On 03.11.2016 21:42, Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote:
THE VERTICAL ORDER OF NOTES ON THE PAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
ORDER OF THE VOICES WITHIN THE << // // // >> CONSTRUCT, OR WHAT THE
VOICE NAMES ARE CALLED
Do you agree with that? You should, since it is true.
I have to second David he
David,
Am 04.11.2016 um 00:45 schrieb Flaming Hakama by Elaine:
> due to the confusion between the intention of
> vertical-order-in-the-staff and what the << // // // >> construct
> actually does (there is no relationship),
Actually I *do* think you are misunderstanding some things here, and I
c
> >> > THE VERTICAL ORDER OF NOTES ON THE PAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
> ORDER
> >> OF
> >> > THE VOICES WITHIN THE << // // // >> CONSTRUCT, OR WHAT THE VOICE
> NAMES
> >> ARE
> >> > CALLED
> >> >
> >> > Do you agree with that? You should, since it is true.
> >>
> >> No, I don't agree with it.
Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:35 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
>>
>> > I'm not sure if this is a language problem, or an attitude problem.
>> > Because it seems like you are coming to the opposite interpretation of
>> what
>> > I sa
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:35 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
>
> > I'm not sure if this is a language problem, or an attitude problem.
> > Because it seems like you are coming to the opposite interpretation of
> what
> > I say, despite me being very detailed in my expl
Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
> I'm not sure if this is a language problem, or an attitude problem.
> Because it seems like you are coming to the opposite interpretation of what
> I say, despite me being very detailed in my explanation.
>
>
> Let's start with the main point:
>
> THE VERTICAL O
I'm not sure if this is a language problem, or an attitude problem.
Because it seems like you are coming to the opposite interpretation of what
I say, despite me being very detailed in my explanation.
Let's start with the main point:
THE VERTICAL ORDER OF NOTES ON THE PAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
> On Nov 3, 2016 12:55 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>>
>> Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
>>
>> > I wanted to jump in here because in this discussion, a lot of people
> have
>> > said or implied things like (paraphrasing) "top to bottom in << // //
> // >>
>> > s
On Nov 3, 2016 12:55 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
> Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
>
> > I wanted to jump in here because in this discussion, a lot of people
have
> > said or implied things like (paraphrasing) "top to bottom in << // //
// >>
> > should correspond top to bottom in the score", a
Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
> I wanted to jump in here because in this discussion, a lot of people have
> said or implied things like (paraphrasing) "top to bottom in << // // // >>
> should correspond top to bottom in the score", and suggesting naming
> conventions based on this.
>
> These
into the mix, ...
>
By the way (and I believe there may have been some discussion about this
previously, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now), why do we use
\oneVoice instead of \voiceNeutral like we do with \tieNeutral,
\tupletNeutral, etc. "\oneVoice" c
, but seriously
folks...
