lilypond-user"
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: F-flat Key Signature
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, keith Luke wrote:
Does anyone know why the flats appear our of order when the key signature
is
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, keith Luke wrote:
Does anyone know why the flats appear our of order when the key signature is
F-flat?
Not an answer to your question, but why are the flats to big and don't fit
the staff, making them hard to read ?
--
MT
__
That looks correct to me. Accidentals are placed in the order they are placed
on the stave - so normally it would be Bb, Eb, etc. However, the Bbb is placed
last, replacing the first Bb, so it appears last in the list of accidentals.
--
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
From: kei
Does anyone know why the flats appear our of order when the key signature
is F-flat?
F-Flat.ly
Description: Binary data
F-Flat.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listi
Davids second solution is even better
{ g'''4 -\tweak #'X-offset #-2.7 \p ( \< e'''4 \! \> d'''4 \!) }
Clearly I need to do my homework on -\tweak which does seem a more intuitive
way forward. If I have a criticism of Lilypond syntax
it is that it is not always intuitive - that is why learning
On 19/09/12 17:39, Stefan Thomas wrote:
> Dear Janek,
> I've read the discussion You have mentioned but I couldn't find a
> solution there, a working command that reduces the discance between
> the accidentals and the music.
You can use Score.AccidentalPlacement #'right-padding, which has a
defaul
Dear Janek,
I've read the discussion You have mentioned but I couldn't find a solution
there, a working command that reduces the discance between the accidentals
and the music.
Could it maybee done with
\override Accidental #'X-extent = #'(x . y)?
2012/9/16 Janek Warchoł
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 a
35 matches
Mail list logo
