Re: 2.13.54 breaks NoteNames vertical spacing
Michael Ellis gmail.com> writes:
> In 2.12, the NoteNames output lays close beneath the lyric line.
> In 2.13.54 the gap is quite large and the output collides with
> markup above the next staff. Is there a workaround?
>
>
Try
\layout { \context {
\NoteNames
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-affinity = #UP
}}
The initialization file (engraver-init.ly) actually says
% FIXME: not sure what the default should be here.
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-affinity = #DOWN
So let's set the correct default now. Is there any reason to assume that note-
names will most often be associated with the staff above or the staff below ?
If not, we can set staff-affinity to CENTER -- which doesn't really mean center
but means get close to a staff on either side. I guess the programmer didn't
think that 'staff-affinity = #PROMISCUOUS was appropriate.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
> "Henning" == Henning Hraban Ramm writes: Henning> Am 2011-03-18 um 11:47 schrieb Graham Percival: >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:17:47AM +0100, Marc Hohl wrote: >>> Just adding articulate.ly in ly/ and giving one example in the >>> docs is probably not what you expect ... >> >> Why not? That's certainly how I'd start going about this. I >> haven't looked at it, so I might notice some problem with that >> approach when I see a patch. Or other people might notice some >> problem with the approach. But that's definitely how to begin. Henning> I wouldn’t make articulate default – I try it with every song Henning> I typeset and like the result not always. Henning> E.g. chords get shortened, that sounds ugly, esp. with organ Henning> or the like. Or would I’ve to mark all chords tenuto? Of Henning> course I can \articulate only some voices - but therefore it Henning> must not be default. The default phrasing is non-legato. If you want chords to slur into each other, articulate needs to know that --- so put them under a slur or a phrasing slur. Henning> Didn’t check: Does articulate handle fermatas/ritardandos? It handles ritardandos if they're marked rall. or rit. Fermatas are still on the to-do list. -- Dr Peter Chubb http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au ERTOS within National ICT Australia ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Suppress NoteNames output on ties ?
Is it possible to tell the NoteNames engraver to print the name for
only the first note of a sequence of tied notes?
mymusic = { c'4 c' ~ c'2 }
\score {
<<
\new Voice \mymusic
\context NoteNames \mymusic
>>
}
Try that
%%%
tiedNoteToSkip = #(define-music-function (parser location music) (ly:music?)
(let ((prev-was-tie? #f))
(define (tied-note->skip evt)
(let ((elt (ly:music-property evt 'element))
(elts (ly:music-property evt 'elements))
(name (ly:music-property evt 'name)))
(cond ((and prev-was-tie? (eq? name 'EventChord))
(set! prev-was-tie? #f)
(skip-of-length evt))
((eq? name 'TieEvent)
(set! prev-was-tie? #t)
evt)
(else
(if (ly:music? elt) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'element
(tied-note->skip elt)))
(if (pair? elts) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'elements
(map tied-note->skip elts)))
evt
(tied-note->skip music)))
mymusic = { c'4 c' ~ c'2 }
\score {
<<
\new Voice \mymusic
\context NoteNames \tiedNoteToSkip \mymusic
>>
}
%%%
Good Week-end.
Gilles
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
2011/3/18 Francisco Vila : > 2011/3/18 Graham Percival : >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:17:47AM +0100, Marc Hohl wrote: >>> Just adding articulate.ly in ly/ and giving one example in the docs >>> is probably not what you expect ... >> >> Why not? That's certainly how I'd start going about this. I >> haven't looked at it, so I might notice some problem with that >> approach when I see a patch. Or other people might notice some >> problem with the approach. But that's definitely how to begin. > > The attached patch includes and documents the Articulate script. I've not checked, but is the license compatible with that of lilypond? A simple line stating "this file has the same license as the lilypond package" would serve. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Suppress NoteNames output on ties ?
On 20 March 2011 09:35, Gilles THIBAULT wrote:
>
> Try that
>
> %%%
> tiedNoteToSkip = #(define-music-function (parser location music) (ly:music?)
