I might just be adding to the noise level, but my quick-n-dirty workaround to multiple verses that follow refrains is to paste in a bunch of empty quotes - one pair per syllable. And once you have the set for verse 2 (verse 1 will have the refrain, of course), you just paste the whole set of quotes into the other verses.
I just put together an entire hymnal this way. And thanks to Trevor for showing us the "right way". Should I ever actually wrap my brain around his approach, I know I will be a better lilypond coder for it. Best, Jay On Feb 4, 2008 6:59 AM, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the detailed analysis! Trevor might want to modify the > LM based on this -- I'm not certain if he knew how \book worked > when he wrote the sections... I know that *I* didn't (and still > don't) know how it works, and I'm the one who is theoretically > editing his work. (that's why I always complain about getting > advanced readers to review the docs. :) > > One comment about the last point, that we shouldn't expect to > make it newbie-proof... while it's undoubtedly true that we can't > make the whole thing newbie-proof, the LM is most definitely > supposed to be newbie-proof. The idea is that a newbie starts at > LM 1 and reads the whole thing; at each step of the way, we know > exactly what the newbie knows, and there should be no problems. > Once a newbie has finished reading the LM, he can progress to the > NR, and shouldn't have any difficulty reading any of those > sections. > > My general observation is that new users get into trouble when > they try to skip over steps, or try learning about lilypond in > other ways (such as reading the computer-generated lilypond output > produced by NoteEdit... *shudder* ;). This also applies to people > who started learning lilypond a year or more ago, and who think > that there's nothing of benefit to them in the LM. > > Anyway, thanks again for the analyis! > > Cheers, > - Graham > > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:51:02 +0100 > Nicholas WASTELL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:59:17 +0100 > > Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ... there's no need to use > > > \book here. If you just remove the "\book {" and matching "}", you > > > will get exactly the same result. If there's any information left > > > in the current manual that indicates that you need to explicitly > > > specify the \book command, please tell us, so we can clarify this > > > issue even further. > > > > This was the route I took through the docs, once I had thought about > > using two separate scores to achieve what I wanted. Docs versions > > 2.11.37 (but a quick check shows that they are the same in .38). > > > > LM 3.1.1 : "The \book command allows several \score blocks to be > > combined into one output." and then a link to NR 3.1.3. > > > > By this time (as others have said on the list) I was looking for > > 'how-to', rather than 'if necessary'. However, consider also: > > > > LM 3.3.2 : "There can be only one top level context: the Score > > context. This is created with the \score command, or, in simple > > scores, it is created automatically." > > > > So, the use of \book seemed to be the way to have two \score in one > > file. I agree that NR 3.1.3 says quite clearly that \book is not > > necessary, but I didn't stay there very long. ;-) The next step was > > to search LSR for '\book' (still looking for usage examples, rather > > than if it was necessary) and I found id=300, with example code for > > using \book. I tried it and it worked, after some juggling with > > \paper. I have to confess that I didn't search the list for \book > > because it was working by now. If I had searched, I would have found > > that it wasn't necessary (I think that you have posted to two > > different questions just in the last couple of weeks -- sorry!) > > > > With this kind of forensic analysis, it's easy to see the silly > > mistakes and assumptions that I made. I try to be reasonably > > diligent in researching as much as possible (hey, I'm the guy that > > never switches _anything_ on until I have read the instruction book!) > > but I could have done better, perhaps. I'm not sure that I would > > ever have arrived at the solution offered by Trevor -- I'm not > > entirely clear why concurrent lyrics cannot be placed immediately > > after the Voice with which they are associated. However, I will bank > > that experience now that I have met it. > > > > More generally, I have found the tolerance of LilyPond with simple > > input, to be a two-edged sword. It can be very useful for ease of > > entry and to get started with producing fantastic output, but it has > > lured me into a coding style which is not very robust for more > > complicated stuff. After starting off using braces and > > angle-brackets very diligently, I found that many of them were not > > necessary, so they fell by the way. Studying .ly output from > > NoteEdit, Canorus and LilyPondTool also led me to make assumptions > > when I should not have done, I think. > > > > Anyway, I'm not sure that there is any immediate document change to > > be made -- just put it down to newbie errors! The existing > > documentation for LilyPond is undoubtedly the best I have found for > > any FOSS software. Just don't expect to make it newbie-proof! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Nick. > > -- > > Nicholas WASTELL > > France > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lilypond-user mailing list > > lilypond-user@gnu.org > > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user