Re: (De)crescendo warning
Ian Hulin wrote:
I’m getting a warning saying lily can’t find the start of a
(de)crescendo, although it seems happy with crescendo passages
immediately before and after. As far as I can tell the syntax for the
\ … \! block looks OK in all cases.
[snip]
%{
This crescendo passage generates a warning
test.ly:27:52: warning: can't find start of (de)crescendo
b16\pp b\ b\fz b a a a\fz a fs fs fs\fz fs
\!|
%}
\time 6/8
b16\pp b\ b\fz b a a a\fz a fs fs fs\fz fs \!|
That's not really surprising, as the fz dynamic mark, like any dynamics,
stops the crescendo before the \! happening later.
HTH,
--
John Mandereau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: No Midi w/ crescendo
Kamal wrote: I am using lilypond 2.8.6 If I use the following code snippet: a\ b c d\! then a silent passage will be produced in the midi output although the documentation says that unterminated crescendos will produce that. Can can this be overcome? As far as I have experienced with midi players (mainly with Timidity), (de)crescendi mess up MIDI files from LilyPond playing. I don't know if it's LilyPond or Timidity fault. As a workaround, I remove any \, \ and \! when I want MIDI output. Cheers, -- John Mandereau [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: No Midi w/ crescendo
I have also tried several players all of them are not outputting sound when there's (de)crescendos. So I guess this is a bug from lilypond? On 10/29/06, John Mandereau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kamal wrote: I am using lilypond 2.8.6 If I use the following code snippet: a\ b c d\! then a silent passage will be produced in the midi output although the documentation says that unterminated crescendos will produce that. Can can this be overcome? As far as I have experienced with midi players (mainly with Timidity), (de)crescendi mess up MIDI files from LilyPond playing. I don't know if it's LilyPond or Timidity fault. As a workaround, I remove any \, \ and \! when I want MIDI output. Cheers, -- John Mandereau [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
question about midi2ly (mac osx)
Hello, I would be very grateful if some one could give me some pointers on using midi2ly; I keep getting an error message in terminal. Here is what I do: The first command I enter is: /Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/midi2ly That seems to work okay and I get a list of instructions for using midi2ly. But at the end of this list there appears this message: /Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/midi2ly: error: no files specified on command line. From then on if I try to used midi2ly, for example by entering: midi2ly -e test.midi I receive only error messages like this (even if I only look for help by entering midi2ly -h): -bash: midi2ly: command not found Can someone please tell me what I'm doing wrong? Many thanks, Peter ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: question about midi2ly (mac osx)
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.9/Documentation/user/lilypond/Notes-for-the-MacOS-X-app.html#Notes-for-the-MacOS-X-app On 10/29/06, Peter O'Doherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello,I would be very grateful if some one could give me some pointers onusing midi2ly; I keep getting an error message in terminal. Here iswhat I do:The first command I enter is:/Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/midi2ly That seems to work okay and I get a list of instructions for usingmidi2ly. But at the end of this list there appears this message:/Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/midi2ly: error:no files specified on command line. From then on if I try to used midi2ly, for example by entering:midi2ly -e test.midiI receive only error messages like this (even if I only look for helpby entering midi2ly -h): -bash: midi2ly: command not foundCan someone please tell me what I'm doing wrong?Many thanks,Peter___lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.orghttp://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: No Midi w/ crescendo
This is a well-known bug in the MIDI output. The problem is that you never specified any absolute dynamics (like \p or \mf or \ff or ...) before the crescendo, so LilyPond has no idea on what dynamics to start the crescendo. For some silly reason, it then doesn't start at the default dynamics level but keeps the full crescendo almost silent. This very problem isn't documented in the section on Creating MIDI files, but there you can find descriptions on other similar problems and also a simple way to remove all dynamics handling in the MIDI output while keeping it in the printed output, which makes sense for proof listening. /Mats Quoting John Mandereau [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Kamal wrote: I am using lilypond 2.8.6 If I use the following code snippet: a\ b c d\! then a silent passage will be produced in the midi output although the documentation says that unterminated crescendos will produce that. Can can this be overcome? As far as I have experienced with midi players (mainly with Timidity), (de)crescendi mess up MIDI files from LilyPond playing. I don't know if it's LilyPond or Timidity fault. As a workaround, I remove any \, \ and \! when I want MIDI output. Cheers, -- John Mandereau [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: No Midi w/ crescendo
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
This is a well-known bug in the MIDI output. The problem is that you
never specified any absolute dynamics (like \p or \mf or \ff or ...)
before the crescendo, so LilyPond has no idea on what dynamics to start
the crescendo. For some silly reason, it then doesn't start at the
default dynamics level but keeps the full crescendo almost silent.
