ScholarLY and Latex

Hi all (and especially Urs), I've been working with Scholarly and Latex -- the usage-example on the initial-latex-package branch works perfectly, but the inp file is different to what is currently exported by the Scholarly package (which I'm sure you know). An example from the initial-latex

Re: ScholarLY

\setOption stylesheets.span.use-colors ##f did the trick. Thanks Urs On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 15:40, Urs Liska wrote: > > > Am 17.10.2018 um 03:00 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: > > Hi all, > > Is this the right code to use to turn off the colors in ScholarLy? I'm > using the

Re: ScholarLY

Am 17.10.2018 um 03:00 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: Hi all, Is this the right code to use to turn off the colors in ScholarLy? I'm using the latest version, but I'm using the \editorialMarkup commands. This line is having no effect. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong somewhere. \setOption

ScholarLY

Hi all, Is this the right code to use to turn off the colors in ScholarLy? I'm using the latest version, but I'm using the \editorialMarkup commands. This line is having no effect. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong somewhere. \setOption scholarly.annotate.use-colors ##f Craig -- *Craig

Re:Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

> If this is the case, possibly better names might be \editorialRemark or > \annotation. > > > We already have these, in the existing scholarLY annotations > \criticalRemark, \musicalIssue etc. These "point" to a specific element > (through a \tweak or \

Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

ct: Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY command Hi Elaine, Am 15.06.2018 um 02:21 schrieb Flaming Hakama by Elaine: Actually I think  \edmark and \edMarkup (or something along these lines) might be the best compromise between the generality of the c

Re:Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

> -- Forwarded message - > From: Urs Liska > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 09:28:05 +0200 > Subject: Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY command > > Hi Elaine, > > Am 15.06.2018 um 02:21 schrieb Flaming Hakama by Elaine: > > > Actual

Re: \consists terminology (was: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands)

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 1:42 AM David Kastrup wrote: > David Kastrup writes: > > > Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: > > > >> I think that conveys more clearly what is happening. > > > > Not really: that remains something to look up in the documentation. > > > > Now I'll readily admit that

\consists terminology (was: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands)

David Kastrup writes: > Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: > >> I think that conveys more clearly what is happening. > > Not really: that remains something to look up in the documentation. > > Now I'll readily admit that \consists / \remove does not make for an > appealing antonym pair. I'd be

\editorialMarkup ? (was: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY command)

Am 15. Juni 2018 09:28:05 MESZ schrieb Urs Liska : >Hi Elaine, > > >Am 15.06.2018 um 02:21 schrieb Flaming Hakama by Elaine: >> >> Actually I think  \edmark and \edMarkup (or something along these >> lines) might be the best compromise between the generality of the >> command,

\consists terminology (was: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands)

[Adding a distinction in the thread title] Am 15. Juni 2018 09:44:44 MESZ schrieb "N. Andrew Walsh" : >Pedantry Corner: the *active* verb that Elaine is seeking is actually >"comprise." As in, "the committee comprises representatives from >various >disciplines." The verb in the opposite

\cobsists terminology (was: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands)

Just adding a distinction in the thread title Am 15. Juni 2018 09:44:44 MESZ schrieb "N. Andrew Walsh" : >Pedantry Corner: the *active* verb that Elaine is seeking is actually >"comprise." As in, "the committee comprises representatives from >various >disciplines." The verb in the opposite

Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

Pedantry Corner: the *active* verb that Elaine is seeking is actually "comprise." As in, "the committee comprises representatives from various disciplines." The verb in the opposite direction is "compose:" "representatives of various disciplines compose the committee." "Composed" can be used in

Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

Am 15.06.2018 um 08:58 schrieb David Kastrup: Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: This is probably tilting at windmills at this point, since we seem to have adopted this language, both in LilyPond and in the ee. But, from the perspective of our terminology reflecting English language usage,

Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY command

Hi Elaine, Am 15.06.2018 um 02:21 schrieb Flaming Hakama by Elaine: Actually I think  \edmark and \edMarkup (or something along these lines) might be the best compromise between the generality of the command, expressiveness and practicality. Urs My $0.02 is that you should

Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: > This is probably tilting at windmills at this point, > since we seem to have adopted this language, > both in LilyPond and in the ee. > > But, from the perspective of our terminology reflecting English language > usage, > I feel compelled to point out that

