RE: Problem with barre music function

[Nick Payne]

> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Puttock [mailto:n.putt...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, 3 April 2009 09:23
> To: Nick Payne
> Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Problem with barre music function
> 
> 2009/4/2 Nick Payne :
> > I have a music function I use for barring indications in guitar
> scores, and
> > for a reason that I haven't been able to work out, if the TextSpanner
> used
> > for the barring indication wraps from the staff where it begins to
> the
> > following staff, and also terminates at the first note of that staff,
> then
> > nothing gets drawn above that first note. If it wraps to the
> following staff
> > and terminates at any note other than the first, then it works
> correctly.
> 
> I'm afraid this is deliberately hard-coded; see the bug report here:
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=663
> 
> Though the report discusses glissandi, it actually applies to all
> spanners using ly:line-spanner::print.
> 
If that's the case, then the only solution I can see is the rather ugly hack of 
waiting until the score is complete so I can see where the line breaks fall, 
and then taking any spanner that has this problem and putting \stopTextSpan on 
the note after the note where it should actually end with manual tweaking of 
the RH padding so that it appears to end on the desired note.

Nick



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: increasing the distance between tie and note generally

[Stefan Thomas]

Dear Neil,
I tried it with
\relative { c1 ~ c
  \override Tie #'(details ratio 1.2) \override Tie #'(details heigth-limit 13)
  c ~ c }
but without sucess!

2009/4/2 Neil Puttock :
> 2009/3/31 Stefan Thomas :
>> Thanks! Great!
>> But I would like to ask one more question.
>> If the distance between two notes is larger, I think the amount of the
>> curve should be a little larger too. Can this be changed, generally if
>> possible, too?
>
> I haven't tested this myself, but you could try altering Tie
> #'(details ratio) and #'(details height-limit).
>
> Regards,
> Neil
>


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multiple scores with common layout setup

[Helge Kruse]

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

Any other suggestions are welcome.


If it's all the same code, just bung it in a \include!

Ok, I placed the lines in the layout block into a .ly file and include
it wherever I would repeat the lines. I also tried to define an expression

dynamicsContext = {
  %% all the things that are in the include
}

But this failed to compile.
error: syntax error, unexpected CONTEXT_DEF_IDENTIFIER
when I try to use \dynamicsContext.


If it's similar code, look at using tags.
I started reading, but need to understand. It looks like a conditional 
construct in a definition. Will play around it...



Thanks,
Helge


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

default midi velocity

[Carl D. Sorensen]

Martin Tarenskeen writes:


> Questions: 

> 1. How can I change the default MIDI velocity from 127 to a more modest
> value, without adding dynamic marks in the printable score ?

How about this:

music = \relative c' {
  c' d e f
}   

\score {
  \music
  \layout{}
} 

\score {
  \new Score {
s\mf
\music 
  }
  \midi{}
} 

> 2. Shouldn't it be a good idea to lower midi-velocity values for
> lilypond's MIDI output by default ? In other words: If no dynamics are
> specified, shouldn't the default be mezzoforte ?

Yes, it's probably a good idea.  In scm/midi.scm, there is the following:

;; 90 == 90/127 == 0.71 is supposed to be the default value
;; urg: we should set this at start of track
(define-public dynamic-default-volume 0.71)


So somebody in the coding recognizes this needs to be fixed.  Unfortunately,
I couldn't see how to do this in a few minutes of searching through the
source.

Anybody willing to take this on as a patch?  It shouldn't be too hard, but I
imagine it'll take some time grepping through the source files.

Carl



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[Andrew Hawryluk]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Chris Snyder  wrote:
> Valentin Villenave wrote:
>> To me, note entry is much, much, much faster with LilyPond than with
>> Fin/Sib. (even using a MIDI keyboard -- which, by the way, is one of
>> the less enjoyable experiences I know of).
>
> I concur here. I am much faster with Lily than I suspect I ever could be
> with a graphical interface. It's so much more intuitive to me, and
> actually feels more musical - I have to think about the relationships
> between notes in a much more musical way, especially when dealing with
> multiple voices.
>

Since the topic came up, I just finished writing up some tests I did
on my own music entry speeds in each of three ways:
Finale MIDI input
LilyPond typing
LilyPond, with MIDI input for pitch names

The full report is at
http://www.musicbyandrew.ca/finale-lilypond-4.html, but here's my
conclusion:
"At least for me, MIDI entry is much faster than typing the pitches
and durations myself. However, for all the other musical elements, I
can type them faster in LilyPond than I can enter them in Finale with
the mouse. By using MIDI input in LilyPond I am getting the best of
both worlds, and preliminary testing suggests that I am now faster in
LilyPond than in Finale."

Andrew


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[lasconic]

For sure, a musical jazz font will be very useful! There a couple of threads
in the mailing list about this.


rosea wrote:
> 
> Nice to read this thread.
> I'm wondering what about more modern or 'light' music, like POP and 
> Jazz? How does it compare in this area? And what should be and can be 
> done to improve Lilypond here? There where some threads about Jazz 
> chords, will they be improved for example? And the horizontal spacing? I 
> know people are working on tablature which is nice and I think Lilyond 
> could become a very useful application for tablature 'notesetters'.
> 
> Looking forward to comments.
> 
> \r
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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/Review-of-Valentin%27s-Opera-tp22816117p22858348.html
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

Re: Problem with barre music function

[Neil Puttock]

2009/4/2 Nick Payne :
> I have a music function I use for barring indications in guitar scores, and
> for a reason that I haven't been able to work out, if the TextSpanner used
> for the barring indication wraps from the staff where it begins to the
> following staff, and also terminates at the first note of that staff, then
> nothing gets drawn above that first note. If it wraps to the following staff
> and terminates at any note other than the first, then it works correctly.

