Re: How to shorten up a one measure markup score?
Hi Rick, altering 1*1/64 might do the trick (mind the *1/64 part)! HTH Markus "Rick Hansen (aka RickH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I'd like to use the capability of embedding a score into markup, to indicate > to the player how certain things are notated on the page. In the example > below I am doing that to indicate how string and finger numbers will appear. > > My question is: Is there a way to shorten up the measure in the one measure > \markup score? It appears to be adding a fair amount of padding after the > whole note and I'd like to force it to print the ending bar immediately > because this is just helper markup. > > The example below will run as-is, just paste and go, it's an interesting > problem if anyone has a moment to try out the code below. I've tried > several things to no avail. > > thanks Rick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Embedding lily pdfs in InDesign
On 8/26/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Trevor Bača wrote: > Hi, > > Does anyone have any experience successfully embedding lily pdf output > in InDesign? > > I start by creating a new InDesign doc and then placing the > lily-generated pdf in the InDesign doc. Just to test I then export as > pdf, and the results are pretty bad. Staff lines, ledger lines, beams > and hairpins show up fine; but all noteheads, accidentals, and text > are missing. My conclusion is that all font elements are missing (the > cheese fonts for the music elemen ts, and New Century Schoolbook for > the text). That's strange. Does it work when you install the LilyPond fonts into Windows/MacOS ? > So is there anyone out there putting lily-generated pdfs into InDesign > successfully? > > (I would prefer to keep everything in lily, but using any fonts in > lily at all other than New Century Schoolbook causes explosions when I > send the pdf to the printers.) That's strange. What platform are you on? The lily and NCSB aren't any special. Hi Graham, Han-Wen & Henning, I've been digging around the last couple of nights trying to get lily-generated PDFs (or EPS) to show up in InDesign correctly. And I'm now in a position to answer comments: Han-Wen wrote: HW > That's strange. What platform are you on? The lily and NCSB aren't any special. OS X Intel with 2.9.16 HW > That's strange. Does it work when you install the LilyPond fonts into Windows/MacOS ? Ah, I think this is what I'm messing up. I've been trying to install the LilyPond fonts into OS X and it's proving to be *very* difficult. I've mentioned my installation attempts in a thread Kieren started in February (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2006-02/msg00400.html) but the short of the matter is that using OS X's FontBook to install the several different sizes of Emmentaler has been frustrating. FontBook shows all the sizes as being there, but InDesign will recognize (and display in its Font menu) only 4 or 5 of the sizes. If I delete all the Emmentaler fonts from the whatever/Fonts folder to which FontBook writes, and then reinstall, then InDesign will see all the sizes *until I quit InDesign and restart*, at which point InDesign believes there're only 4 or 5 sizes again. Grrr ... On the other hand, NCSB installed perfectly and InDesign sees it and renders all lily NCSB text correctly all the time. So what are "the" LilyPond fonts? NCSB together with the Emmentaler and Feta collections only? Or are there more? Also, are there instructions anywhere on installing the LilyPond fonts under OS X? Graham wrote: GP > Didn't we discuss this a few days ago on -devel? ... at least, did you follow all the steps that were suggested for .eps files? There's even a doc section (14.8) about this issue, but it's not online yet. GP> I think that lilypond -dno-gs-font-load should do what you want. Yes, Graham's definitely right here. lilypond -dno-gs-font-load (and Han-Wen's other pointer to -deps-font-include) *do* definitely embed the lilypond fonts into the PDF or EPS as grepping the output file's with grep's -a option shows (or even just using vim to nose around in the files and look for BeginFont). But even with the lily fonts embedded, InDesign refuses to recognize some of the fonts and does really ugly things (see pair of attachments). Henning wrote: FV > I regularly use LilyPond PDFs with InDesign (CS, CS2) and ConTeXt and never had problems with those. This gives me hope. But take a look at the attachments. The "before.png" shows a bit of a lily-generated pdf as it comes out of lily. Perfect. The "after.png" shows what happens when I place the lily-generated pdf into InDesign and then export back out of InDesign to make a new pdf. Yuck. It looks like the lines (staff lines, ledger lines, tuplet brackets) are aligned according to one pattern, while (some but not all of) the noteheads, the time signatures, and the tuplet numbers and simply aligned according to some entirely different pattern. (There's no musical transposition here; InDesign seems to be shifting the noteheads in the "after.png" down and to the right, even though it kinda looks like things have transposed down a third.) I'm assuming what *must* be going on here is that InDesign simply isn't seeing some of the LilyPond fonts (like certain sizes of the Emmentaler set) and so is substituting in a really ugly way. So maybe what I really need help with is figuring out how to install "the" LilyPond fonts under OS X. (This is so frustrating because all I want to do with InDesign is add skewed, kerned text for the title and composer on the front page! I guess I should just build the title text in InDesign, save as EPS, and then import into lily ...) -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] before.png Description: PNG image after.png Description: PNG image ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/li