Re:Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

This is probably tilting at windmills at this point, since we seem to have adopted this language, both in LilyPond and in the ee. But, from the perspective of our terminology reflecting English language usage, I feel compelled to point out that "consist" and "consisted" are not used in English as

Re:Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY command

> Actually I think \edmark and \edMarkup (or something along these lines) > might be the best compromise between the generality of the command, > expressiveness and practicality. > > Urs > > My $0.02 is that you should spell out \editorialMark. \edMark is not expressive enough. We're not in an

Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

Am 14.06.2018 um 15:56 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi Urs, \variant seems unsuitable not only for the potential mistakes. Many cases will not deal with variants but single events. For example you may want to simply state that some notes are illegible, which is an editorial assessment and not

Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

Hi Urs, > \variant seems unsuitable not only for the potential mistakes. Many cases > will not deal with variants but single events. For example you may want to > simply state that some notes are illegible, which is an editorial assessment > and not a variant. The same goes for \option. > >

Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

Am 14. Juni 2018 15:16:58 MESZ schrieb Kieren MacMillan : >Hi Urs, > >1. I think \variants is good. The fact that \choice matches MEI is its >only true advantage over \variants (IMO). > And not even a strong one. If it's for the conversion and *only* the name it's trivial to handle. >2. I

Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

Hi Urs, 1. I think \variants is good. The fact that \choice matches MEI is its only true advantage over \variants (IMO). 2. I agree that \edit doesn’t immediately seem optimal. The same problems, I think, plague \option. I considered \variant [singular], which works well (IMO) except for the

Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

or suggestions for better names. Thanks Urs Am 11.06.2018 um 11:14 schrieb Urs Liska: Hi all, I've started some serious work on the scholarLY package (https://github.com/openlilylib/scholarly) and will presumably have a bunch of questions over the next few weeks, both on design/interfac

Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

Hi all, I've started some serious work on the scholarLY package (https://github.com/openlilylib/scholarly) and will presumably have a bunch of questions over the next few weeks, both on design/interface, and implementation. [For all users of scholarLY: I also expect that this *may* end up

Re: Scholarly question

Hi Craig, Am 10.04.2018 um 01:01 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: Hi all, Is this the correct way to ignore critical remarks in the output file? \ignoreAnnotationTypes #'() No, it isn't. And while looking into the files I realize that this option isn't commented properly. The proper command to

Scholarly question

Hi all, Is this the correct way to ignore critical remarks in the output file? \ignoreAnnotationTypes #'() Thanks in advance, Craig -- *Craig Dabelstein* Maxime's Music craig.dabelst...@gmail.com *http://maximesmusic.com *

Re: ScholarLy and Latex

{Critical Remark}} >> >> This makes \criticalRemark call \annotation, pass its six arguments to it >> and one hard-coded "Critical Remark" argument as seventh. >> >> The code exported from scholarly does not export that sixth argument, and >> consequently it

Re: ScholarLy and Latex

}{#6} > {Critical Remark}} > > This makes \criticalRemark call \annotation, pass its six arguments to it > and one hard-coded "Critical Remark" argument as seventh. > > The code exported from scholarly does not export that sixth argument, and > consequent

Re: ScholarLy and Latex

#4}{#5}{#6} {Critical Remark}} This makes \criticalRemark call \annotation, pass its six arguments to it and one hard-coded "Critical Remark" argument as seventh. The code exported from scholarly does not export that sixth argument, and consequently it is empty when it reaches \annotation.

Re: ScholarLy and Latex

Liska <li...@openlilylib.org> wrote: > Hi Craig, > > Am 23.02.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: > > Hi Lilyponders, > > I'm having a minor problem with getting my ScholarLy inp file to work with > Latex. The Latex output for each annotation looks like this: >

Re: ScholarLy and Latex

Hi Craig, Am 23.02.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: Hi Lilyponders, I'm having a minor problem with getting my ScholarLy inp file to work with Latex. The Latex output for each annotation looks like this: \criticalRemark    [grob={DynamicText},     grob-location={Can't display grob

