Large set of parts

Hi all, Does anyone have any suggestions on how to produce a large set of parts from an existing score? Each instrument's music is saved as a variable separate from the score staves. So I need to create a \score and \staff for 31 parts. Do I create 31 separate files? Can I do something with

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

On Fri 27 Apr 2018 at 01:43:49 (+0200), 70147pers...@telia.com wrote: > Hi David, > > This was an interesting solution, which indeed produces the image I > am looking for. Well the MIDI-file does not sound as expected, but > that is not a too big problem. One often has to produce two > different

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

On 4/26/2018 7:35 PM, 70147pers...@telia.com wrote: Your snippet did compile in my LP. It did not accept the first parameter, #'(2 . 9). When I removed it, the compilation worked fine, but the result did not coincide with your image. Sorry - my version statement was wrong. That is a

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

Hi Karlin, Thank you for your suggestion on the partcombiner. I have to admit I have not used that facility much. In fact I did not find it very useful when I introduced myself into LilyPond, so that is a white spot on my map. Maybe I should  look at it a wee further. Your snippet did

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

Hi David, This was an interesting solution, which indeed produces the image I am looking for. Well the MIDI-file does not sound as expected, but that is not a too big problem. One often has to produce two different scores anyway, one for the layout and one for the midi. Well, this was an

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

The partcombiner can do some different things, probably still not quite what is wanted in this case. PNG attached. % BEGIN \version "2.18.2" soprano = { 2. f'4 | 2. f'4 | 2. f'4 | } alto = { \partcombineChords 2. \once \partcombineAutomatic f'4 |

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

On Thu 26 Apr 2018 at 20:54:57 (+0200), 70147pers...@telia.com wrote: > Yes, this is exactly what I do, even if I did not want to make my > snippet too complicated by introducing also the piano staff. You > could of course use four staves, but in real life often two staves > are used with two

Re: Schenkerian analysis diagram

> I don’t think you need to patch LilyPond. Have a look at > > and >

Re: Make TOC entries available to LaTeX

2018-04-26 8:48 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska : > Hi Harm, > > thanks for looking into this. > > > Am 25.04.2018 um 23:13 schrieb Thomas Morley: >> >> 2018-04-25 16:00 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska : >> ... >>> >>> 2) >>> Assuming the TOC items are created using \tocItem

Re: Make TOC entries available to LaTeX

2018-04-25 23:13 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley : >> There's only one issue: The TOC will create wrong entries when LilyPond's >> first page number is not 1. So there should actually be an offset in place. >> How can I read the value of the first-page-number variable to set up

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

Hi, I think it is related to the \consists Dot_column_engraver which is attached by default to the staff. You'd need to add it in the voice context instead: \version "2.18.2" \new Staff { \relative c' << \new Voice \with {\consists Dot_column_engraver} { \voiceOne 2. f4

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

Hello again Andrew, Yes, this is exactly what I do, even if I did not want to make my snippet too complicated by introducing also the piano staff. You could of course use four staves, but in real life often two staves are used with two voices in each. Often however life is not that simple,

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On 4/26/18 12:02 PM, R wrote: This shows the default duration as a sixteenth note which should be NOT even considered since it's within an uncalled variable. So why is this spacer value magically applied to music when it resides it a completely uncalled variable? This makes no sense to me. Even

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On Thu 26 Apr 2018 at 12:20:34 (-0400), R wrote: > On 4/26/2018 12:13 PM, Simon Albrecht wrote: > >On 26.04.2018 18:02, R wrote: > >>When the duration of the called variable is explicitly given, > >>everything is correct. However, if you remove the duration and > >>have it default to the normal

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

R writes: > When the duration of the called variable is explicitly given, > everything is correct. However, if you remove the duration and have it > default to the normal quarter note, this causes a problem. But it > shouldn't. > > % this snippet has 16th notes which is

RE: Cross staff stems for beamed notes

Helge, Welcome. Mark -Original Message- From: Helge Kruse [mailto:helge.kr...@gmx.net] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 9:00 AM To: Mark Stephen Mrotek ; lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject: Re: Cross staff stems for beamed notes Am 26.04.2018 um 16:43 schrieb Mark

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi, it's an uncalled variable. Why should it output anything or impact anything that's called? 1. It doesn’t output anything on its own — only when you call it. What it impacts in that case depends on where and how you call it. 2. The input code contained in a

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

Hi Kaj, Then why not use four voices for SATB, and two staves as per say a standard vocal template, such as the example hymn template in the Snippets section of the manual? All the dot clashes go away - which is I suppose the advantage of the established way of setting such music for SATB,

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

Hello R., A variable is nothing more than a name for a value, a piece of text in the case of Lily. Using it with a backslash ahead of its name leads to this value being inserted at this point in the Lily code. It’s the same as in all programming languages, there no implied magic at at all

Re: Spacer Rests Global Problem

On Thu 26 Apr 2018 at 08:21:24 (-0700), Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote: > You have > s1*4 \tempo "Largo" s1*3 \tempo "Allegro" > inside the \global. It shall start all parts. Remove it > You can change tempo with the \tempo command attached to a specific note. Not good advice. Better to understand