This very problem isn't documented in the section on Creating MIDI
files, but there you can find descriptions on other similar problems
and also
a simple way to remove all dynamics handling in the MIDI output while
keeping it in the printed output, which makes sense for proof listening.
/Mats
Quoting John Mandereau [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Kamal wrote:
I am using lilypond 2.8.6
If I use the following code snippet:
a\ b c d\!
then a silent passage will be produced in the midi output although the
documentation says that unterminated crescendos will produce that.
Can can this be overcome?
As far as I have experienced with midi players (mainly with Timidity),
(de)crescendi mess up MIDI files from LilyPond playing. I don't know if
it's LilyPond or Timidity fault.
As a workaround, I remove any \, \ and \! when I want MIDI output.
Cheers,
--
John Mandereau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At home, I put (de)crescendi in a variable named dynamics, like in the
template
Piano centered dynamics ( in manuel-2.9.23-1, Chapitre D.2.4 ).
Then, for the midi block where you have a second score block (see below)
I comment or suppress the dynamics for the midi
like this: ( %\dynamics ) and I've no problem for the midi file.
\score {
\unfoldRepeats
\context PianoStaff
\context Staff=upper \upper %\dynamics
\context Staff=lower \lower %\dynamics
\midi {
\tempo 4=126
\context {
\type Performer_group
\name Dynamics
}
\context {
\PianoStaff
\accepts Dynamics
}
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: The importance of a graphical interface.
Warning: off-topic :-) I think that Valentin's comment here is particularly interesting: -You've got to think very _VERY_ horizontally, and not vertically like in Sibelius or Finale. This has been the major difficulty to me. But if you think about it, you'll realize that it helps you indeed by making you work on larger sequences instead of just fill your score bar after bar after bar. Of course there's plenty of horizontal / stratified / contrapuntal music written in the Anglo-American world, and there's also plenty of veritcal / chord-based music written in continental Europe. However (and I know I'm going to get blasted for this, which is OK), there seems to me to be something of preference for chord-based thinking in the US (and possibly the UK) and something of a similar preference for layered thinking in Europe (at least when we're talking about people study and teach composition in universities and conservatories). Perhaps I'm wrong about this, or perhaps this is kinda the case and might have something to do with the emphasis on chordal Roman-numeral type analysis in conservatory education in the US (versus counterpoint in Europe). Anyway, it's fun to observe that Finale and Sibelius are American and English inventions, respectively, and rather vertical-oriented, whereas LilyPond is a much more international invention (and very horizontal in orientation, as Valentin points out). :-) Trevor. On 10/28/06, Valentin Villenave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello César ; Just a few words. I'm using the jEdit editor with the Lilypondtool plugin, which gives the ability to compile, preview and even play your score with simple shortcuts (a bit like the lilypond mac version) ; it is quite useable and very convenient to learn. I've tried denemo ; it's a bit rude but definitely useable to. I'm afraid they are'nt developing it anymore, and it's really a pity since it was the ONLY lilypond-oriented graphical editor. There's still the possibility to use NoteEdit or canorus to input your score and then convert it to lilypond. Or a good MusicXML editor (if anyone knows one) But : the lilypond language is a quite attractive language. For instance, I've begun learning Lilypond just one month ago ; and now with a /include italiano.ly (I'm French moi aussi) I can read my scores in genuine lilypond code ! That's why form now one I'm able to code directly in Lilypond language, without even draw any sketch on a sheet, except for massive and complex orchestral pages. Of course, this implies at least two things. -You've got to get used to think your music very globally, there's hardly a way to wonder oh, what if I put a G instead of a F?, listen to it, revert to your F, and so on. -You've got to think very _VERY_ horizontally, and not vertically like in Sibelius or Finale. This has been the major difficulty to me. But if you think about it, you'll realize that it helps you indeed by making you work on larger sequences instead of just fill your score bar after bar after bar. One last thing. Lilypond is actually faster to me than Sibelius, as far as I haven't anymore to correct every little detail by hand to make my score look good. With Lilypond it does look good in most cases out of the box ; until now I've never used the \overwrite command. I'm just way too pleased when I see the work Lilypond has done. As a matter of fact, I've switched to linux in the mean time I've switched to Lilypond... But we can't ask everyone to do so, and therefore I agree it indeed lacks a decent user interface ; especially when you're used to Mac/Windows world, and a bit lost when you find yourself in front of a command line (by the way, I'm under linux and there is definitely