Sorry for the long quoted text.
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:59:07PM +0100, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
>
> James Bailey wrote:
>>
>> This is basically what confuses people. No, it's not any different
>> than what's explained elsewhere, it's just that it's not explained all
>> together. All of the consituent pieces are explained, but nowhere is
>> really explained that this is how to have a short section of polyphony
>> when lyrics are present. I think we can leave the LSR examples if
>> lyrics need to be placed above the staff (for a descant, or some such).
>>
>> \version "2.12.3"
>>
>> vocals = \relative {
>> c4 d e f
>> <<
>> {
>> \voiceOne
>> g2 g
>> }\new Voice {
>> \voiceTwo
>> f4( e) e( d)
>> }
>> >> \oneVoice
>> c1
>> }
>>
>> textAll = \lyricmode { This is some text that goes here }
>>
>> \score {
>> <<
>> \new Staff \new Voice = vocals \vocals
>> \new Lyrics \lyricsto vocals \textAll
>> >>
>> }
>
> The main point of confusion is that you cannot do what seems most
> intuitive, namely to use the << \\ >> construct. You will never be able
> to make this point in the manual, unless you also include an example of
> what does not work. I was convinced that I had seen such an example
> somewhere in the documentation, but cannot find it right now.
>
> Here's a version of James' example that does not do what most users
> intuitively would expect.
>
> \version "2.12.3"
>
> vocals = \relative {
> c4 d e f
> <<
> { g2 g } \\ { f4( e) e( d) }
> >>
> c1
> }
>
> textAll = \lyricmode { This is some text that goes here }
>
> \score {
> <<
> \new Staff \new Voice = vocals \vocals
> \new Lyrics \lyricsto vocals \textAll
> >>
> }
>
> Note also that this problem must be pointed out both when talking about
> the << \\ >> construct and when talking about \lyricsto.
Ok. Could somebody make up a patch that adds Mats' example, then
James' example, into a **new** node in the LM, immediately after
Voice and Vocals? Call it something like... err... well, come up
with some witty name to do with voices not working, or lyrics not
printed, or whatever.
That way, if the << \\ >> construct gets fixed, we can easily
remove that portion.
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