I'm afraid this is deliberately hard-coded; see the bug report here:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=663

Though the report discusses glissandi, it actually applies to all
spanners using ly:line-spanner::print.

Regards,
Neil


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[Grammostola Rosea]

David Stocker wrote:
I offer LilyPond engraving alongside output from Finale and Sibelius. 
None of my corporate clients ask for LilyPond, but I recommend it to 
them for classical engraving (of which I do very little). I have a 
handful of folks who take output from LilyPond.


David Stocker
http://notesettersinc.com



Nice to read this thread.
I'm wondering what about more modern or 'light' music, like POP and 
Jazz? How does it compare in this area? And what should be and can be 
done to improve Lilypond here? There where some threads about Jazz 
chords, will they be improved for example? And the horizontal spacing? I 
know people are working on tablature which is nice and I think Lilyond 
could become a very useful application for tablature 'notesetters'.


Looking forward to comments.

\r



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Problem with barre music function

[Nick Payne]

I have a music function I use for barring indications in guitar scores, and
for a reason that I haven't been able to work out, if the TextSpanner used
for the barring indication wraps from the staff where it begins to the
following staff, and also terminates at the first note of that staff, then
nothing gets drawn above that first note. If it wraps to the following staff
and terminates at any note other than the first, then it works correctly.

Test code and output attached. The second barring indication should end on
the first note of bar 16, but nothing displays.

Nick
\version "2.12.2"

#(ly:set-option 'delete-intermediate-files #t)

barre = #(define-music-function (parser location fretnum osp shorten adjBreak adjEnd) (string? number? pair? number? number?) #{
	\once \override TextSpanner #'outside-staff-priority = #$osp
	\once \override TextSpanner #'bound-details #'left #'text = 
		\markup { \concat { "C" "." $fretnum " " } }
	\once \override TextSpanner #'style = #'line
	\once \override TextSpanner #'font-shape = #'upright
	\once \override TextSpanner #'bound-details #'right #'text = \markup { \draw-line #'(0 . -1) }
	\once \override TextSpanner #'bound-details #'left #'stencil-align-dir-y = #CENTER
	\once \override TextSpanner #'bound-details #'left #'padding = #(car $shorten)
	\once \override TextSpanner #'bound-details #'right #'padding = #(cdr $shorten)
	\once \override TextSpanner #'bound-details #'right-broken #'padding = #$adjEnd
	\once \override TextSpanner #'bound-details #'left-broken #'X = #$adjBreak
	\once \override TextSpanner #'bound-details #'left-broken #'text = ##f
	\once \override TextSpanner #'bound-details #'right-broken #'text = ##f
#})

\relative c'' {
	a4 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 
	\barre "5" #0 #'(-0.5 . -1) #6 #1 a\startTextSpan a a a a a\stopTextSpan 
	a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 
	\barre "5" #0 #'(-0.5 . -1) #6 #1 a\startTextSpan a a a a\stopTextSpan 
	a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 
}

<>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[Francisco Vila]

2009/4/2 Han-Wen Nienhuys :
> I think there are a couple of memorable quotes here for the website...
>  Do we now have a team that takes care of this?

I am tempted to translate the whole thread into Spanish for our list,
or large chunks at least. Wise, serious, experienced contributions.
Thanks to all!

-- 
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: Strange error in compiling 2.13.0

[Nick Payne]

I got the same warning message, see
http://www.nabble.com/New-warning-msg-2.13-td22658865.html.

 

I didn't get any response on it. I went back to using 2.12.2.

 

Nick

 

From: lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org
[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+nick.payne=internode.on@gnu.org] On Behalf
Of Father Gordon Gilbert
Sent: Friday, 3 April 2009 07:43
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Strange error in compiling 2.13.0

 

Hi all,

I am coming across a strange error when I compile a file on my Windoze box
with 2.13.0, using jEdit 4.3pre16.  My compile looks like this:


LilyPond ready.
%lilypond %args "C:\Documents and Settings\Fr Gorden
Gilbert\Desktop\LilyPond Files\TurnYourEyesUponJesusChords.ly"
Processing `C:/Documents and Settings/Fr Gorden Gilbert/Desktop/LilyPond
Files/TurnYourEyesUponJesusChords.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music... [8][16][24][32]
Preprocessing graphical objects...
(lilypond.exe:300): GLib-WARNING **: Passing a non-NULL package to
g_win32_get_package_installation_directory() is deprecated and it is
ignored.
Interpreting music... 
MIDI output to `TurnYourEyesUponJesusChords.mid'...
Finding the ideal number of pages...
Fitting music on 1 page...
Drawing systems...
Layout output to `TurnYourEyesUponJesusChords.ps'...
Converting to `./TurnYourEyesUponJesusChords.pdf'...
Processing time: 29 seconds

Does anybody have any idea what that GLib-WARNING **: Passing ... etc means?
It doesn't seem to affect the time or quality of the compile, but it's
curious.  If *I* should ignore it, that's fine, but I was just wondering ...