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On 4/26/2018 12:13 PM, Simon Albrecht wrote: On 26.04.2018 18:02, R wrote: When the duration of the called variable is explicitly given, everything is correct. However, if you remove the duration and have it default to the normal quarter note, this causes a problem. If you don’t give an

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

Hi, > it's an uncalled variable. Why should it output anything or impact anything > that's called? 1. It doesn’t output anything on its own — only when you call it. What it impacts in that case depends on where and how you call it. 2. The input code contained in a variable sets up certain

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

Hi David, No. My error - that shiftOnn is spurious. Andrew On 27 April 2018 at 01:32, David Wright wrote: > > Your output is clearer to me too, but identical to knocking out the > OP's overrides (top version). Do I need to update beyond 2.19.80 to > see the effect

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On 4/26/2018 11:56 AM, Simon Albrecht wrote: On 26.04.2018 17:49, R wrote: Just one last question to pick your brain. Assuming I build an entire symphonic piece using global block as holder of tempo and markings. For a full score when I want to only show tempo markings above certain staves,

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On 26.04.2018 18:02, R wrote: When the duration of the called variable is explicitly given, everything is correct. However, if you remove the duration and have it default to the normal quarter note, this causes a problem. If you don’t give an explicit duration to a note, its duration is going

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

Am 26.04.2018 um 17:21 schrieb R: > Thank you but I have difficult understanding why Frescobaldi configured > the score like that if it's not prone to using the global block easily. > For instance, what is different about your code structurely and is there > a con to doing it your way? The

Re: Cross staff stems for beamed notes

Am 26.04.2018 um 16:43 schrieb Mark Stephen Mrotek: > Helga, > Mark, \autoBeamOf/On and the correct placement of \crossStaff did the job perfectly. Thanks, Helge ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On 26.04.2018 17:49, R wrote: Just one last question to pick your brain. Assuming I build an entire symphonic piece using global block as holder of tempo and markings. For a full score when I want to only show tempo markings above certain staves, how is this easiest done? I understand they

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On 26.04.2018 17:21, R wrote: Thank you but I have difficult understanding why Frescobaldi configured the score like that if it's not prone to using the global block easily. There are different ways of using a \global variable. One is to use it just for something like: global = {   \key as

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On 4/26/2018 11:41 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi, I have difficult understanding why Frescobaldi configured the score like that if it's not prone to using the global block easily. I don’t know what you mean… The \global block is easy to use. Well I just meant that you had to manually

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On 4/26/2018 11:38 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi, Also your code still gives me incorrect added measures. What duration are the cello notes supposed to be? The reason you have "incorrect added measures" is that you don't indicate what duration the cello notes are supposed to be, so they

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On 4/26/2018 11:38 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi, Also your code still gives me incorrect added measures. What duration are the cello notes supposed to be? The reason you have "incorrect added measures" is that you don't indicate what duration the cello notes are supposed to be, so they

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

Hi, > I have difficult understanding why Frescobaldi configured the score like that > if it's not prone to using the global block easily. I don’t know what you mean… The \global block is easy to use. > For instance, what is different about your code structurely and is there a > con to doing

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

Hi, > Also your code still gives me incorrect added measures. What duration are the cello notes supposed to be? The reason you have "incorrect added measures" is that you don't indicate what duration the cello notes are supposed to be, so they implicitly adopt the last duration in the code

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

On Fri 27 Apr 2018 at 00:36:24 (+1000), Andrew Bernard wrote: > Hi Kaj, > > This would be clear to me: > > > > \version "2.19.81" > \new Staff { > \relative c' > << > \new Voice { > \voiceOne > \shiftOnn > 2. f4 > 2. f4 > 2. f4 > } > \new Voice

RE: Spacer Rests Global Problem

Reggie, You have s1*4 \tempo "Largo" s1*3 \tempo "Allegro" inside the \global. It shall start all parts. Remove it You can change tempo with the \tempo command attached to a specific note. S8*3 creates an eight note spacer three times. It is the same as s8 s s. Mark -Original Message-

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On 4/26/2018 11:15 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi, I am trying to understand spacer rests and global block. This is how I would organize your score: Also your code still gives me incorrect added measures. ? Look at the notes and then the empty measures. See?  Why is this better?