>>
This doesn't really change the above discussion about implicit voicing and
how they should stack, but it does make it a little easier to create any
number of explicit directional voices. I guess I'm too used to the current
way of stacking. Pardo
On 2016-11-03 16:32, David Wright wrote:
On Tue 01 Nov 2016 at 15:36:56 (-), Phil Holmes wrote:
I'm concerned by this. I don't believe I have ever used more than 2
voices in choral music: typically the sops/tenors get voice one, and
the alto/basses get voice two. If any of these is doubled
On Tue 01 Nov 2016 at 15:36:56 (-), Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "David Kastrup"
> To: "Trevor Daniels"
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
>
>
>
> >There ar
On Tue 01 Nov 2016 at 21:18:31 (+0100), David Kastrup wrote:
> David Wright writes:
>
> > ¹ why not \voiceTop \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceBottom ? Well, you could
> > end up with \voiceUp having stems pointing down,
>
> Uh no? \voiceUp will always have stems pointing up, and \voiceDown will
> hav
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> So
>> \voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour
>> becomes
>> \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo
>
> I would make \voiceUp and \voiceDown be the same as \voiceUpOne and
> \voiceUpTwo, respectively, so that we can write
>
> \voiceUpOne \voiceDownOne \voiceUp
> So
> \voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour
> becomes
> \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo
I would make \voiceUp and \voiceDown be the same as \voiceUpOne and
\voiceUpTwo, respectively, so that we can write
\voiceUpOne \voiceDownOne \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo
Werner
___
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi David (et al.),
>
>> Personally, I'd prefer a different number assignment:
>>
>> \implicitVoices 1,-1
>> \implicitVoices 1,2,-1
>> \implicitVoices 1,2,-2,-1
>> \implicitVoices 1,2,3,-2,-1
>>
>> Stem direction is recognizable from the sign (0 would be \oneVoice), an
Hi David (et al.),
> Personally, I'd prefer a different number assignment:
>
> \implicitVoices 1,-1
> \implicitVoices 1,2,-1
> \implicitVoices 1,2,-2,-1
> \implicitVoices 1,2,3,-2,-1
>
> Stem direction is recognizable from the sign (0 would be \oneVoice), and
> apart from the sign, increasing nu
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> I was thrilled and excited by your proposal. Having had some
>> leisure time this afternoon (although without net-access) I played
>> around with it. I've taken it as a local command, though.
>>
>> The result is a wrapper around simultaneous music, with and without
>>
> I was thrilled and excited by your proposal. Having had some
> leisure time this afternoon (although without net-access) I played
> around with it. I've taken it as a local command, though.
>
> The result is a wrapper around simultaneous music, with and without
> "\\". You can input straight
tested beyond the given examples, but following this route
> would make the input much more logical and because it's a wrapper we
> would warrant backward compatibility, no need to change anything
> else...
>
> Opinions?
>
Thanks, Harm! That is seriously cool. Now to do some
2016-11-02 13:04 GMT+01:00 Werner LEMBERG :
>>> \voiceOrder { 1, 3, 5, 7, 6, 4, 2 }
>>> << c'''2 \\ g'' \\ e'' \\ c'' \\ g' \\ e' \\ c' >>
>>
>> More like \voices 1,3,5,7,6,4,2 << ... >> if we want to keep in
>> current syntax. This is assuming a one-shot command taking the <<
>> >> construct
an even get into the details
myself and implement it myself. Who knows...
Best,
Abraham
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Changing-voice-order-tp195757p196004.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
On 2016-11-02 14:56, Noeck wrote:
Am 02.11.2016 um 14:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
>This particular one is... horrific.
In most of the cases the author should just have used chords instead of
voices.
My guess that the intention was to stay as close to Bach's manuscripts
as possible.
I have used
Am 02.11.2016 um 15:03 schrieb David Kastrup:
> I have no issue with following the Urtext (assuming that this is what
> the author did).
Ah ok, that's possible. The copy I found does have chords in those places.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypo
Noeck writes:
> Am 02.11.2016 um 14:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> This particular one is... horrific.
>
> In most of the cases the author should just have used chords instead of
> voices.
I have no issue with following the Urtext (assuming that this is what
the author did). But the way this has
Am 02.11.2016 um 14:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
> This particular one is... horrific.
In most of the cases the author should just have used chords instead of
voices.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/list
Noeck writes:
> A bit more of Mutopia statistics:
>
> 4157 .ly files on Mutopia don't use << \\ >>
> 1130 .ly files on Mutopia do
> 307 of the latter have only one \\, so the can't be affected by a change
> The other 823 possible could be affected but most of them use only two
> voices in one co
A bit more of Mutopia statistics:
4157 .ly files on Mutopia don't use << \\ >>
1130 .ly files on Mutopia do
307 of the latter have only one \\, so the can't be affected by a change
The other 823 possible could be affected but most of them use only two
voices in one construct but several such cons
Alexander Kobel writes:
> According to comment #10 on
> https://code.google.com/archive/p/lilypond/issues/4097 my example
> needs a \lyricsto Staff = "sop" instead of just \lyricsto "sop".