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

I think there are a couple of memorable quotes here for the website...
 Do we now have a team that takes care of this?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Neil Thornock  wrote:
>> The way that music is entered for LilyPond causes me to think in a more
>> musical way - there have been times when I've been stumped as to how to
>> tell Lily to engrave something, only to realize that even if I did get
>> it exactly as the composer wanted, the music would be confusing to read.
>> LilyPond makes it much easier for me to work in my dual editor+engraver
>> role.
>
> From a compositional point of view, Finale encourages the worst kind
> of laziness.  LilyPond, by the manner in which it encourages a focus
> on the notational details, makes me think more critically toward my
> musical material.  LilyPond also encourages a kind of healthy
> perfectionism, because control over any element of the score *is*
> possible.  Finale keeps resetting to certain bad defaults, and
> eventually the typesetter caves and goes with it.  But with Lily I
> can't be lazy about it.  And that has translated itself into my
> composition work.  It's been a heaven send that way.
>
> --
> Neil Thornock, D.M.
> Assistant Professor of Music
> Composition/Theory
> Brigham Young University
> http://neilthornock.net
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>



-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Strange error in compiling 2.13.0

[Father Gordon Gilbert]

Hi all,

I am coming across a strange error when I compile a file on my Windoze box
with 2.13.0, using jEdit 4.3pre16.  My compile looks like this:


LilyPond ready.
%lilypond %args "C:\Documents and Settings\Fr Gorden
Gilbert\Desktop\LilyPond Files\TurnYourEyesUponJesusChords.ly"
Processing `C:/Documents and Settings/Fr Gorden Gilbert/Desktop/LilyPond
Files/TurnYourEyesUponJesusChords.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music... [8][16][24][32]
Preprocessing graphical objects...
(lilypond.exe:300): GLib-WARNING **: Passing a non-NULL package to
g_win32_get_package_installation_directory() is deprecated and it is
ignored.
Interpreting music...
MIDI output to `TurnYourEyesUponJesusChords.mid'...
Finding the ideal number of pages...
Fitting music on 1 page...
Drawing systems...
Layout output to `TurnYourEyesUponJesusChords.ps'...
Converting to `./TurnYourEyesUponJesusChords.pdf'...
Processing time: 29 seconds

Does anybody have any idea what that GLib-WARNING **: Passing ... etc
means?  It doesn't seem to affect the time or quality of the compile, but
it's curious.  If *I* should ignore it, that's fine, but I was just
wondering ...

Blessings,

Gordon+
-- 
Fr. Gordon Gilbert
Penetanguishene, ON
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: increasing the distance between tie and note generally

[Neil Puttock]

2009/3/31 Stefan Thomas :
> Thanks! Great!
> But I would like to ask one more question.
> If the distance between two notes is larger, I think the amount of the
> curve should be a little larger too. Can this be changed, generally if
> possible, too?

I haven't tested this myself, but you could try altering Tie
#'(details ratio) and #'(details height-limit).

Regards,
Neil


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[Neil Thornock]

I will agree with many of the preceding posts that entry of notes,
slurs, etc, is faster for me in Lily than in Finale.  However, with
every new piece I have to devise a new hack to accomplish a certain
advanced thing - even as simple a thing as a slanted hairpin or a
cross-staff slur, which I simply must have every now and then.  I can
spend huge amounts of time developing the hack and then significantly
more time adjusting it just right in the actual score.  I don't
compose nearly the quantity I used to because LilyPond really puts me
through the ringer with certain notational difficulties.  But OF
COURSE it's worth it, because no other software produces as
professional a result.

That said, I keep waiting for the day when I've developed all the
hacks I'll ever need and can remember them long enough that I don't
ever have to snoop them out again.  Or when all this stuff will be
built into the software.  Whew!

But Chris's comment is a real clincher for me:

> The way that music is entered for LilyPond causes me to think in a more
> musical way - there have been times when I've been stumped as to how to
> tell Lily to engrave something, only to realize that even if I did get
> it exactly as the composer wanted, the music would be confusing to read.
> LilyPond makes it much easier for me to work in my dual editor+engraver
> role.

>From a compositional point of view, Finale encourages the worst kind
of laziness.  LilyPond, by the manner in which it encourages a focus
on the notational details, makes me think more critically toward my
musical material.  LilyPond also encourages a kind of healthy
perfectionism, because control over any element of the score *is*
possible.  Finale keeps resetting to certain bad defaults, and
eventually the typesetter caves and goes with it.  But with Lily I
can't be lazy about it.  And that has translated itself into my
composition work.  It's been a heaven send that way.

-- 
Neil Thornock, D.M.
Assistant Professor of Music
Composition/Theory
Brigham Young University
http://neilthornock.net


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[Chris Snyder]

Valentin Villenave wrote:
> To me, note entry is much, much, much faster with LilyPond than with
> Fin/Sib. (even using a MIDI keyboard -- which, by the way, is one of
> the less enjoyable experiences I know of).