Re: [somewhat-OT] tweaking Lilypond PS/PDF output in (e.g.) Illustrator
On 8/29/06, Trevor Bača <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3/5/06, Kieren Richard MacMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, Han-Wen, etc.: > > > you have to install both the Century Schoolbook font, and the feta- > > alphabet fonts so Illustrator recognizes it. > > I expect that you will need to convert the feta-alphabet* fonts to > > TTF, eg. using fontforge. Hi Kieren, I seem to be now where you were back in February: I want to stick lilypond output into InDesign (pretty close to Illustrator) and I'm having all sorts of fun. I'm on OS X Intel with 2.9.16 and I was able to use FontBook to tell OS X about Emmentaler and New Century Schoolbook (by digging around and finding the otf folder within the LilyPond.app package). And, happily, the InDesign font menu shows both Emmentaler and New Century Schoolbook (and imported EPS stuff looks great ... except that I have no noteheads ...) I think what's missing now is that InDesign doesn't know about the Feta .pfa fonts. OK, actually, I think I'm wrong; I think what's missing is that InDesign doesn't know about certain sizes of Emmentaler. (But I'm still interested in Kieren's Feta package, if it's available!) If I look in FontBook then I see the following Emmentaler sizes ... 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26 ... but when I look in InDesign's Type menu, I see only the following Emmentaler sizes ... 11, 13, 14, 16, 23, 26 ... thus missing sizes 18 and 20. So ... when I render a sample .eps file with -deps-font-include I discover the following fonts: Trevor-Bacas-Computer-2:~/Documents/music/lilypond/test trevorbaca$ grep -a BeginFont 211.eps %%BeginFont: CenturySchL-Roma %%BeginFont: Emmentaler-20 And then placing the test .eps file into InDesign causes InDesign to complain that it can't find Emmentaler-20. This makes sense as InDesign seems to know about neither size 18 nor 20. So question for anybody who knows about OS X font management: why would FontBook know about two sizes of Emmentaler that InDesign does not? Another question: why is InDesign complaining about not knowing about Emmentaler-20? Isn't the whole point of an EPS that the EPS carry around all necessary font descriptions? Shouldn't that be enough to make InDesign happy? -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [somewhat-OT] tweaking Lilypond PS/PDF output in (e.g.) Illustrator
On 3/5/06, Kieren Richard MacMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Han-Wen, etc.: > you have to install both the Century Schoolbook font, and the feta- > alphabet fonts so Illustrator recognizes it. > I expect that you will need to convert the feta-alphabet* fonts to > TTF, eg. using fontforge. Hi Kieren, I seem to be now where you were back in February: I want to stick lilypond output into InDesign (pretty close to Illustrator) and I'm having all sorts of fun. I'm on OS X Intel with 2.9.16 and I was able to use FontBook to tell OS X about Emmentaler and New Century Schoolbook (by digging around and finding the otf folder within the LilyPond.app package). And, happily, the InDesign font menu shows both Emmentaler and New Century Schoolbook (and imported EPS stuff looks great ... except that I have no noteheads ...) I think what's missing now is that InDesign doesn't know about the Feta .pfa fonts. Do you still have you TTF versions you cooked up in February? And would you be willing to share? Also, did you ever go the EPS route when you were importing to Illustrator, or do you always import PDF? (Because it seems like forcibly embedding in an EPS might be a more reliable way of proceding, so I was curious if there's a reason to go the PDF route instead.) Trevor. -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Benefits of OS X binary vs. Fink version?
Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Henrik Frisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > The one > > thing that gets to me is I don't (automatically) have access to the > > texinfo docs with > > the binary version. > > I hope you know that you can download all the documentation in the form > of a zipped tar file from http://lilypond.org/web/install/. > Yes, I do. But, although this could theoretically all be automated, it means that for every update of Lilypond also make sure to get the docs. Keeping the Fink tree up to date is easily done on a regular basis. I know, it doesn't sound like a big deal, but... /henrik ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Preferred way of invoking lilypond from the commandline under OS X?