> (Though I don't quite get the explanation since the latter works for
> Voice contexts; but I guess that's
On 2016-11-02 12:43, David Kastrup wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
Alexander Kobel writes:
On 2016-11-02 12:01, David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Kobel writes:
[...]
Ugh. Maybe it's just \addlyrics then? Or wait:
Uh, what?!?
lilypond /tmp/alex.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.19.50
Processing `/tmp/a
>> \voiceOrder { 1, 3, 5, 7, 6, 4, 2 }
>> << c'''2 \\ g'' \\ e'' \\ c'' \\ g' \\ e' \\ c' >>
>
> More like \voices 1,3,5,7,6,4,2 << ... >> if we want to keep in
> current syntax. This is assuming a one-shot command taking the <<
> >> construct as its last argument.
Hmm, my original idea was a
David Kastrup writes:
> Alexander Kobel writes:
>
>> On 2016-11-02 12:01, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Alexander Kobel writes:
[...]
>>> Ugh. Maybe it's just \addlyrics then? Or wait:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, what?!?
>>>
>>> lilypond /tmp/alex.ly
>>> GNU LilyPond 2.19.50
>>> Processing `/tmp/a
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> That's three voices, not four.
>
> Also - I was specifying vocal settings because a lot of the early
> discussion centred about how it's difficult to use the << \\ >> syntax
> with vocal scores, which generally are spoken about as being SATB and
> therefore there was an ex
llan
To: Phil Holmes
Cc: David Kastrup ; Trevor Daniels ; Lilypond-User Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
Hi Phil,
Who uses four voices on one stave in vocal setting?
Why would this functionality be limited to vocal set
Alexander Kobel writes:
> On 2016-11-02 12:01, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Kobel writes:
>>>[...]
>> Ugh. Maybe it's just \addlyrics then? Or wait:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Uh, what?!?
>>
>> lilypond /tmp/alex.ly
>> GNU LilyPond 2.19.50
>> Processing `/tmp/alex.ly'
>> Parsing.../usr/local/share/li
On 2016-11-02 12:01, David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Kobel writes:
[...]
Ugh. Maybe it's just \addlyrics then? Or wait:
Uh, what?!?
lilypond /tmp/alex.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.19.50
Processing `/tmp/alex.ly'
Parsing.../usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.50/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:294:12:
In
Alexander Kobel writes:
> On 2016-11-02 11:35, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Kobel writes:
>>
>>> On 2016-11-02 11:20, David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Kobel writes:
> I mostly set vocal music - typically clean SATB with exactly four
> voices on either two or four staves, bu
On 2016-11-02 11:35, David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Kobel writes:
On 2016-11-02 11:20, David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Kobel writes:
I mostly set vocal music - typically clean SATB with exactly four
voices on either two or four staves, but sometimes a voice splits to
two or three in between
Alexander Kobel writes:
> On 2016-11-02 11:20, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Kobel writes:
>>
>>> I mostly set vocal music - typically clean SATB with exactly four
>>> voices on either two or four staves, but sometimes a voice splits to
>>> two or three in between. In that case, I'll almost
On 2016-11-02 11:20, David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Kobel writes:
I mostly set vocal music - typically clean SATB with exactly four
voices on either two or four staves, but sometimes a voice splits to
two or three in between. In that case, I'll almost always have a
four-staves situation. Thi
Alexander Kobel writes:
> I mostly set vocal music - typically clean SATB with exactly four
> voices on either two or four staves, but sometimes a voice splits to
> two or three in between. In that case, I'll almost always have a
> four-staves situation. This screams for << \\ >> or << \\ \\ >>
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> To make it more visible I coded a small snippet annotating some info
>> to NoteHeads in
>> << .. \\ .. \\ ... ... ... >>-constructs.
>>
>> Output attached.
>
> Thanks!
>
> What about a two-step process: You first set up the order of the
> voices, then you input from top
On 2016-10-28 14:52, David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Kobel writes:
[...]
Basically you need to only fix those voices not obeying the standard
scheme (usually just one) and the rest will work out. So I don't really
think that a special syntax is needed.