I concur here. I am much faster with Lily than I suspect I ever could be
with a graphical interface. It's so much more intuitive to me, and
actually feels more musical - I have to think about the relationships
between notes in a much more musical way, especially when dealing with
multiple voices.

> The only advantage I could ever find in using such programs is that,
> while LilyPond's workflow is very horizontal (i.e. you enter one voice
> at a time), graphical programs allow you to have a global, vertical
> view of your score.

As an engraver (rather than a composer), I greatly prefer the
line-by-line approach the vast majority of the time - I prefer that the
other parts take care of themselves, retaining modifications I've made,
while I work on tweaking a specific area. Other than initial line+page
breaks and final evaluation, I find that I keep my PDF reader zoomed in
most of the time. If I need to jump between voices, the point+click
hyperlinks in the PDF are a tremendous help.

>  - if you're still composing and need to constantly have an overview
> of your score instead of entering pre-existing material... well, you
> may as well use this free-hardware tool called "pencil and paper"? :-)

The following observation isn't true 100% of the time (i.e. don't flame
me if you believe you don't fit into my perception), but in my
observation most of the best composers still compose the old-fashioned
way. In the little composing I've done (music theory exercises when I
was still in school, etc.) I found that the GUI interface acted as a
crutch, preventing me from really thinking about the relationships
between notes. The GUI was certainly faster - and I appreciated
utilizing it for the exercises where I really didn't care about the
quality of the resulting music (especially for one theory professor that
I didn't respect much) - but I started thinking about the way the music
looked on the page rather than how it sounded.

The way that music is entered for LilyPond causes me to think in a more
musical way - there have been times when I've been stumped as to how to
tell Lily to engrave something, only to realize that even if I did get
it exactly as the composer wanted, the music would be confusing to read.
LilyPond makes it much easier for me to work in my dual editor+engraver
role.

I've been using LilyPond exclusively for my fledgling music publishing
business. Virtually without exception, every composer has been blown
away by the quality of the engraving when presented with the proofs of
their music about to be published. I deserve some of the credit for this
- I spend a lot of time tweaking output, especially ties (mainly in
chords) - but LilyPond gives me an excellent starting point, a very
intuitive interface, and the ability to modify absolutely anything if I
want to take the time. I'm convinced that no commercial product can come
close.

-Chris

--
Chris Snyder
Adoro Music Publishing
1-616-828-4436 x800
http://www.adoromusicpub.com



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Han-Wen,


you can have the best of both worlds if you enter using finale and
then musicxml2ly to go to .ly and do the typesetting.


Now that I think about it, I was originally just talking about  
"slamming in the pitches/durations"...
Once I factor in the slurs, articulations, dynamics, text, etc., I  
think I now fully agree with Valentin: "note entry" (including *all*  
score markings) is actually faster overall in Lilypond than in Fin-Sib.


=)
Kieren.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Kieren MacMillan
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>>> In my experience, LilyPond *is* capable of producing scores of the
>>> highest caliber.  However, I often spend so much time tweaking the
>>> score to get it to look perfect that it really becomes a labor of love.
>
> I used Finale for over a decade, eventually becoming the computer music lab
> tutor/assistant at Shepherd School of Music (while doing my Master of Music
> there) -- I was as nimble with Finale as anyone I knew (know). I estimate
> that, for me, note entry is ca. 3x faster in Fin/Sib than Lily, but
> tweaking-to-publishable is ca. 10x faster in Lily than Fin/Sib (partly
> because there's so much less tweaking to do).

you can have the best of both worlds if you enter using finale and
then musicxml2ly to go to .ly and do the typesetting.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[Valentin Villenave]

2009/4/2 Kieren MacMillan :

> I used Finale for over a decade, eventually becoming the computer music lab
> tutor/assistant at Shepherd School of Music (while doing my Master of Music
> there) -- I was as nimble with Finale as anyone I knew (know). I estimate
> that, for me, note entry is ca. 3x faster in Fin/Sib than Lily, but
> tweaking-to-publishable is ca. 10x faster in Lily than Fin/Sib (partly
> because there's so much less tweaking to do).

I disagree -- with the first part :-)

To me, note entry is much, much, much faster with LilyPond than with
Fin/Sib. (even using a MIDI keyboard -- which, by the way, is one of
the less enjoyable experiences I know of).

As I mentioned earlier, I had written one half of my opera in Sibelius
before switching to Lilyn, and I had to re-type the whole darn thing
manually. I would certainly never had done so if I had found that it
was 1) slower, 2) less pleasant and 3) not as beautiful wrt the
output.

Granted, the first three months were rough, but afterwards typing
plain code was an impressively quick solution. (And I actually did not
use any shortcut or fast-entry emacs trick or whatever). I didn't know
how to type and this made me learn (in a similar way that I couldn't
speak English until I subscribed to this mailing list :-)

> Of course, many of the scores I see from "firms that produce music scores
> that rely on software" would never get published if I were the head of that
> company -- I guess I just have higher aesthetic standards than many of the
> editors out there. [Anyone who has read the published songbook(s) of Jason
> Robert Brown's "The Last Five Years" will know that there is one song where
> the syncopated left-hand rhythm is so poorly spaced that it looks, on first
> *and* second sight, to be non-syncopated! Totally unacceptable from a
> "commercial publisher"...]