On 8/29/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Trevor Bača wrote: > Hi, > > What's currently the preferred way of invoking lilypond from the > commandline under OS X? > > Is it still to go the lilycall.py way or is it now better to call > /Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/lilypond directly? > > Or is there a third alternative? > Lilycall should be deprecated. Just run the lilypond binary directly. Will do. Graham, I know the manual is feature-ready and in a wait state for final release. If it's easy to add, we might insert into 13.2 something like "To invoke LilyPond from the commandline under OS X, run path/to/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/lilypond. The same is true of the other scripts in the /bin directory, including lilypond-book, convert-ly, abc2ly, etc." > (The manual at 13.2 "Notes for the MacOS app" mentions that scripts > exist in /Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin, but is > silent as to the best way to invoke the app.) -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Music Notation http://www.lilypond-design.com -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... like the dew, or like lightning ... ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Benefits of OS X binary vs. Fink version?
Quoting Henrik Frisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The one thing that gets to me is I don't (automatically) have access to the texinfo docs with the binary version. I hope you know that you can download all the documentation in the form of a zipped tar file from http://lilypond.org/web/install/. /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Benefits of OS X binary vs. Fink version?
Benjamin Esham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello all, > > I use Mac OS X, and have Lilypond installed with Fink. Recently, > however, with the transition to Intel hardware, the latest version of > Lilypond available there is 2.6.3. (2.8.2 is listed, but does not > compile for me.) What are the advantages and disadvantages of > downloading the official pre-built version and running that from > the command line? Will that version recognize the relevant parts of > the Fink installation, or does it provide all of its own stuff? > Thanks for any guidance here. I've noticed that the Fink version is lacking behind. Some time ago I aproached the maintainer about this and, at the time, he said he thought it wasn't usefule to maintain the Fink version of Lilypond as there was a binary version available. I convinced him that there is a reason to have keep the Fink version updated, but recently there hasn't been any updates on the Fink version which has made me start using the binaries. I would however personally prefer to use the Fink version. However, from a user perspective there's no difference. The one thing that gets to me is I don't (automatically) have access to the texinfo docs with the binary version. The Lilypond binary doesn't reference any external libraries but comes with everything it needs. Perhaps aproaching the maintainer again will make him keep Lilypond up to date? Best, /henrik ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Benefits of OS X binary vs. Fink version?
Hello all, I use Mac OS X, and have Lilypond installed with Fink. Recently, however, with the transition to Intel hardware, the latest version of Lilypond available there is 2.6.3. (2.8.2 is listed, but does not compile for me.) What are the advantages and disadvantages of downloading the “official” pre-built version and running that from the command line? Will that version recognize the relevant parts of the Fink installation, or does it provide all of its own stuff? Thanks for any guidance here. -- Benjamin D. Esham [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM: bdesham128 | Jabber: same as e-mail • Still using Internet Explorer? Firefox is newer, more secure, and has better support for standards. http://www.getfirefox.com PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Preferred way of invoking lilypond from the commandline under OS X?
Trevor Bača wrote: Hi, What's currently the preferred way of invoking lilypond from the commandline under OS X? Is it still to go the lilycall.py way or is it now better to call /Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/lilypond directly? Or is there a third alternative? Lilycall should be deprecated. Just run the lilypond binary directly. (The manual at 13.2 "Notes for the MacOS app" mentions that scripts exist in /Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin, but is silent as to the best way to invoke the app.) -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Music Notation http://www.lilypond-design.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: functions in \with
> On Tuesday 29 August 2006 10:47, Erik Sandberg replied:
Thanks for responding, Erik
> On Monday 28 August 2006 13:55, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> > I'm happily creating and using music functions but so far my attempts to
> > define functions that can be used in \with or \context clauses
> have failed.
> > The suggested technique of making a void function using (make-music
> > 'SequentialMusic 'void #t) doesn't seem to help.
>
> What do you want to achieve, more precisely?
Being relatively new to lilypond I wanted to encapsulate useful expressions
in variables and functions as I came across them. For music-related
expressions I find these very useful, and I wanted to do the same for other
types of sequences. Here's a simple example (thanks, Kieren) to reduce the
size of a piano grand staff which I've failed to recast as a more general
function for use in a \with clause:
\new PianoStaff \with {
fontSize = #-2 % reduce size of all fonts
\override StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep -2)% reduce size of staves
by same amount
\override VerticalAlignment #'forced-distance = #11% increase distance
between staves for piano dynamics
}
... rest of staves and music
I wanted to define a void function something like
staffSize=#(
define-music-function (parser location fontsize separation) (number?
number?) #{
fontSize = #$fontsize % change size of all fonts
\override StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep #$fontsize) % change size
of staves by same amount
\override VerticalAlignment #'forced-distance = #$separation % change
distance between staves for piano dynamics
#}
(make-music 'SequentialMusic 'void #t)
)
which could be used as:
\new PianoStaff \with { \staffSize #-2.0 #11.0 }
but attempts to use a function within \with {...} cause an 'unexpected
MUSIC_FUNCTION_SCM' error on \staffSize or leave the parser forlornly
'Parsing ...', depending on the contents of the function definition.