True. But isn't the point of this shortc
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:11 PM
>
>> I want to rename the \voiceXXX constructs
>> as well. The old ones will be available still but no longer promoted
>> and/or documented prominently, instead using something like \voiceUp,
>> \voiceDown, \inner
Am 01.11.2016 um 16:36 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> I don't use concert-ly 'cos I find it a pain on Windows.
It's very easy with Frescobaldi, if you don't like the command line:
Tools > Update with convert-ly
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gn
Am 01.11.2016 um 15:42 schrieb David Kastrup:
> How about we check out Mutopia? It is my guess that a considerable
> number of the uses of << \\ \\ \\ >> construct with three or more voices
> are wrong.
In the Mutopia files there are 15873 double backslashes `\\`:
grep -roh "" ftp
> To make it more visible I coded a small snippet annotating some info
> to NoteHeads in
> << .. \\ .. \\ ... ... ... >>-constructs.
>
> Output attached.
Thanks!
What about a two-step process: You first set up the order of the
voices, then you input from top to bottom.
Example:
% current
<
On 11/01/2016 09:50 PM, Paul wrote:
so I'm not sure how or even whether this kind of thing can be done in
user space (at least not with existing functions like map-some-music).
Well, here's a start on something, but still not sure how to pull it off
fully:
\version "2.19.49"
split =
#(defi
Hi Kieren,
On 11/01/2016 08:32 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
I'm not sure how to write a function that accepts an arbitrary
number of music expressions.
Couldn’t the function “look forward” the number of entries in the udududud list?
I don't think that can work, because the function has to be
Hi Urs,
> I'm not sure how to write a function that accepts an arbitrary
> number of music expressions.
Couldn’t the function “look forward” the number of entries in the udududud list?
> that seems to call for a "list of music expressions”,
> but I'm not sure to what extent that would make the s
Hi Phil,
> Who uses four voices on one stave in vocal setting?
Why would this functionality be limited to vocal setting? Here is a screenshot
of a three-voice section in my Chaconne for unaccompanied violin:
There are many uses for multiple [musical] voices that don’t involve "vocal
setting”.
Am 01.11.2016 um 23:40 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi all,
>
>> [pseudocode:]
>> \splitUD { topmusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with DOWN }
>> \splitUUD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with UP } { bottommusic
>> \with DOWN }
>> \splitUDD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with DOWN
Hi all,
> [pseudocode:]
> \splitUD { topmusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with DOWN }
> \splitUUD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with UP } { bottommusic
> \with DOWN }
> \splitUDD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with DOWN } { bottommusic
> \with DOWN }
> etc.
If I was better
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:11 PM
> I want to rename the \voiceXXX constructs
> as well. The old ones will be available still but no longer promoted
> and/or documented prominently, instead using something like \voiceUp,
> \voiceDown, \inner \voiceUp, \inner \VoiceDown ...
Hi all,
A fascinating thread, for a number of reasons…
Regardless of how the individual functions are ultimately named, might I
recommend we add a *lot* of syntactic sugar? I have custom functions called
“splitX” (workhorses in my code), which remove the need for me to remember how
to code suc
2016-10-28 1:46 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :
> 2016-10-27 13:40 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>>
>> This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
>>
>> If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
>>
>> 1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
>>
>> while the documentation is quite exp
David Wright writes:
>
>> Now the Voice contexts are still going to be assigned sequentially as
>> "1"/"2", "1"/"2"/"3", "1"/"2"/"3"/"4" (nothing else makes sense really).
>> So in order not to cause confusion by having "1"/"2"/"3"/"4" correspond
>> to "One"/"Three"/"Four"/"Two", I want to rename
On Tue 01 Nov 2016 at 17:11:30 (+0100), David Kastrup wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "David Kastrup"
> > To: "Trevor Daniels"
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:42 PM
David Kastrup writes:
> "Br. Samuel Springuel" writes:
>
>> I'd default the flag to the old behavior while the new one is being
>> worked on and then default it to the new behavior once a stable state
>> has been reached.