Absolutely. I completely disagree with what Reinhold and Laura said. I
understand they may be frustrated when comparing LilyPond's output
with an engraver's work, but... seriously, have you guys been using
Finale or Sibelius lately? This very afternoon, I've been using
Sibelius 5 this afternoon for the first time in four years (back then
it was version 3), for an orchestral score.
I am shocked, to say the least. That is just plain ugly! This stupid
program has no notion of collisions whatsoever, nor any sense of a
balanced layout. It's unbelievably not flexible (be it the interface
or the settings); it just does his thing blindly, mechanically, not to
mention the computing resources it takes, the bloat and useless bling
everywhere... /except/ in the engraving engine (or lack thereof).

LilyPond's vertical spacing for full orchestral scores could certainly
use some improvements, but...
come on, there is simply no better alternative right now. And yet
again, I'm not even talking about the features, because (except for
playback/export abilities) LilyPond is clearly way ahead.

The only advantage I could ever find in using such programs is that,
while LilyPond's workflow is very horizontal (i.e. you enter one voice
at a time), graphical programs allow you to have a global, vertical
view of your score. But that being said:
 - if you want to copy your music really fast, even with a graphical
program, you have no other choice than working in an horizontal way
just like in LilyPond
 - if you're still composing and need to constantly have an overview
of your score instead of entering pre-existing material... well, you
may as well use this free-hardware tool called "pencil and paper"? :-)

Regards,
Valentin


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Lilypond crashing with cue notes

[Daniel Hulme]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:36:24PM -0700, northofscotland wrote:
> All the parts seem to work perfectly as stand-alone, un-cued but as I added
> the cue notes, building up with a series of \include statements at the head
> of the file, \cueDuring in the notes and \addQuote before the \score
> statement it all seemed to go pear shaped and hang - seemingly in some
> indefinite loop.

It sounds like you might have done something like this. In a file a.ly
you have

\include "b.ly"

and in the file b.ly you have

\include "a.ly"

So, when you run Lilypond on a.ly, it finds the \include command, and
immediately goes to read b.ly. While it's doing this, it finds that
\include command, and immediately goes to read a.ly. While it's doing
that, it sees the first \include again, goes to read b.ly, and so on.
Lilypond is in an infinite loop because that's exactly what you told it
to do.

Guessing from your description, what you want to do is have the notes
that will appear in cues defined in a file called (for example)
"cues.ly", then include this file from each part's file so you can use
the notes it defines in that part's cues and in the part itself.

-- 
"Follow the enemy and try to prevent  the enemy carrying away the guns."
On 25th Oct 1854, Lord Raglan, on a hill, can see one set of guns;  Lord
Lucan, down in the valley,  sees a different, better defended,  set, and
leads the Light Brigade in its fateful charge. http://surreal.istic.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

left aligned tempo markings different over multimeasure rests

[Paul Scott]

version 2,21,2

When creating a score and parts I have not found a reliable way to cause 
markup like tempo indications to always appear at the left side of a 
measure even when a particular part has a multimeasure rest at that 
location. 

s1*0^\markup and \tempo and left-align don't consistently produce 
attractive results.  What are any of you doing to solve this?


Thanks,

Paul Scott




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,


In my experience, LilyPond *is* capable of producing scores of the
highest caliber.  However, I often spend so much time tweaking the
score to get it to look perfect that it really becomes a labor of  
love.


I used Finale for over a decade, eventually becoming the computer  
music lab tutor/assistant at Shepherd School of Music (while doing my  
Master of Music there) -- I was as nimble with Finale as anyone I  
knew (know). I estimate that, for me, note entry is ca. 3x faster in  
Fin/Sib than Lily, but tweaking-to-publishable is ca. 10x faster in  
Lily than Fin/Sib (partly because there's so much less tweaking to do).



I think until LilyPond is able to achieve that perfect type of
score with minimal effort, employers at firms that produce music
scores will rely on software that is more intuitive and gives  
quicker results -

they have to pay someone for their time to notate this stuff.


I think it takes *far less* time to make good looking scores with  
Lilypond than with Finale -- in fact, I have an open invitation to  
all of my composition buddies, that in a head-to-head engraving  
session of any "real music", I can beat them any time.  =)


Of course, many of the scores I see from "firms that produce music  
scores that rely on software" would never get published if I were the  
head of that company -- I guess I just have higher aesthetic  
standards than many of the editors out there. [Anyone who has read  
the published songbook(s) of Jason Robert Brown's "The Last Five  
Years" will know that there is one song where the syncopated left- 
hand rhythm is so poorly spaced that it looks, on first *and* second  
sight, to be non-syncopated! Totally unacceptable from a "commercial  
publisher"...]


I am curious who out there is in a professional music-related  
position

that relies on Lilypond when Finale or Sibelius is also an option
provided by the employer.  I'm one.  Just curious who else.


+1
Kieren.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond, Finale and Sibelius (was Review of Valentin's Opera)

[David Stocker]

I offer LilyPond engraving alongside output from Finale and Sibelius. 
None of my corporate clients ask for LilyPond, but I recommend it to 
them for classical engraving (of which I do very little). I have a 
handful of folks who take output from LilyPond.