ScholarLy and Latex

Hi Lilyponders, I'm having a minor problem with getting my ScholarLy inp file to work with Latex. The Latex output for each annotation looks like this: \criticalRemark [grob={DynamicText}, grob-location={Can't display grob location yet}, grob-type={DynamicText}, input-file-name

Re: Scholarly editorial functions

Still not at my PC, but does that page help? https://github.com/openlilylib/scholarly/blob/master/editorial-functions/README.md Am 3. Februar 2018 22:18:47 MEZ schrieb Urs Liska <li...@openlilylib.org>: >Hi Craig, > >first you should mention that you are using openLilyLib and

Re: Scholarly editorial functions

Hi Craig, first you should mention that you are using openLilyLib and the scholarly package. Most people will not recognise that. Second: I'll have to look up how that works (I'm not at my PC ATM) Urs Am 3. Februar 2018 22:11:26 MEZ schrieb Craig Dabelstein <craig.dabelst...@gmail.com>

Scholarly editorial functions

Hi all, I have two questions: [1] Is there an option I can add here to make dashed Hairpins? \setOption scholarly.editorial.functions.addition #`((NoteHead . ,parenthesize) (Slur . ,slurDashed) (Tie . ,tieDashed) (PhrasingSlur . ,phrasingSlurDashed)) [2] If I label a critical remark

Re: Introduction / GSoC - ScholarLY Annotations

Jeffery, Welcome to LilyPond development! I'm excited to have you working on the ScholarLy project, which can help cement LilyPond's use as a serious music representation tool (perhaps even the premier tool). The project is ambitious, but should prove very useful. I'm excited to offer any help

Introduction / GSoC - ScholarLY Annotations

for this introduction is that I am one of the Google Summer of Code students this year. My project is to work on the OpenLilyLib's ScholarLY annotations -- to work on the module itself, as well as to create a package for its functionality with LaTeX. My mentor is Urs Liska, who initiated the whole project

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

Hi all, What about a radical alternative? What if each non-reference part has an additional “tick” barline (numbered according to the reference context) whereever the barlines don’t line up? Just a thought… Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website:

Re: ScholarLy: unknown escaped string: `\colorAnnotations'

Am 19.11.2015 um 13:01 schrieb Graham King: > Apologies for troubling you with this under-researched problem, but > I've just hit it as a deadline looms. > > I'm trying to turn off the colouring of ScholarLy annotations, before > final publication: > > \version "

Re: ScholarLy: unknown escaped string: `\colorAnnotations'

Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: > Am 19.11.2015 um 13:01 schrieb Graham King: >> Apologies for troubling you with this under-researched problem, but >> I've just hit it as a deadline looms. >> >> I'm trying to turn off the colouring of ScholarLy annotat

Re: ScholarLy: unknown escaped string: `\colorAnnotations'

On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 13:31 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: > > > > Am 19.11.2015 um 13:01 schrieb Graham King: > > > > > Apologies for troubling you with this under-researched problem, but > > I've just hit it as a deadline looms. > > > > I'm

ScholarLy: unknown escaped string: `\colorAnnotations'

Apologies for troubling you with this under-researched problem, but I've just hit it as a deadline looms. I'm trying to turn off the colouring of ScholarLy annotations, before final publication: \version "2.19.21" \include "openlilylib" \

Re: ScholarLy: unknown escaped string: `\colorAnnotations'

> >>> I'm trying to turn off the colouring of ScholarLy annotations, before >>> final publication: > [...] > >>> % ScholarLy options: see >>> >>> https://github.com/openlilylib-archives/scholarly/wiki/Configuring-Annotations > [...]

Re: ScholarLy: unknown escaped string: `\colorAnnotations'

On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 13:57 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: > > > > % ScholarLy options: see > > > > > > > > https://github.com/openlilylib-archives/scholarly/wiki/Configuring-Annotations > > > It looks like you ran into an undocum

Re: ScholarLy: unknown escaped string: `\colorAnnotations'

a deadline looms. >>> >>> I'm trying to turn off the colouring of ScholarLy annotations, >>> before final publication: >>> >>> \version "2.19.21" >>> >>> \include "openlilylib" >>> \us

Re: ScholarLy: unknown escaped string: `\colorAnnotations'

t; and the message > > 2: error: unknown escaped string: `\scholarly' > \setOption >\scholarly.colorize ##f > > but I'm happy. LilyPond's error recovery for an unknown escaped string is to return the string without preceding backslash. It's probably