>
> I don't see that "the new one" will be worked on for any significant
>
"Br. Samuel Springuel" writes:
> I'm not a heavy user, so take my thoughts with whatever grain of salt
> you want, but this is how I would naively expect these constructs to
> work:
>
> << \\ \\ \\ >>
> The voices would be entered in order from top to bottom. In this way
> the physical structure
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Kastrup"
> To: "Trevor Daniels"
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
>
>
>
>> There are by now two componen
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Trevor Daniels"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
There are by now two components to my proposal: fading out \voiceOne
... \voiceFour since they _never_ correspond
I'm not a heavy user, so take my thoughts with whatever grain of salt
you want, but this is how I would naively expect these constructs to work:
<< \\ \\ \\ >>
The voices would be entered in order from top to bottom. In this way
the physical structure of the code would resemble the structure o
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> Simon Albrecht wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:42 AM
>
>>On 27.10.2016 13:40, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
>>>
>>> If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
>>>
>>> 1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6
Simon Albrecht wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:42 AM
>On 27.10.2016 13:40, David Kastrup wrote:
>> This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
>>
>> If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
>>
>> 1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
>>
>> while the documentation
Now I’ve read up the whole thread, I might add some clarification on my
thoughts.
On 01.11.2016 11:42, Simon Albrecht wrote:
The current mechanism at least provides consistency between the
\voiceOne, \voiceTwo… command names and the order in << \\ \\ >>. And
I don’t see how strict top-down num
On 27.10.2016 13:40, David Kastrup wrote:
This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
bottom, assignments should be mo
Dan Eble writes:
> On Oct 28, 2016, at 05:01 , David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Well, there is still the question of what 1/2/3 should _mean_.
>> Currently they are connected with \voiceOne, \voiceTwo,
>> \voiceThree... and the meaning of those is "topmost", "lowest", "below
>> topmost" ...
>>
>> I
On Oct 28, 2016, at 05:01 , David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Well, there is still the question of what 1/2/3 should _mean_.
> Currently they are connected with \voiceOne, \voiceTwo,
> \voiceThree... and the meaning of those is "topmost", "lowest", "below
> topmost" ...
>
> I find this both disturbing an
On Oct 28, 2016, at 03:51 , David Kastrup wrote:
> At any rate, does that mean that you are fine with
>
> << \sopranoI \\ \alto \\ \sopranoII >>
>
> and
>
> << \sopranoI \\ \altoII \\ \sopranoII \\ \altoI >>
>
> because that is what we currently have?
Until I read this thread, I didn’t know t
Am 28/10/16 um 11:01 schrieb David Kastrup:
Robert Schmaus writes:
Hi everyone,
I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it now.
But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the
code_ to match the vertical arrangement of the _engraved_ notes
's no extra work when there's nothing in the
other voice (s).
Urs
>
>--
>Abraham
>
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.
nd.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Changing-voice-order-tp195757p195827.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
On 2016-10-28 14:52, David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Kobel writes:
What about \voiceUp and \voiceDown? Where the former are
counted from top to bottom, and the latter from bottom to top?
I prefer it if a LilyPond source is readable without explanations. That
makes it much easier to learn by
Alexander Kobel writes:
> What about \voiceUp and \voiceDown? Where the former are
> counted from top to bottom, and the latter from bottom to top?
I prefer it if a LilyPond source is readable without explanations. That
makes it much easier to learn by example and feel confident about it.
It al
Hi all,
> On 10/27/2016 4:38 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
>> have been from the start.
>
> DAYMAKER!
Agreed. I love this. =)
As for the voice order, I think if possible it should be "top-down”. I’m
mulling over the precis
On 10/27/2016 4:38 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should
> have been from the start.
DAYMAKER!
I'm watching this voice-order discussion closely. I have no position on
how LilyPond should work with this. I've been using it for less tha
On 2016-10-28 12:31, David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Kobel writes:
On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote:
The majority tends to be silent.
Minority report out of the silent majority:
I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you
internalized the meaning of \voice.
