Re: Issue 3286: add single-C time signature style (issue 164830043 by nine.fierce.ballads at gmail.com)
I don’t recall that anybody so far has been able to explain how they know a piece is in 4/2 when it is denoted cut-C. Can you? as well as knowing whether a customary C (cut or uncut) signals 2/2 or 4/4 (or 1/1, see below). I maintain that the second Kyrie from Bach's Mass in B minor is in 4/2; I'm hesitating about the Gratias, leaning towards 4/2; I'd not oppose calling the Credo rather 2/1 than 4/2. (for fun look at Patrem omnipotentem: it's in cut, single-digit 2.) I found a little support for the idea that double cut-C is being used as 2/1 in the hymnal I have. Consider songs 2 and 3 from this 1844 hymnal: http://books.google.ca/books?id=t341RA7NAcIC . In that book they are in 2/1. (Would you have called them 4/2 if not for that? I probably would have.) The hymnal I have contains those two songs with identical music, but denoted with double cut-C time; and there are others I recognize, but I haven’t checked them as closely. look at song 4 (8, 12, 19, ...): it's in cut C, but I'd call it 1/1, if the previous ones were 2/1. I'd say that all songs are in the (sort of) same metre, but songs where all lines have an even number of semibreves, are barred by two, the others by one, and the time signature just reflects this barring. p ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Issue 3286: add single-C time signature style (issue 164830043 by nine.fierce.ballads at gmail.com)
Hi, If I needed to set the Schubert Op90n3, which looks like 4/2 to me, I might notice a single-C style in the manual, figure out how to use it, wonder why the c's are not barred where Schubert has them barred, look into the code, be confused, decide to use markup like I should have in the first place. that was my main objection some mails back in the mailing list. The only use diverging from the default style I encountered was a 4/2 timing denoted as ¢. And this is not covered by the new rules (you would have to use 2/1). That’s why I suggested to use the denominator to choose the symbol because as a general rule it come closer to the historic use of the ¢ sign, imho. However, (as also stated before) I can not see a fixed and historically used rule here and rather would prefer a *simple way* to choose the symbol and the timing with optional arguments: For the tempo we have: \tempo Allegro 4 = 120 (and no rule turning speeds (4=120) into words (Allegro) - this case is different but also similar if you consider the following.) I would suggest this for times: \time 4/2 C and similar symbols for existing time signature symbols, like (C|, CC, C|C| or c, ¢, if you like to allow such special symbols, or S and $ etc.). Then it would be clear and easy for the user to choose a time and a symbol without scheme code. If there is a fixed and consistently used rule in history, including ¢ and ¢¢ etc., I like the idea of such a rule. Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Issue 3286: add single-C time signature style (issue 164830043 by nine.fierce.ballads at gmail.com)
On Nov 3, 2014, at 02:25 , Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
1. if there is a glyph of the right name, use it
2. otherwise, fall back on numbered style
would be a good idea? I was considering that.
That kind logic is already at the end of
Time_signature::special_time_signature() now, but I don't see any way to use
it for anything except 2/2 and 4/4.
The logic used for neomensural, mensural, and any other style that is not
explicitly named in time-signature.cc results in a warning if the glyph is not
found.
For the “C” style, that logic is preempted so that it will not warn, but it
doesn’t try looking for other glyphs besides C22 and C44. (I believe we’re
talking about the same thing.) I was thinking of changing the “C” case work
more like the last-try case except without warning if there is no glyph.
I was arguing that as the use-cases get more specific, where you would want
to pick a particular glyph, figuring out what options to set is harder than
the direct approach:
{\override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
\override Staff.TimeSignature.text =
\markup {\musicglyph #timesig.C22 \musicglyph #timesig.C22 }
\time 4/2 b1 b1 }
Yes, I see your point. You and the experience of converting C++ to Scheme have
convinced me that there is no good reason to add the double-C time signatures.
However, remembering that time signatures can sometimes be created without an
event (see below), I think it is valuable to let the user define a new style,
so I will make sure that that works.