Re: ScholarLy fails with \RemoveEmptyStaffContext

Graham King writes: > This took a little while to nail down, but it seems that ScholarLy's > annotation engine fails silently when \RemoveEmptyStaffContext is > active. Almost-minimal example attached. > \layout { > %{ %Toggle this block comment to reveal problem:

Re: ScholarLy fails with \RemoveEmptyStaffContext

here's anything you could do better. > > And should I be filing ScholarLy issues here or on the openlilylib list? There is no openLilyLib mailing list yet, and I don't think it makes much sense to have one. I may do that if there should arise objections about the respective discussions being o

Re: ScholarLy fails with \RemoveEmptyStaffContext

I've created an oddball that just looks like Lilypond-abuse. Here it is again with an extraneous staff restored. I don't think there is any problem with lilypond itself. However, either this user or Urs' ScholarLy annotation code has a problem/limitation. \version "2.19.21"

Re: ScholarLy fails with \RemoveEmptyStaffContext

Graham King writes: > On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 09:24 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Graham King writes: >> >> > This took a little while to nail down, but it seems that ScholarLy's >> > annotation engine fails silently when

Re: ScholarLy fails with \RemoveEmptyStaffContext

d Urs some work too). Somehow I had missed that there is a new, better, way to remove empty staves. With the new syntax the problem with ScholarLy goes away. Thanks also to Trevor Ba?a for his blog post at http://lilypondbitsandpieces.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/lilypond-remove-empty-staves.html .

ScholarLy fails with \RemoveEmptyStaffContext

This took a little while to nail down, but it seems that ScholarLy's annotation engine fails silently when \RemoveEmptyStaffContext is active. Almost-minimal example attached. Is there anything I should be doing differently? And should I be filing ScholarLy issues here or on the openlilylib

Re: Scholarly footnotes

On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 12:45 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: > > Am 12.11.2015 um 09:09 schrieb Urs Liska: > > Having had a night over it I realized that there is an obvious first > > step towards b) and c) and that the infrastructure is already there for it! > > I will add support for writing out the

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 10:38 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 10 Nov 2015 at 13:52:33 (+), Graham King wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote: > > > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600,

Re: Scholarly footnotes

On 13.11.2015 13:29, Graham King wrote: I might struggle a bit at first to get from Scheme to lilypond markup In case you don’t know about that already: might help. Yours, Simon

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Am 13. November 2015 13:29:30 MEZ, schrieb Graham King : >On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 12:45 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: > >> >> Am 12.11.2015 um 09:09 schrieb Urs Liska: >> > Having had a night over it I realized that there is an obvious >first >> > step towards b) and c) and

Re: Scholarly footnotes

doesn't >> matter where to start ... >> >>> I'm brainstorming a bit here, but if, for example, ScholarLy could >>> make its annotations available as a Scheme array for metadata and >>> markup, the lilypond user could access that array in a \markup block >&g

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Am 12.11.2015 um 09:09 schrieb Urs Liska: > Having had a night over it I realized that there is an obvious first > step towards b) and c) and that the infrastructure is already there for it! > I will add support for writing out the raw Scheme object and simply > integrate it as an additional

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

On Tue 10 Nov 2015 at 13:52:33 (+), Graham King wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote: > > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

nProcessor from the Score to another > context. Choose the one that you consider the "master" context (as per > Kieren's concept). Then the annotations *should* (not tested yet) get > the master context's barnumber and a partial measure starting from > that context's last

Re: Scholarly footnotes

; Lilypond-only solution would be ideal for me, and would save others >> the prospect of learning yet-another-language. > > OK, on the long run I will want to have both, but actually it doesn't > matter where to start ... > >> I'm brainstorming a bit here, but if,

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

Best >> Urs >> >>> I'll play with contexts in the morning. Thanks again. >>>> I assume (can't test currently) that any annotation would then get the >>>> barnumber of the master context and the partial measure calculated from >>>> there. Of course

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

> > > > > > I'll play with contexts in the morning. Thanks again. > > > > > > > > > I assume (can't test currently) that any annotation would then get the > > > > > barnumber of the master context and the partial measure calculated &