Well
Alexander Kobel writes:
> On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote:
>> The majority tends to be silent.
>
> Minority report out of the silent majority:
> I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you
> internalized the meaning of \voice.
Well, walking on your hands is totally n
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
> David,
>
> If " Generally users don't know the proper order of voice arranging
> commands" would that not be the fault of those who do not read the
> manual?
Well, I write the manual more than I read it. Nevertheless I prefer it
if reading the manual is a reward
Robert Schmaus writes:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it
> now.
>
> But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the
> code_ to match the vertical arrangement of the _engraved_ notes (and
> isn't that also, what Lilypo
Dan Eble writes:
> On Oct 27, 2016, at 09:54 , David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> << \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceThree ...
>> \context Voice = "2" \with \voiceOne ...
>> \context Voice = "3" \with \voiceTwo ...
>> \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceFour ...
>
> I’m not sure whether this thread
On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote:
The majority tends to be silent.
Minority report out of the silent majority:
I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you
internalized the meaning of \voice. Hardly use it, though, but
that's a different story.
I agree with you th
Hi everyone,
I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it now.
But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the code_ to
match the vertical arrangement of the _engraved_ notes (and isn't that also,
what Lilypond is all about? You specify the inpu
> > I respect your right to disagree.
> > Yet,1, 2, 3 stem up, 2, 4, 6 stem down? Not, as they say, rocket
> > science.
>
> Actually 1, 3, 5 stem up.
>
> So not rocket science, but tricky to remember :-)
Which kind of prooves the point I was trying to make :-)
Kind regards,
Michael
--
Michael
On 28 October 2016 at 11:25, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> I respect your right to disagree.
> Yet,1, 2, 3 stem up, 2, 4, 6 stem down? Not, as they say, rocket science.
>
> Mark
>
Actually 1, 3, 5 stem up.
So not rocket science, but tricky to remember :-)
Vaughan
David Kastrup'
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
> If " Generally users don't know the proper order of voice arranging
> commands" would that not be the fault of those who do not read the manual?
I disagree.
The problem is not so much in reading the manual and do
> If " Generally users don't know the proper order of voice arranging
> commands" would that not be the fault of those who do not read the manual?
I disagree.
The problem is not so much in reading the manual and doing it right
but in remembering things after not having used them for some time.
L
2016-10-27 13:40 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>
> This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
>
> If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
>
> 1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
>
> while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
> bottom, assignment
On Oct 27, 2016, at 09:54 , David Kastrup wrote:
>
> << \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceThree ...
> \context Voice = "2" \with \voiceOne ...
> \context Voice = "3" \with \voiceTwo ...
> \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceFour ...
I’m not sure whether this thread has progressed beyond the ne
.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 3:13 PM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
> David,
>
> "If it ain&
Am 27. Oktober 2016 15:16:01 GMT-07:00, schrieb Noeck :
>
>
>Am 27.10.2016 um 23:38 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it
>should have been from the start.
>
>:)
>
>
>One more voice from someone who was part of the silent majority:
>
>I do not
Am 27.10.2016 um 23:38 schrieb David Kastrup:
> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should have
> been from the start.
:)
One more voice from someone who was part of the silent majority:
I do not use the << · \\ · >> construct, only explicit \voiceOne etc. so
I
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
> David,
>
> "If it ain't broke"
Well, in this case, I consider it broken. Generally users don't know
the proper order of voice arranging commands and of
<< ... \\ ... \\ . >>.
While I probably don't count as a frequent enough user, even I got the
order wr
David,
"If it ain't broke"
Mark
-Original Message-
From: David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:39 PM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
> David,
>
> Yes, in that order - usually only three voice.
> This usually in "chord" that have a moving internal voice.
> Lilypond, as you stated, adjust the note columns and stem suitably.
> The only constant is change. The manual has been clearly written in the
>
s. Let the majority rule.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 11:52 AM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
> David,
>
> Since st
Subject: Changing voice order...
This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to bottom,
assignments should be
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