Using a variable without parametrisation gives an 'unexpected
MUSIC_IDENTIFIER' error.
I don't know whether it is possible to do this, or whether I simply haven't
learned how to do it properly yet.
> Note that \with uses a different lexical mode than music, so e.g. the
> \override keyword does not produce a music expression when used
> inside \with.
I had hoped (make-music 'SequentialMusic 'void #t) would prevent the parser
looking for music.
>
> You can probably perform operations on the whole \with block if you are
> clever, by applying a funciton on the \new expression, like
> \myFun \new Staff=foo \with {bla bla} {music}
>
As a relative newbie I don't have the confidence to try this yet - maybe one
day!
> --
> Erik
>
Trevor
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Preferred way of invoking lilypond from the commandline under OS X?
Hi, What's currently the preferred way of invoking lilypond from the commandline under OS X? Is it still to go the lilycall.py way or is it now better to call /Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/lilypond directly? Or is there a third alternative? (The manual at 13.2 "Notes for the MacOS app" mentions that scripts exist in /Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin, but is silent as to the best way to invoke the app.) -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Sponsored feature request--cross-staff chords, ties
On 8/29/06, Steve D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:22:44PM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > Trevor Bača wrote: > >Yes, exactly. The notes can be separately articulated, with separate > >accidentals and so on. What the notes share will be spanning stems and > >a single beam. > > OK. This is a completely different feature than what Steve is looking > for. It's also quite a bit easier, I suspect. Yes, that does seem different. It's true that my interest in cross-staff chords centers around their use in the context of two adjacent staves connected by a brace such as is used for piano or other polyphonic instrument such as organ, harp, harpsichord or marimba. However, I'm willing to sponsor both types of cross-staff chords (for adjacent and non-adjacent staves) if they become considered as different features. OK, I'll help sponsor both, too. The first case (Steve's case) is a true voice that happens to notate on two or more adjacent staves; the second case (my case) is more typographical and connects notes in (possibly nonadjacent) staves to give a textural look-and-feel to stuff that happens in across the score. I'm happy contributing to both; I think both affordances will have their place. -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Displaying scores
Chuckk wrote: I am using evince to view Lilypond's pdf output, and in fairly simple things (output by Rosegarden), and I'm seeing note stems of different thicknesses. If I zoom in, they are still different thicknesses, and some of the stems don't exactly line up against the noteheads. Is there another Linux pdf viewer that is more accurate? I have Lilypond 2.8.6. I prefer to use GhostView (aka gv) to view PostScript instead of PDF. However, I usually print from the Adobe Acrobat Reader (Linux version). It's not perfect, but it certainly has a better feature set than xpdf. Scores look okay in Acroread, better in GhostView (IMPO). And as mentioned, using "gv --watch" gives me a near-realtime environment for the edit/compile/view cycle. Best, dp ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Sponsored feature request--cross-staff chords, ties
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:22:44PM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > Trevor Bača wrote: > >Yes, exactly. The notes can be separately articulated, with separate > >accidentals and so on. What the notes share will be spanning stems and > >a single beam. > > OK. This is a completely different feature than what Steve is looking > for. It's also quite a bit easier, I suspect. Yes, that does seem different. It's true that my interest in cross-staff chords centers around their use in the context of two adjacent staves connected by a brace such as is used for piano or other polyphonic instrument such as organ, harp, harpsichord or marimba. However, I'm willing to sponsor both types of cross-staff chords (for adjacent and non-adjacent staves) if they become considered as different features. Steve -- The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. -Douglas Adams ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Displaying scores
You can also use gv or ghostview(?) to view PDF files (in addition to PS files). /Mats Quoting Joseph Wakeling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Chuckk Hubbard wrote: I am using evince to view Lilypond's pdf output, and in fairly simple things (output by Rosegarden), and I'm seeing note stems of different thicknesses. If I zoom in, they are still different thicknesses, and some of the stems don't exactly line up against the noteheads. Is there another Linux pdf viewer that is more accurate? You can get the Adobe Acrobat Reader for Linux, although how easy this is depends on your distro. There's also XPDF and KPDF (PDF viewers written for the X-window system and KDE, respectively, but of course they'll work on everything). In my experience screen output of PDFs can be dodgy anyway with certain complex documents like scores. When I made PDF exports from Finale they looked terrible even in Acrobat (and not for the reasons cited in the Lilypond documentation). I presume your work looks fine when printed? ___ 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
Re: functions in \with
On Monday 28 August 2006 13:55, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> I'm happily creating and using music functions but so far my attempts to
> define functions that can be used in \with or \context clauses have failed.
