Is it possible to run 2 versions of lilypond with some degree of ease? I
have
plenty of mhz, diskspace, and memory (512M). What I lack is savvy and
time. I
have too much stuff to do to stay on the bleeding edge--I think--maybe.
I noticed that in the faq you give ways of putting two pieces in one
file or
page but there is no mention of the possibility of simply doing two
score
blocks, if one doesn't want another header. Will that still work in
newer
versions than 1.2.17?
I found that I could get 11 (single part) scores-blocks on one page with
the
default linespacing, but I have not been able to number them (Ex.1.2
etc.) in
the indent which you provide.:-) When I have no header block, dvips
takes the
vertical space anyway. Surely if there is no title, etc., the music
should not
start so far down the page. Lilypond apparently won't make a valid .ps
file if
there is no header. I understand the philosophy as it relates to music
creation, but what does the header have to do with that?
If there is a rest in my chord part the spacing is bad. (There are no
lyrics.)
It is customary to reiterate a chord name on a new line of music, but
not
otherwise. There is no solution to my particular problem, because if I
use a
rest there are two staves and there is no chord on the new line, and if
I
reiterate the chord instead of using a rest there are three staves and
no new
line at the tie so I have a needlessly duplicated chord name. I can
stand it,
but it is not good.
If you wish to adhere to your philosophy of what you type is what you
get, you
have to make it a feature that a tied chord is reiterated at a staff
break by
default but not otherwise. At at the beginning of a piece, to get
silence in
the chord part, you use something like "r2.". "r2.!" then, should
generate
an "N.C.", which is fairly standard for "No Chord". Let "r2.!!" do "No
Chord----" Then a chord spanning
many measures could simply be tied in \chords and reiterated at the
staff breaks only. This is a situation where the breaks *must* influence
the
notation. Sorry if this has been done.
I have written an easy piece which has the tonalities E (minor) and G
(major
and minor) simultaneously. There is no key signature or the key
signature is
C, if you like. It is genuinely bitonal music. There are B's and Bb's
played on
the same beat. It is much more correct and consistent that way than with
B and
A#. I'm looking forward to seeing that zero tuplet bracket which will
appear
in the output.:-)
As the number of time signatures or key signatures in a section of a
piece
increases, the value of the warnings at the ends of preceding staves
decreases.
I'm sure that you are fully aware of this. Perhaps if there are more
than 2?
changes per 8? measures the warnings should have to be forced? There
should be
no default warning at a D.C. or D.S., because a D.C. or D.S may or
may not cause one never to go to the next page or part from the end of
the
first page or part, but rather from somewhere in the middle, and a
warning then
looks really really bad. Not as bad as a warning at the very end of a
piece, however, which I have seen in Schott.
I found "volta 2" confusing until I realized that you mean "turn twice"
(verb) rather than "two turns" (noun). Why not "volte 2", since you
never have
just one? Why have it at all, since you have \repeat? :-)
I wish that you had used QWerqwER (shifting mainly the white notes) for
time
rather than 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128. The numbers 0-7 could be better
used
for velocities alone.
********************** New Stuff!!! ****************************
It should be easier to step enter notes with a computer keyboard than
with a
piano keyboard because the piano cannot take advantage of the symmetry
of the
notes. Without some Christian monk more than a thousand years ago
deciding to
teach singing without the aid of tablature, which had never been done
before,
there would be no notation. Whoever this unknown unsung genius was, he
found
that you could start with D and more easily learn the intervals
ascending and
descending because they are the same. That is why D - D' was mode 1.
(That is
why most scholars are wrong about the Greek scale going from top to
bottom. It
was the strings that went from top to bottom.) People quickly lost the
idea
that a mode is a scale that starts in the middle. You have regained it.
As a
practical matter, that is the way your pitch works! Because a piano
keyboard
only has two rows of keys rather than at least three, it is difficult to
take
advantage of note symmetry. As far as I know, this is original. If
someone
has anticipated me I apologize and renounce this:
(c)2000 David Raleigh Arnold. Copyleft under GPL etc., etc..
k or j or h for D
u i o p y u i o t y u i Eb E F F#
h j k l ; g h j k l f g h j k Ab A D G G#
n m , . b n m , v b n m Bb B C C#
The interval from Bb to D is the same as D to F#. We have complete
symmetry
here. The shift key could give the close enharmonic: D# instead of Eb or
Bbb
instead of A. There also could be an relative interval mode based on the
distance from D for composers. This combines so well with the relative
octave
pitch that you have already implemented that I just couldn't stand it.
I'll
never live long enough to make an editor with this, but it should be
possible
to enter music *much* faster this way. This makes the computer keyboard
a
better vehicle for entering *or teaching* music than a piano keyboard.
You may
or may not want both Ab and G#, since it wastes a key to have both. I
put Ab
back in because you do enharmonics. Not my problem. It is a great
liberation
to unload this, not because it isn't cool, but because it is. :-)
**************** End New Stuff *******************
I hope that there is a copyright notice on the *first* page by default
by now.
There should be. Unlike the tagline, it is usually centered. Would it be
so
hard to have (c) = "2000Someone Real Name" do it in the header block?
You could
still have the tagline to the right of it. ;-)
Bless you. Thank you. Be well.