no way to run your ABCedit here...) 2006/10/28, Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I hope you have seen the question on graphical user interfaces at http://lilypond.org/web/about/faq /Mats Quoting César Penagos [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dears Lilyponders: I'm a very in-love user of Lilypond, actually I have installed the 2.9.26 version. I'm attend to update my preferred music score program. For many times i sow in the user archives, people asking for a graphical interface. I thing there is a powerful reason. When you are copying a score, no matter with the instruments, or instrument colors in your orchestral score. Every musician knows what instrument will be the most appropriate for the voice that is writing. As the case as the composers that can try every instrument they want. The very real problems comes when you want to arrange a piece; and you need to see the balance of the instrumentation in your score. Every body knows that the simple way is to assign the first and second voices to the violins I and II, the third or tenor voice to the violas and the basses to cellos and contrabass. It is Ok for very small arrange using the strings, but when you add woods,and winds you must be carefully what you are
Re: The importance of a graphical interface.
Hello Trevor, I thank you for your contribution ; of course here we need a detailed scientific study and we can't write a general, narrow-minded theory of music history. However, the american chord-based thinking you focus on could be an excellent way to approach English/American music writing. Here in France (I don't know where you come from), we often establish a distinguo between Italian and German musical thinking from the 17th century, as far as German and northern-european countries are well known for being used to counterpoint, due (among others) to their early religious vocal music (particularly Luther's chorals, as soon as the Reformation begun, and so on). Italian music (that is, catholic side of Europe, somehow including France) tends to be more vertically-thinking (although many exceptions can be found, for instance with Frescobaldi) ; they use continuo, figured bass and so on, and it's obviously a very chord based thinking. You didn't mention the rhythmic question at all, and there would be quite an interesting comparison too ; to my mind the simplicity of vertical chord-based languages brings more efficient and understandable rhythms, whereas counterpoint, by somehow breaking the unity with more or less sophisticated superpositions, tends to make music less immediate (i hope you're following me guys, since it is a bit harsh for me to put that in english...). That is why, as far as I'm concerned, I feel definitely closer of the so-called Italian way, and therefore I'm don't feel post-serialist or whatever... As a pianist, I've practiced both jazz and continuo as well, and I've always been struck by the similarities of those two thinkings. I don't -and can't- agree with ridiculous far-fetched musicologists theories like Baroque is Jazz or whatever ; I'm juste talking about technical similarities implying what I would call a movement-oriented music, in which voices multiplicity isn't the first preoccupation, and fake counterpoint effects don't play any architectural role, but are just meant to make movement, or dramatic progression, more efficient. You could say that as well (in my humble opinion) about all weaving musics, like the repetitive or minimalistic american school, or about Stravinsky too (for some parts of it), for instance, or about Vivaldi works... Those musics are not very lilypond-convenient ; but as I said in my previous post, it gives another way of considering them. Think different, so to say... :) Thank you. (and so long for the main topic, I'm afraid) 2006/10/29, Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Warning: off-topic :-) I think that Valentin's comment here is particularly interesting: -You've got to think very _VERY_ horizontally, and not vertically like in Sibelius or Finale. This has been the major difficulty to me. But if you think about it, you'll realize that it helps you indeed by making you work on larger sequences instead of just fill your score bar after bar after bar. Of course there's plenty of horizontal / stratified / contrapuntal music written in the Anglo-American world, and there's also plenty of veritcal / chord-based music written in continental Europe. However (and I know I'm going to get blasted for this, which is OK), there seems to me to be something of preference for chord-based thinking in the US (and possibly the UK) and something of a similar preference for layered thinking in Europe (at least when we're talking about people study and teach composition in universities and conservatories). Perhaps I'm wrong about this, or perhaps this is kinda the case and might have something to do with the emphasis on chordal Roman-numeral type analysis in conservatory education in the US (versus counterpoint in Europe). Anyway, it's fun to observe that Finale and Sibelius are American and English inventions, respectively, and rather vertical-oriented, whereas LilyPond is a much more international invention (and very horizontal in orientation, as Valentin points out). :-) Trevor. On 