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

On 4/26/2018 11:15 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi, I am trying to understand spacer rests and global block. This is how I would organize your score: %%% SNIPPET BEGINS \version "2.19.81" global = { \key c \major \numericTimeSignature \time 4/4 \tempo "Fast!" s1*4 \tempo

Re: Spacer Rests Global Confusion

Hi, > I am trying to understand spacer rests and global block. This is how I would organize your score: %%% SNIPPET BEGINS \version "2.19.81" global = { \key c \major \numericTimeSignature \time 4/4 \tempo "Fast!" s1*4 \tempo "Largo" s1*3 \tempo "Allegro" } cello = \relative

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

Hello Andrew, In my LP 2.18.2 I get this result: which (as you assume) is absolutely not what I want. I see you have a more modern version. Does it produce another sheet? It is possibly a good image for the director in the phase of getting a rough idea of how the music sounds, but for the

Spacer Rests Global Problem

Hi list. I am new to LilyPond. I am trying to understand spacer rests and global block. I know that you can use the global block to handle things like tempo and time throughout a piece however regardless of what I try it always seems to create an extra unnecessary staff. Of course I tried to

Spacer Rests Global Problem Please

Hi list. I am new to LilyPond. I am trying to understand spacer rests and global block. I know that you can use the global block to handle things like tempo and time throughout a piece however regardless of what I try it always seems to create an extra unnecessary staff. Of course I tried to

Spacer Rests Global Confusion

Hi list. I am new to the LilyPond. I am trying to understand spacer rests and global block. I know that you can use the global block to handle things like tempo and time throughout a piece however regardless of what I try it always seems to create an extra unnecessary staff. Of course I tried to

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

Hello Andrew, Thank you for your comment. It is piece for a choir (SATB). Maybe unusual, but I think it is easier to read the notes for each individual voice if they are not merged, easier to separate e.g. sopranos from altos, which are both on the same staff. But when the dots do not attach

RE: Cross staff stems for beamed notes

Helga, It has to do with the \voiceOne. \version "2.19.81" \layout { \context { \PianoStaff \consists #Span_stem_engraver } } { \new PianoStaff << \new Staff { \time 6/8 r8 \voiceOne [] \voiceTwo }

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

Hi Kaj, This would be clear to me: \version "2.19.81" \new Staff { \relative c' << \new Voice { \voiceOne \shiftOnn 2. f4 2. f4 2. f4 } \new Voice { \voiceTwo 2. f4 2. f4 2. f4 } >> } No? I know it is not

Re: Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

Hello Kaj, That would be unusual notation, if piano. The notes lose their simultaneity, making it unclear to read. What is this for actually then? Andrew On 26 April 2018 at 19:37, <70147pers...@telia.com> wrote: > How do I get the dots follow the notes? >

Re: Schenkerian analysis diagram

On 25.04.2018 23:48, Jérôme Plût wrote: instead of \white, \black, \beam, \beamR, \slurAL I would prefer (for example) -o, -*, -|, -[, -( . Would a patch to the C code enabling such shortcuts be envisageable? I don’t think you need to patch LilyPond. Have a look at

Re: Schenkerian analysis diagram

Hi Jérôme, > I tried to do a few analysis diagrams following the LinuxJournal > example (quoted on the lilypond examples page): > https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8364 > > (and also quite outdated, since it was written for Lilypond 2.6). > > I think I have a proof of concept (see attached

Re: Do we have a "damp" symbol?

I use the handbell damp symbol from the Finale percussion font, which is a double circle with a large plus symbol overlaid where the arms of the plus extend beyond the two circles. _\markup { \fontsize #+4 \override #' (font-name . "Finale Percussion") { 3 } } On 25 April 2018 at 23:11,

Re: Off topic - SITT 20 Studies in Double Stops

On 24 April 2018 at 21:13, Trevor Bača wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:06 AM, Gianmaria Lari > wrote: > >> My question is off topic. I hope it will not be a problem. >> >> The following is one excerpt from the Sitt book, 20 studies in Double

Dots wrongly positioned in not merged chords

How do I get the dots follow the notes? The normal way for LilyPond is to merge (dotted) notes if they have the same pitch, the stems are different and the note heads are equal. I search for a way to disable this merge. I want the notes and chords stand beside each other, but have not found

Re: Cross staff stems for beamed notes

On 26/04/2018 07:28, Helge Kruse wrote: > I need to add cross staff stems and used the approach found in > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/snippets/staff-notation.html#staff-notation-cross-staff-stems > > Unfortunately this doesn't give the expected result for eighth notes. > - If

Re: Slurs do not work with Larsen articulations

Noeck writes: > Hi Harm, > > IMHO that's a good explanation and according to the recurring questions > on this list, sth. that would be helpful. > > I like the "attached to the note" much better than "not enclosed in" > because the negative wording "not enclosed in" only

Re: Slurs do not work with Larsen articulations

Thomas Morley writes: > 2018-04-25 23:23 GMT+02:00 Carl Sorensen : >> >> >> On 4/25/18, 2:34 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote: >> >> So I see it more as a documentation challenge than a design failure. >> >> >> I agree, and I think we

Re: Make TOC entries available to LaTeX

Hi Harm, thanks for looking into this. Am 25.04.2018 um 23:13 schrieb Thomas Morley: 2018-04-25 16:00 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska : ... 2) Assuming the TOC items are created using \tocItem then it should be guaranteed that there is the same label present as key in both

Re: Cross staff stems for beamed notes

I think you'd need to omit the beams: \version "2.19.81" \score { << \new PianoStaff << \new Staff { \time 6/8 fis'4. \stemDown a' } \new Staff { \time 6/8 \clef bass \crossStaff { 4. < a! a,!> } } >> \new PianoStaff << \new Staff { \time 6/8 r8 q \stemUp