David Stocker
http://notesettersinc.com



Neil Thornock wrote:
   
  

In my experience, LilyPond *is* capable of producing scores of the
highest caliber.  However, I often spend so much time tweaking the
score to get it to look perfect that it really becomes a labor of
love.  I think until LilyPond is able to achieve that perfect type of
score with minimal effort, employers at firms that produce music
scores will rely on software that is more intuitive and gives quicker
results - they have to pay someone for their time to notate this
stuff.  Meanwhile, I am convinced LilyPond's output is capable of much
greater beauty than anything else out there...  but I frankly don't
think it will ever touch a very large user base (compared to
you-know-who).

I am curious who out there is in a professional music-related position
that relies on Lilypond when Finale or Sibelius is also an option
provided by the employer.  I'm one.  Just curious who else.

For whatever it's worth.



  



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Review of Valentin's Opera

[Jonathan Kulp]

Neil Thornock wrote:


I am curious who out there is in a professional music-related position
that relies on Lilypond when Finale or Sibelius is also an option
provided by the employer.  I'm one.  Just curious who else.



Me too.  I'm a music history professor and I have a school-provided copy 
of Finale on my school-provided iMac.  I don't use it at all for new 
engravings, but sometimes use it to tweak an old one. It's 2006 though 
so it can't read anything newer than that (lack of 
backwards-compatibility is my single biggest gripe against Finale).  I 
always keep a copy of the latest Finale Reader on my machines so that I 
can read my students' Finale files, but I don't use Finale anymore for 
my own engravings.  I hardly even use the iMac on my desk now that I'm 
so comfortable with my Linux laptop.  I've gotten two of my students 
into Lilypond this semester and they're very pleased with it.  The rest 
of them want Finale though.


I guess this thread has gotten rat-holed a bit. :)

Jon
--
Jonathan Kulp
http://www.jonathankulp.com


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Review of Valentin's Opera

[Neil Thornock]

>>    Reinhold> The only problems appear when trying to create
>>    Reinhold> good-looking full scores for the conductor (part
>
>> I agree.
>
> I don't, actually...

In my experience, LilyPond *is* capable of producing scores of the
highest caliber.  However, I often spend so much time tweaking the
score to get it to look perfect that it really becomes a labor of
love.  I think until LilyPond is able to achieve that perfect type of
score with minimal effort, employers at firms that produce music
scores will rely on software that is more intuitive and gives quicker
results - they have to pay someone for their time to notate this
stuff.  Meanwhile, I am convinced LilyPond's output is capable of much
greater beauty than anything else out there...  but I frankly don't
think it will ever touch a very large user base (compared to
you-know-who).

I am curious who out there is in a professional music-related position
that relies on Lilypond when Finale or Sibelius is also an option
provided by the employer.  I'm one.  Just curious who else.

For whatever it's worth.



-- 
Neil Thornock, D.M.
Assistant Professor of Music
Composition/Theory
Brigham Young University
http://neilthornock.net


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Review of Valentin's Opera

[Laura Conrad]

> "Kieren" == Kieren MacMillan  writes:

Kieren> Then again, I *never* use \partcombine, and I manually
Kieren> tweak vertical spacing a fair bit, so that might be where
Kieren> you are running into problems with your scores.

I've always assumed that with some manual tweaking the scores would be
a lot better.  I don't do it because I'd rather they *weren't* used for
performance.

-- 
Laura   (mailto:lcon...@laymusic.org http://www.laymusic.org/ )
(617) 661-8097  233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139   

There is a law that no formal fromework of an organisation, or a
society, can affect.  Or not for long.  It is that those who do the
work are the real rulers of it, no matter how they are described.

Doris Lessing, The Sirian Experiments



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Review of Valentin's Opera

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Laura, Reinhold, etc.


Reinhold> The only problems appear when trying to create
Reinhold> good-looking full scores for the conductor (part



I agree.


I don't, actually...

While I think Lilypond could clearly do an even better job, I  
regularly engrave my full scores, reduced scores, choral scores with  
piano reduction, etc., and am very pleased with the results.
Then again, I *never* use \partcombine, and I manually tweak vertical  
spacing a fair bit, so that might be where you are running into  
problems with your scores.


Cheers,
Kieren.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Review of Valentin's Opera

[Laura Conrad]

> "Reinhold" == Reinhold Kainhofer  writes:

Reinhold> The musicians really liked the good look of the score.

Reinhold> The only problems appear when trying to create
Reinhold> good-looking full scores for the conductor (part
Reinhold> combining is unusable and vertical stretching and page
Reinhold> layout is also quit bad). But the orchestra material
Reinhold> with only one-staff systems can really be done in a
Reinhold> quality superior to most commercial scores.

I agree.  I mostly use lilypond for Renaissance polyphony, where the
original performers didn't have access to scores, and I feel strongly
that modern performers can play better from parts, so that they have
to learn how their part fits with the others by ear instead of by
eye.  

But having access to the score does help modern performers analyze,
and that analysis can certainly speed up rehearsals and maybe even
improve the performance.  And I do produce a score in the
process of getting the parts typeset and proofread.   And of course,
anyone who installs [the right version of] lilypond can print the
score as well as the parts.