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

um 17:34 schrieb Graham King: >> >> >> >>> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread, >> >>> "Scholarly footnotes" [1]) >> >>> >> >>> I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: > > > > Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King: > > > > > (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread, > > "Scholarly footnotes" [1]) > > > > I would

Re: Scholarly footnotes

. those > you really want the performer to notice). Sometimes you even have > footnotes that only point to the commentary at the end. All fully agreed. I'd be very happy with just endnotes. > > > > Urs' marvellous work on ScholarLy[2] appears ideal, but outpu

Re: scholarly/annotate

> this very much depends on a more global context, i.e. if these > original-key issues are something that you regularly have to > comment on in your score(s). > > If you have a clear opinion on the matter we can see how to > proceed with it. Anyway, I'll give

Re: Scholarly footnotes

> the prospect of learning yet-another-language. OK, on the long run I will want to have both, but actually it doesn't matter where to start ... > I'm brainstorming a bit here, but if, for example, ScholarLy could > make its annotations available as a Scheme array for metadata and > mark

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King: > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: >> >> >> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King: >> >>> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread, >>> "Scholarly footnotes&q

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

Am 10.11.2015 um 00:56 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: > Hi Graham, > >> I've just realised that, under my system as I described it, a part could >> have the same bar number twice. > My proposed solution would be an “analytic continuation” (to borrow a > mathematical term) of the non-polymetric

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King: > (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread, > "Scholarly footnotes" [1]) > > I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an > edition of sixteenth-century polyphony. But, before inv

Re: Scholarly footnotes

times you even have footnotes that only point to the commentary at the end. > > Urs' marvellous work on ScholarLy[2] appears ideal, but outputs its > annotations in Latex, well, this is what is implemented so far ... > (and might have other problems - see separate thread[3]). For

Development projects (was: Scholarly footnotes)

Am 10.11.2015 um 03:52 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: > Hi Urs, > > What can I do to help you advance ScholarLY (or any of your other > projects)? Well, the next thing is to constantly nag (but in a friendly manner of course) ;-) But if you would want to do some active contribution you'

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

note describes an issue arising from the separate thread, > >>> "Scholarly footnotes" [1]) > >>> > >>> I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an > >>> edition of sixteenth-century polyphony. But, before inv

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

Hi Graham, > On the positive side: > +1This scheme guarantees a unique id for each bar. The id increases in a > sensible manner. > +2The scheme is robust with respect to re-formatting, if systems are > split or joined. > +3Since Lilypond's default behaviour is to break lines only

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

Hi Urs, > I have no idea if it is also appropriate for ancient music. Well, the absence of [any] barlines makes barline numbering more complex… ;) > Aren't there any useful references, how have others dealt with that challenge? I can’t find any! Cheers, Kieren.

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

Am 10.11.2015 um 14:28 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: > Hi Urs, > >> I have no idea if it is also appropriate for ancient music. > > Well, the absence of [any] barlines makes barline numbering more complex… ;) Of course it depends on the way an edition deals with that. > >> Aren't there any

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote: > > > > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > > The very first thing they said to me was,

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Hi Urs, What can I do to help you advance ScholarLY (or any of your other projects)? E.g. do I need to learn scheme? Do I play around with incorporating ScholarLY into Latex? What would be the most helpful for you? Craig On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 at 03:42 Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org>

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Just shortly: I do think we'll find a good way for you, and I also think this is a good opportunity to continue work on ScholarLY. Especially considering that just a few days ago Craig Dabelstein also asked about ScholarLY. Urs Am 09.11.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Graham King: > I'm prepar

Scholarly footnotes

ot;book-titling" appearance? Urs' marvellous work on ScholarLy[2] appears ideal, but outputs its annotations in Latex (and might have other problems - see separate thread[3]). So I'm now wondering how best to integrate this with a published score. Several possibilities present themselves:

ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

(This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread, "Scholarly footnotes" [1]) I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an edition of sixteenth-century polyphony. But, before investing too much time, I need to check whether there is now a way for

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

Hi Chris, > What do you need the bar numbers for? I suspect rehearsal marks would fit > the bill, no? If not, why not? The score runs 105 measures in the piano part. I have 9 rehearsal marks (A-I), for an average of ~12 measures per rehearsal mark. In anticipation of officially