\version 2.18
\new Staff {
\override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
\override Staff.TimeSignature.text =
\markup {\musicglyph #timesig.C22 \musicglyph #timesig.C22 }
\time 4/2 b1 b1
}
\new Staff {
b1 b1
}
Thanks,
—
Dan
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Issue 3286: add single-C time signature style (issue 164830043 by nine.fierce.ballads at gmail.com)
On Nov 3, 2014, at 04:09 , Noeck noeck.marb...@gmx.de wrote: The only use diverging from the default style I encountered was a 4/2 timing denoted as ¢. And this is not covered by the new rules (you would have to use 2/1). I don’t recall that anybody so far has been able to explain how they know a piece is in 4/2 when it is denoted cut-C. Can you? I found a little support for the idea that double cut-C is being used as 2/1 in the hymnal I have. Consider songs 2 and 3 from this 1844 hymnal: http://books.google.ca/books?id=t341RA7NAcIC . In that book they are in 2/1. (Would you have called them 4/2 if not for that? I probably would have.) The hymnal I have contains those two songs with identical music, but denoted with double cut-C time; and there are others I recognize, but I haven’t checked them as closely. — Dan ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Issue 3286: add single-C time signature style (issue 164830043 by nine.fierce.ballads at gmail.com)
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 05:11:02 -0800, Dan Eble d...@faithful.be wrote: On Nov 3, 2014, at 02:25 , Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: That kind logic is already at the end of Time_signature::special_time_signature() now, but I don't see any way to use it for anything except 2/2 and 4/4. The logic used for neomensural, mensural, and any other style that is not explicitly named Oh. Now I see how it works. I should have read the doc-string at the bottom of time-signature.cc. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Issue 3286: add single-C time signature style (issue 164830043 by nine.fierce.ballads at gmail.com)
Dan Eble dan at faithful.be writes: On Nov 1, 2014, at 18:48 , Noeck noeck.marburg at gmx.de wrote: * leave the default style alone * add to the C style: 4/2 - CC, 2/1 - cut-CC This would end the equivalence of default and C styles. Does that seem like a bad idea to any seasoned Lilypond developers? This is a bad idea. The time required for a user to find and understand the single-C style is greater than the time to find an example of a custom time signature made using markup on the LSR. Then the user can further customize the markup, or use the concept elsewhere. Any added complexity has some risk of surprising side-effects (e.g. https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926 ) Computers are helpful when they help us follow a pattern, as the single-digit style does, or a solid convention like the default style. Computers are frustrating when we need to figure out what they are doing. style defaultc¢ 2/4 2/1 4/2 8/4 3/4 6/8 C c¢ 2/4 ¢¢ cc 8/4 3/4 6/8 --- single-C c¢ [¢] ¢c 8/4 3/4 6/8 --- numbered 4/4 2/2 2/4 2/1 4/2 8/4 3/4 6/8 single-digit 42224836 If I needed to set the Schubert Op90n3, which looks like 4/2 to me, I might notice a single-C style in the manual, figure out how to use it, wonder why the c's are not barred where Schubert has them barred, look into the code, be confused, decide to use markup like I should have in the first place. The single-C style is borderline useful as a style, double-c is not. The current code has some logic to choose a glyph timesig.C34 if we set style=C in 3/4 time, but it seems that code is disabled by complex logic. Cleaning that up, as part of moving toward scheme markup, would be nice. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Issue 3286: add single-C time signature style (issue 164830043 by nine.fierce.ballads at gmail.com)
On Nov 2, 2014, at 14:52 , Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: The current code has some logic to choose a glyph timesig.C34 if we set style=C in 3/4 time, but it seems that code is disabled by complex logic. Cleaning that up, as part of moving toward scheme markup, would be nice. I followed everything you said except this, maybe because of the sudden mention of 3/4. Are you implying that changing the “complex logic to 1. if there is a glyph of the right name, use it 2. otherwise, fall back on numbered style would be a good idea? I was considering that. I’ve got a working Scheme implementation now which should allow a user to associate a new style name with a procedure that converts a fraction into a markup. That seems like a convenient way to support the double-C time signatures without building them in. I should polish it a little before posting a review. I’m also concerned that there isn’t enough regression test coverage of neomensural and mensural styles, so I’ll probably write and submit those separately first. (Wish I had noticed a week ago, but at least nobody’s clamoring for this change.) Thanks, — Dan ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Issue 3286: add single-C time signature style (issue 164830043 by nine.fierce.ballads at gmail.com)
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 18:11:58 -0800, Dan Eble d...@faithful.be wrote:
On Nov 2, 2014, at 14:52 , Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
The current code has some logic to choose a glyph timesig.C34 if...
I followed everything you said except this, maybe because of the sudden mention of
3/4. Are you implying that changing the “complex logic to
1. if there is a glyph of the right name, use it
2. otherwise, fall back on numbered style
would be a good idea? I was considering that.
That kind logic is already at the end of
Time_signature::special_time_signature() now, but I don't see any way to use it
for anything except 2/2 and 4/4.
I was arguing that as the use-cases get more specific, where you would want to
pick a particular glyph, figuring out what options to set is harder than the
direct approach:
{\override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
\override Staff.TimeSignature.text =
\markup {\musicglyph #timesig.C22 \musicglyph #timesig.C22 }
\time 4/2 b1 b1 }
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