For quite a while, I wasn't putting the score PDF's up on my site
 at all, but now I've decided that the scores
Lily makes are so bad that nobody would be tempted to perform from
them if they had access to a nice part with good spacing and *a lot*
fewer page turns.  So I have recently modified my scripts so that the
score appears at the end of the parts.

-- 
Laura   (mailto:lcon...@laymusic.org http://www.laymusic.org/ )
(617) 661-8097  233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139   

The dipsomaniac and the abstainer are not only both mistaken, but they
both make the same mistake: They both regard wine as a drug and not as
a drink.

G. K. Chesterton



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: invisible slurs in tablature

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 4/2/09 1:14 AM, "Marc Hohl"  wrote:

>> 
>> Oh, absolutely.  But it's not necessary to add everything all at once.
>> While we're in a development cycle (2.13), we can add features a little bit
>> at a time, and hopefully be close to done by the time we release 2.14.
>>  
> Just curious: is there a time frame for the release of future versions,
> as it is with the ubuntu linux releases every six months?

No firm time frame.  The last thing I heard was from Graham Percival, the
LilyPond Release Meister.  He said about 4 months, IIRC.

To track the release plans, you should be subscribed to lilypond-devel.

Thanks,

Carl



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: default midi velocity

[Hans Aberg]

On 2 Apr 2009, at 11:21, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:


I think MIDI is underdeveloped in LilyPond, and part of the reason is
that it is not a suitable audio format.



(strictly speaking, I think MIDI is not an audio format.)


"Audio generation format" might be better.


I don't agree. For test-hearing scores it is THE suitable format.



I also think MIDI has low priority for Lilypond's developers team.


Anyway, some of the reasons were given in that link you snipped out.

  Hans




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: default midi velocity

[Martin Tarenskeen]

On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 10:43:10AM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2009, at 09:52, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
>
>> 1. How can I change the default MIDI velocity from 127 to a more  
>> modest
>> value, without adding dynamic marks in the printable score ?
>>
>> 2. Shouldn't it be a good idea to lower midi-velocity values for
>> lilypond's MIDI output by default ? In other words: If no dynamics are
>> specified, shouldn't the default be mezzoforte ?
>
> I think MIDI is underdeveloped in LilyPond, and part of the reason is  
> that it is not a suitable audio format.

I don't agree. For test-hearing scores it is THE suitable format. 
(strictly speaking, I think MIDI is not an audio format.)
I also think MIDI has low priority for Lilypond's developers team. The 
recent discussion about also midi2ly confirms this.

I also use ABC and MUP for scorewriting from time to time. If I compare
these with Lilypond: Mup has pretty good features to insert all kinds of 
MIDI commands inside the score.  

For abc the special features offered by abc2midi are kind of unique and 
funny. ( Like automatic performance of guitar chords. Nice for 
test-hearing lead sheets :-) )

The main task of Lilypond should always be to produce beautiful scores.
I just don't want to blow up my speakers if I forget to turn down the 
volume on my amplifier when I play a MIDI file to test my score with 4 
piano's constantly playing fff !

-- 

Martin


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Lilypond crashing with cue notes

[northofscotland]

A bit more on the crash.  It would seem to be a self reference problem that
gets into an unending loop.  As a workaround I have managed to carry on by
making copies of all the files and using those as the reference for the
cues, so no longer having part 1 cue part 3 and part 3 cue part 1 etc but
having part 1 cue copy of part 3 etc.  A bit cumbersome but practical.  It
still leaves Lilypond a bit weak on the cueing front though


northofscotland wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been entering a seven part piece by Schutz; 2 voice + 5
> instrumental.  To help the performers I have been making extensive use of
> cue notes between all seven parts.
> I have been using Lilypond 2.12.2 with the latest jedit/Lilypond tool. 
> Currently it is a clean, new install since I uninstalled/reinstalled to
> see if that solved the problem, - it hasn't!
> All the parts seem to work perfectly as stand-alone, un-cued but as I
> added the cue notes, building up with a series of \include statements at
> the head of the file, \cueDuring in the notes and \addQuote before the
> \score statement it all seemed to go pear shaped and hang - seemingly in
> some indefinite loop.  The problem seemed to arise once I was about half
> way through with some files that had worked perfectly - including the cues
> throwing a wobbly, and with others which were being worked on.  The only
> way to get out of it is to kill everything
> 
> Is it me, the program, bugs, lilypond tool or whatever?  More importantly,
> has anyone any ideas how to fix it please?
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Lilypond-crashing-with-cue-notes-tp22834749p22843931.html
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

Re: default midi velocity

[Hans Aberg]

On 2 Apr 2009, at 09:52, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:

1. How can I change the default MIDI velocity from 127 to a more  
modest

value, without adding dynamic marks in the printable score ?

2. Shouldn't it be a good idea to lower midi-velocity values for
lilypond's MIDI output by default ? In other words: If no dynamics are
specified, shouldn't the default be mezzoforte ?


I think MIDI is underdeveloped in LilyPond, and part of the reason is  
that it is not a suitable audio format. The question pops up every now  
and then, see for example:

  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2009-03/msg00090.html

  Hans




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

default midi velocity

[Martin Tarenskeen]

Hi,

I have created an arrangement for 4 pianos. My score does not contain 
any dynamics markings. Now I have noticed that in the MIDI output all 
notes have the maximum Note-On midi-velocity value of 127! With 4 
piano's this gives a LOT of noise. 

