Dear Jean-Pierre and Don,
For removing the parasitic beam, i think, you need a \tbu0 somewhere
for shortening the stems perhaps you may use \stemlenght{n} before each note
(i did not tested it in the example)
In musixtex you must start with the maximum number of beams and the longest
beam must be the upper one.
But the proposed method can perhaps be used for the lilipond challenge:
==================
\input musixtex
\nostartrule
\startextract
\notes\ibbu0l{-1}\qb0{jhi}\tbbu0\qb0e\hqsk\en
\notes\ibu1k{-1}\qb0{_i}\tbu0\qb0e\en
\notes\ibu0l{-1}\qb0h\tbu1\qb0c\hqsk\en
\notes\ibu1j{-1}\qb0{^ge}\hqsk\qb0{=g}\tbu0\tbu1{\tbu0}\qb0c\en
\zendextract
\end
===================
Andre
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
From: Don Simons
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:40 AM
To: 'Werner Icking Music Archive'
Subject: Re: [Tex-music] LilyPond blog invites you to an engravingchallenge!
:-)
Very clever! Your method lets musixtex compute starting heights for all the
re-started beam segments.
Sorry, I can't answer either question. For stem lengths, you could try to
find the code in musixtex.tex that draws them, and then replace that with
code that stops the upper part 2\interbeam (?) shorter.
Why didn't you start it with \ibbbu0j{-1} rather than
\ibu0l{-1}\nbbu0\nbbbu0 ? It seems to give the same result.
I don't have a clue about the "parasitic" beam segment.
--Don
-----Original Message-----
From: TeX-Music [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre
Coulon
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 3:01 AM
To: Werner Icking Music Archive
Subject: Re: [Tex-music] LilyPond blog invites you to an engraving
challenge! :-)
I almost obtained the snippet of the challenge with the attached source by
adding a "temporary" third beam. I intentionally let the beginning portion
of this 3rd beam so you understand the logic, but you can get rid of it
saying a \loffset bigger than 24 or so at line #8.
But: 1: does anybody know where the "parasitic" beam portion below the
staff comes from?
2: how to shorten stemlenghts so they do no climb above the 2nd beam?
Otherwise my process would be easier than yours to put into a macro
because it's difficult to write a macro that does something at <pitch p>
*and* <pitch p+1>
Bye
Jean-Pierre Coulon
-------------------------------
[email protected] mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
-------------------------------
[email protected] mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