10/28/06, Valentin Villenave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello César ; Just a few words. I'm using the jEdit editor with the Lilypondtool plugin, which gives the ability to compile, preview and even play your score with simple shortcuts (a bit like the lilypond mac version) ; it is quite useable and very convenient to learn. I've tried denemo ; it's a bit rude but definitely useable to. I'm afraid they are'nt developing it anymore, and it's really a pity since it was the ONLY lilypond-oriented graphical editor. There's still the possibility to use NoteEdit or canorus to input your score and then convert it to lilypond. Or a good MusicXML editor (if anyone knows one) But : the lilypond language is a quite attractive language. For instance, I've begun learning Lilypond just one month ago ; and now with a /include italiano.ly (I'm French moi aussi) I can read my scores in genuine lilypond code ! That's why form now one I'm able to code
More than one word to a note
Hi I want to set more than one word to a note . So for example I might have Semibreve| minim minim c1 | c2 c2 Glory be to the father and to the Cheers ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: The importance of a graphical interface.
I hope you have seen the section on Writing music in parallel in the manual. Regarding the division between people who think melodically versus harmonically, I've always thought that it depends mostly on what instrument you play. If you play the piano or some other instrument where it's easy to play full chords, then it's easy to think harmonically (vertically), whereas people like me who play the violin or any other melodic instrument tend to think more in melody (horizontally). /Mats Valentin Villenave wrote: Hello Trevor, I thank you for your contribution ; of course here we need a detailed scientific study and we can't write a general, narrow-minded theory of music history. However, the american chord-based thinking you focus on could be an excellent way to approach English/American music writing. Here in France (I don't know where you come from), we often establish a distinguo between Italian and German musical thinking from the 17th century, as far as German and northern-european countries are well known for being used to counterpoint, due (among others) to their early religious vocal music (particularly Luther's chorals, as soon as the Reformation begun, and so on). Italian music (that is, catholic side of Europe, somehow including France) tends to be more vertically-thinking (although many exceptions can be found, for instance with Frescobaldi) ; they use continuo, figured bass and so on, and it's obviously a very chord based thinking. You didn't mention the rhythmic question at all, and there would be quite an interesting comparison too ; to my mind the simplicity of vertical chord-based languages brings more efficient and understandable rhythms, whereas counterpoint, by somehow breaking the unity with more or less sophisticated superpositions, tends to make music less immediate (i hope you're following me guys, since it is a bit harsh for me to put that in english...). That is why, as far as I'm concerned, I feel definitely closer of the so-called Italian way, and therefore I'm don't feel post-serialist or whatever... As a pianist, I've practiced both jazz and continuo as well, and I've always been struck by the similarities of those two thinkings. I don't -and can't- agree with ridiculous far-fetched musicologists theories like Baroque is Jazz or whatever ; I'm juste talking about technical similarities implying what I would call a movement-oriented music, in which voices multiplicity isn't the first preoccupation, and fake counterpoint effects don't play any architectural role, but are just meant to make movement, or dramatic progression, more efficient. You could say that as well (in my humble opinion) about all weaving musics, like the repetitive or minimalistic american school, or about Stravinsky too (for some parts of it), for instance, or about Vivaldi works... Those musics are not very lilypond-convenient ; but as I said in my previous post, it gives another way of considering them. Think different, so to say... :) Thank you. (and so long for the main topic, I'm afraid) 2006/10/29, Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Warning: off-topic :-) I think that Valentin's comment here is particularly interesting: -You've got to think very _VERY_ horizontally, and not vertically like in Sibelius or Finale. This has been the major difficulty to me. But if you think about it, you'll realize that it helps you indeed by making you work on larger sequences instead of just fill your score bar after bar after bar. Of course there's plenty of horizontal / stratified / contrapuntal music written in the Anglo-American world, and there's also plenty of veritcal / chord-based music written in continental Europe. However (and I know I'm going to get blasted for this, which is OK), there seems to me to be something of preference for chord-based thinking in the US (and possibly the UK) and something of a similar preference for layered thinking in Europe (at least when we're talking about people study and teach composition in universities and conservatories). Perhaps I'm wrong about this, or perhaps this is kinda the case and might have something to do with the emphasis on chordal Roman-numeral type analysis in conservatory education in the US (versus counterpoint in Europe). Anyway, it's fun to observe that Finale and Sibelius are American and English inventions, respectively, and rather vertical-oriented, whereas LilyPond is a much more international invention (and very horizontal in orientation, as Valentin points out). :-) Trevor. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: More than one word to a note
