David, thanks for this. I had abandoned the melismaBusy method, as it was throwing up all sorts of artefacts (blank bars and partially-blank bars, etc.) when applied in a polyphonic setting. And the fixes for parts starting with rests were beginning to make the source file rather incomprehensible.
So, I had in fact adopted precisely the solution you suggest (but I was aiming to get to the end of the current project before confessing it to the list, in case it too proved to be a dead end for any other reason). So far, it is looking good, and the source file is semantically- and structurally- clear. -- Graham On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 09:44 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Sun 15 Oct 2023 at 15:07:52 (+0100), Graham King wrote: > > Note to self, since this thread has risen to the status of > > documentation for me: Valentin's method is sensitive to slurs in > > the > > instrumental line (I suspect that the end of a slur is equivalent > > to > > \unset melismaBusy), so some adjustment may be necessary. > [ … … ] > > It also, understandably, gives weird results if applied immediately > > after a rest, so this does not work: > [ … … ] > > It strikes me that trying to keep the notes in one continuous voice > is what makes things complicated, judging by the snippets you've > posted. Why not just put the verse and full sections in separate > voices, and combine them on the staff. I've massacred a bit of Boyce > as an example, attached. > > If I needed MIDI files, I would separate each and every section > (ie, the two voice sections in this fragment), so that they could > all be concatenated in the right order for the MIDI. > > Cheers, > David.