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

Hi all, Is there a standard/convention/best practice on measure numbering in polymetric scores? I’m running into an issue of that myself (in my song “The Country Wife”), and can’t find anything definitive. Note: Gould (p. 484) writes, “Bar numbers should not be used in music in which

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

On 11/09/2015 01:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Is there a standard/convention/best practice on measure numbering in polymetric scores? I’m running into an issue of that myself (in my song “The Country Wife”), and can’t find anything definitive. Note: Gould (p. 484) writes, “Bar numbers should

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.” That’s sufficient reason for me. =) Good answer. In that case, I would pick one part, and force those measure numbers in as numeric rehearsal marks in the other parts.

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote: > > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.” > > > > That’s sufficient reason for

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote: > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.” > > > > That’s sufficient reason for me. =) > > Good answer. > > In that case, I would pick one part, and force

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

Hi Graham, > I've just realised that, under my system as I described it, a part could have > the same bar number twice. My proposed solution would be an “analytic continuation” (to borrow a mathematical term) of the non-polymetric measure numbering scheme: 1. A “reference context” would be

Re: scholarly/annotate

> If you have a clear opinion on the matter we can see how to proceed with > it. Anyway, I'll give you a few examples of features I would like to add to > ScholarLY: > > 1) > Insert music examples in the annotation. One would e.g. write something > like > \criticalRemark

Re: scholarly/annotate

ore global context, i.e. if these original-key issues are something that you regularly have to comment on in your score(s). If you have a clear opinion on the matter we can see how to proceed with it. Anyway, I'll give you a few examples of features I would like to add to ScholarLY: 1) Insert mu

Re: scholarly/annotate

lib.org>: >> >> Hi Craig, >> >> actually I see there's nothing *I* have to look into right now. Rather >> you should tell me what you would like to achieve. Tell me what - from your >> experience with an actual project - would be good to have in ScholarLY. >> Whi

Re: scholarly/annotate

ieve. Tell me what - from >your experience with an actual project - would be good to have in >ScholarLY. While not exactly rich in time I'm more than ready to bring >this package further. > >So far custom properties are just translated into key-value properties >to the LaTeX comman

Re: scholarly/annotate

Hi Craig, actually I see there's nothing *I* have to look into right now. Rather you should tell me what you would like to achieve. Tell me what - from your experience with an actual project - would be good to have in ScholarLY. While not exactly rich in time I'm more than ready to bring

Re: scholarly/annotate

Thanks Urs. I'm working on a 900-page score from 1842 and scholarly/annotate is proving invaluable. Thanks for all your hard work on this. Craig On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 at 18:05 Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote: > I'll have to try this on a PC, but for now two remarks: > > Y

scholarly/annotate

Dear Urs (or any other Annotate experts), I have created this entry in my input file, taking the idea from the example given on git: \criticalRemark \with { message = "Originally \\textit{Flauti in F} which is an E\flat\ transposition." original-instrument-key = \key ef \major

Re: scholarly/annotate

I'll have to try this on a PC, but for now two remarks: You seem to have misplaced the space before \transposition so this can't be expected to produce anything meaningful. The custom properties that end up in the optional argument (square brackets) don't have any implementation so far. This

ScholarLy newbie, running annotate.ly, gets error message

excuse the haiku! In my first attempt at using ScholarLy, I'm trying to compile the supplied example, openlilylib/ly/scholarly/usage-examples/annotate.ly The include path for Frescobaldi 2.18.1 is: /Users/grahamk/Documents/lilypond/include_gk /Users/grahamk/Documents/lilypond

Re: ScholarLy newbie, running annotate.ly, gets error message

Urs Liska writes: > Am 19.10.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Urs Liska: >> You didn't do anything wrong but stumbled over a stupid bug I didn't >> have the time to look into. It seems that at some point I have >> reversed the logic of an 'if' statement so it spits out that error >>

Re: ScholarLy newbie, running annotate.ly, gets error message

Am 19.10.2015 um 16:53 schrieb David Kastrup: > Urs Liska writes: > >> Am 19.10.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Urs Liska: >>> You didn't do anything wrong but stumbled over a stupid bug I didn't >>> have the time to look into. It seems that at some point I have >>> reversed the

  1   2   >