See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2005-11/msg00496.html for example. /Mats Andrew Black - lists wrote: Hi I want to set more than one word to a note . So for example I might have Semibreve| minim minim c1 | c2 c2 Glory be to the father and to the Cheers ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user -- = Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing Signals, Sensors and Systems Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe = ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Golpe Slap
How can a golpe or a slap notation be achieved in lilypond? golpe.png Description: PNG image slap.png Description: PNG image ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: utf-8
It seems that Xemacs differs from ordinary Gnu Emacs when it comes to internationalization support (at least on Windows). I found the following information in the FAQ for Xemacs: Q1.3.1: What is the status of internationalization support aka MULE (including Asian language support? -- Both the stable and development versions of XEmacs include internationalization support (aka MULE). MULE currently (21.4) works on UNIX and Linux systems. It is possible to build with MULE on Windows systems, but if you really need MULE on Windows, it is recommended that you build and use the development (21.5) version, and deal with the instability of the development tree. Binaries compiled without MULE support run faster than MULE capable XEmacsen. which probably explains all your problems. I use Gnu Emacs in Windows which doesn't have any of these limitations in the MULE support. However, I recommend you to look at the Xemacs FAQ, since it has several questions and answers related to Unicode. /Mats Quoting dubcek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Due to my clumsiness, I sent a message erroneously to answer your reply to a query I made in last August concerning the same problem (as well as another problem which I have solved meanwhile). As you may have read in the message I sent just a few minutes ago, I solved the problem by using notepad after having tried out your kind suggestion about using C-x RET f (and then type utf-8). I also tried your other suggestion that you say worked on an old emacs version, but that didn't work either. My nth installment of XEmacs is XEmacs 21.4 (patch 19) which cannot be said to be old. But now I noticed that, if I open the text file of Notepad in Xemacs, the utf-8 for the accent circonflexe appears to have completely changed its appearance. The weird thing is that, if I type the letter â (a with an accent circonflexe) in an Emacs file it appears exactly as I want it. But if I open a notepad text file that contains an â in in XEmacs, I obtain the capital letter A capped by an ~ and flanked by a cross between an o and a ç. Whatever the case may be, all is not well. dubcek Mats Bengtsson-4 wrote: Open the file in Emacs, press CTRL-x Return f and enter: utf-8 You should see a -u at the bottom left corner of the window. Then, the next time you save the file, it should be in UTF-8. This didn't work for me the first time I tried it, since I had an old .emacs file that changed some of the default settings. What helped then (as a temporary fix until I had cleaned up my .emacs file) was Meta-x toggle-enable-multibyte-characters. /Mats Quoting dubcek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: For about a year now. I have been using Lilypond. I was very happy with it, very very happy. Until the day that I tried to write a French title in which there was a letter with an accent. Ever since, no matter what I have done, I have failed to produce a pdf file that displayed the character properly. I am using a Windows XP machine. First I used the lilypond offered through cygwin. That worked until I tried the letter with the accent. I have used emacs through cygwin, then the latest version of Xemacs without Cygwin. Nothing worked. I updated lilypond through cygwin only to get no characters at all any more. When I read that it was better to use lilypond for Windows, I switched (the characters now were better than ever before, but still no character with an accent. Finally, I switched editors, tried Editpad. To no avail. I have spent innumerable hours trying to solve the problem. There must be a simple solution, for I have seen a source file with the line in the header saying inputencoding=utf-8. I copied that trick. Lilypond handled it without protesting. But no accented character. Who can tell me in clear language how to lick the problem? Thanks. dubcek. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/utf-8-tf2487497.html#a6935927 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/utf-8-tf2487497.html#a6999890 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org