> The suggested technique of making a void function using (make-music
> 'SequentialMusic 'void #t) doesn't seem to help.
What do you want to achieve, more precisely?
Note that \with uses a different lexical mode than music, so e.g. the
\override keyword does not produce a music expression when used inside \with.
You can probably perform operations on the whole \with block if you are
clever, by applying a funciton on the \new expression, like
\myFun \new Staff=foo \with {bla bla} {music}
--
Erik
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Displaying scores
"Chuckk Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am using evince to view Lilypond's pdf output, and in fairly simple > things (output by Rosegarden), and I'm seeing note stems of different > thicknesses. If I zoom in, they are still different thicknesses, and > some of the stems don't exactly line up against the noteheads. Is > there another Linux pdf viewer that is more accurate? > I have Lilypond 2.8.6. Are you using the latest version of Evince? All looks fine for me. It's xpdf that gives ugly output. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Displaying scores
Chuckk Hubbard wrote: > I am using evince to view Lilypond's pdf output, and in fairly simple > things (output by Rosegarden), and I'm seeing note stems of different > thicknesses. If I zoom in, they are still different thicknesses, and > some of the stems don't exactly line up against the noteheads. Is > there another Linux pdf viewer that is more accurate? You can get the Adobe Acrobat Reader for Linux, although how easy this is depends on your distro. There's also XPDF and KPDF (PDF viewers written for the X-window system and KDE, respectively, but of course they'll work on everything). In my experience screen output of PDFs can be dodgy anyway with certain complex documents like scores. When I made PDF exports from Finale they looked terrible even in Acrobat (and not for the reasons cited in the Lilypond documentation). I presume your work looks fine when printed? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Displaying scores
I am using evince to view Lilypond's pdf output, and in fairly simple
things (output by Rosegarden), and I'm seeing note stems of different
thicknesses. If I zoom in, they are still different thicknesses, and
some of the stems don't exactly line up against the noteheads. Is
there another Linux pdf viewer that is more accurate?
I have Lilypond 2.8.6.
\version "2.8.6"
\header {
copyright = "2006 Chuckk Hubbard"
subtitle = ""
title = "Your Nose Hairs and My Butt Hairs"
tagline = "Exported by Rosegarden 4-1.2.3"
footer = ""
}
#(set-global-staff-size 20)
\score {
<<
% force offset of colliding notes in chords:
\override Score.NoteColumn #'force-hshift = #1.0
\time 4/4
\context Staff = "Right Hand 1" <<
\set Staff.instrument = "Right Hand"
\set Staff.printKeyCancellation = ##f
\context Voice = "voice 0" {
\override Voice.TextScript #'padding = #2.0
\clef treble
a 16 e' g' b' cis' 8 cis'' 4 < c'' a' f' > 8 ~ < c'' a' f' > b'
a 16 e' g' b' b fis' r8 cis' 16 gis' r8 dis' 16 ais' r8
r1
r1
%% 5
r1
\bar "|."
} % Voice
>> % Staff
\context Staff = "Left Hand 2" <<
\set Staff.instrument = "Left Hand"
\set Staff.printKeyCancellation = ##f
\context Voice = "voice 1" {
\override Voice.TextScript #'padding = #2.0
\clef bass
a, 4~ a, 16 cis e g e8 g 4 f 8
e 4 \times 2/3 { dis g 8 } \times 2/3 { e 4 gis 8 } <
cis gis > 4
r1
r1
%% 5
r1
\bar "|."
} % Voice
>> % Staff (final)
>> % notes
\layout { papersize = "a4" }
} % score
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Laissez vibrer question
> I'm trying to force the direction of a laissez vibrer tie like so: Looking at the image I see that those ties have different horizontal sizes. This is really ugly. Perhaps a parameter can be added to the tie algorithm to dampen horizontal size changes if it is a laissez vibrer tie. Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