Another thing I have noticed: Lilypond uses real MIDI Note Off commands 
to end notes with a default Note-Off-velocity value of 64. Note Off 
commands have always existed in the Midi Specification but are rarely 
used in the MIDI world. Almost every MIDI soft- and hardware that I have 
seen uses Note On commands with velocity=0. No big deal, it just surprised me.

Questions: 

1. How can I change the default MIDI velocity from 127 to a more modest 
value, without adding dynamic marks in the printable score ?

2. Shouldn't it be a good idea to lower midi-velocity values for 
lilypond's MIDI output by default ? In other words: If no dynamics are 
specified, shouldn't the default be mezzoforte ?

( BTW: I'm using Lilypond 2.13.0 on Fedora 10 )

-- 

Martin Tarenskeen



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: invisible slurs in tablature

[Marc Hohl]

Carl D. Sorensen schrieb:


On 4/1/09 1:09 AM, "Marc Hohl"  wrote:

  

Carl D. Sorensen schrieb:

 
  

Would it be easier to define two separate staff commands? In my files, I
define

noten = \relative c { c d e f }

and feed this into a Staff AND a TabStaff. So, why not create a compound
Staff (called \MusicTabStaff, for example),
which does exactly the same as

<< \Staff { \noten } \TabStaff  { \numbersOnly \noten } >>

and uses only the numbers, whereas \TabStaff (as defined in lilypond) is
used in the cases where
no regular staves are needed and thus shows up everything (stems, slurs
etc.)?



There are at least two ways to go with this.

The first is to have a StaffGroup that includes a Staff and a TabStaff.  It
would be something like a PianoStaff.  I don't know the details of how that
would word, but I suspect it could be done.

The second would be to write a simple music function with one argument (call
it myMusic) that expands to

<< \new Staff { myMusic} \new TabStaff {\numbersOnly \myMusic
\undoNumbersOnly} >>

This music function would be a simple substitution function>.  You can use
those in Notation Reference 6.1.2 as examples.

  

Carl, thank you for your suggestions. I will play a bit and see what way is
better/easier/etc.

When the decision is made, and it's ready for submission to LilyPond, the
defaults will be established in ly/engraver-init.ly

The commands for changing from one to the other will be established in
ly/property-init.ly.

Marc, once you've got consensus, you can make the changes and roll me a
patch, and I'll apply it.

 
  

Ok, but I think we are just at the beginning of the topic. The more I
think about tablature features/defaults,
the more complicated it gets ;-)



Oh, absolutely.  But it's not necessary to add everything all at once.
While we're in a development cycle (2.13), we can add features a little bit
at a time, and hopefully be close to done by the time we release 2.14.
  

Just curious: is there a time frame for the release of future versions,
as it is with the ubuntu linux releases every six months?

Marc

Carl


  




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: invisible slurs in tablature

[Marc Hohl]

David Stocker schrieb:



Marc Hohl wrote:





I think you should also add:

\override TabVoice.Tie #'transparent = ##t

Yes, of course. But then another problem occurs: if the tie isn't 
visible, it looks as if there are two distinct
notes. Therefore, I think strongly about a scheme function (which at 
the end should be hidden in the

TabVoice-context) which translates, e.g.

c4 d e2 ~ e4. e8

to

c4 d e2 s4. e8

so the spurious tablature number disappears in the output. From 
earlier postings I knew that there are
several functions about automatically calculating intervals etc., but 
I'm a scheme newbie. So I would be
glad if someone out there would give me a hint how to start writing 
such a function.
It should be noted that a publishing standard is when there is a Note 
Staff + Tab Staff, tied notes (that is, the notes that are 'held') in 
the Tab Staff are indicated by parenthesizing the tab number(s). There 
are several conventions that are related to tied notes in a Notes+Tab 
situation:


   * Tab numbers that are 'tied to' are sometimes parenthesized,
 sometimes hidden.
   * In the case that 'tied to' notes are hidden, a parenthesized tab
 number is usually forced if the 'tied to' note is at the beginning
 of a line (i.e., the note is tied over a system break).
   * Likewise, parenthesized tab numbers are forced when a 'tied to'
 note begins a 2nd ending or Coda section.
   * A parenthesized chord in the Tab Staff are indicated with a single
 pair of parentheses surrounding all of the notes in the chord (as
 opposed to as single pair of parentheses around each individual
 note in the chord).


I should have known that my rude attempt was way too simple :-)
Additionally, parenthesized tab numbers figure in released bends. 
Incidentally, I'm about to submit to the LilyPond-Tab community the 
first few entries in the catalog of desired tab features and they deal 
with some simple bends. I was going to try to make a comprehensive 
list of all 'finger-bend' situations, but that is turning out to be 
more work than I realized. So, instead I'm doing a short set of the 
most common bend situations so that this can get rolling sooner.


Great! As I see, you are the right person for this job. I think, the 
bends are the most difficult part of the tablature
extension, and when we solve that, most other smaller features are done 
"on the fly".


Greetings,

Marc

Cheers,

David






___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user