> (let ((prev-was-tie? #f))
> (define (tied-note->skip evt)
>(let ((elt (ly:music-property evt 'element))
> (elts (ly:music-property evt 'elements))
> (name (ly:music-property evt 'name)))
> (cond ((and prev-was-tie? (eq? name 'EventChord))
> (set! prev-was-tie? #f)
> (skip-of-length evt))
> ((eq? name 'TieEvent)
> (set! prev-was-tie? #t)
> evt)
> (else
> (if (ly:music? elt) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'element
> (tied-note->skip elt)))
> (if (pair? elts) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'elements
> (map tied-note->skip elts)))
> evt
> (tied-note->skip music)))
>
> mymusic = { c'4 c' ~ c'2 }
> \score {
> <<
> \new Voice \mymusic
> \context NoteNames \tiedNoteToSkip \mymusic
> >>
> }
> %%%
>
> Good Week-end.
Could/did you add this to the LSR?
It should be the default behaviour IMHO (or at least a possible tunable
option).
Maybe one could discuss this with the devs and suggest Gilles' code as
a PATCH.
Cheers,
Xavier
--
Xavier Scheuer
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
On 20 March 2011 09:55, Francisco Vila wrote: > > I've not checked, but is the license compatible with that of lilypond? > A simple line stating "this file has the same license as the lilypond > package" would serve. According to the header of the articulate.ly script, it is GNU General Public License, version 2. IIRC LilyPond is GNU GPL version 3. Maybe Peter could change its script license to version 2 or later or version 3, so it would be effectively compatible. I'm glad that articulate is finally somewhat included officially into LilyPond, since I asked for it 9 months ago and it is a popular request on the LilyPond French Users mailing list. Many thanks! Cheers, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
On 20/03/2011, at 7:55 PM, Francisco Vila wrote: > 2011/3/18 Francisco Vila : >> 2011/3/18 Graham Percival : >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:17:47AM +0100, Marc Hohl wrote: Just adding articulate.ly in ly/ and giving one example in the docs is probably not what you expect ... >>> >>> Why not? That's certainly how I'd start going about this. I >>> haven't looked at it, so I might notice some problem with that >>> approach when I see a patch. Or other people might notice some >>> problem with the approach. But that's definitely how to begin. >> >> The attached patch includes and documents the Articulate script. > > I've not checked, but is the license compatible with that of lilypond? > A simple line stating "this file has the same license as the lilypond > package" would serve. It's released under GPL version 2.0 Its copyright is held by myself and by my employer, NICTA, who reserve the right to release it under other licences at other times, and who wish the notice of copyright in the file to be retained. I also assert my moral right to be identified as the original author of the code, Ultimately I expect all this not to be an issue, as the articulate script is really a hack. Its functionality should really be part of the Performer context. And I'm hoping that now that attention has been focussed more on good MIDI output, someone will start hacking on that code to make the articulate script obsolete. Peter C > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
On 3/20/11 2:55 AM, "Francisco Vila" wrote: > 2011/3/18 Francisco Vila : >> 2011/3/18 Graham Percival : >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:17:47AM +0100, Marc Hohl wrote: Just adding articulate.ly in ly/ and giving one example in the docs is probably not what you expect ... >>> >>> Why not? That's certainly how I'd start going about this. I >>> haven't looked at it, so I might notice some problem with that >>> approach when I see a patch. Or other people might notice some >>> problem with the approach. But that's definitely how to begin. >> >> The attached patch includes and documents the Articulate script. > > I've not checked, but is the license compatible with that of lilypond? > A simple line stating "this file has the same license as the lilypond > package" would serve. > Actually, if it's part of the LilyPond distribution, it should have a standard LilyPond header. Peter, are you OK with giving this code to LilyPond? Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
2011/3/20 Peter Chubb : > On 20/03/2011, at 7:55 PM, Francisco Vila wrote: >> I've not checked, but is the license compatible with that of lilypond? >> A simple line stating "this file has the same license as the lilypond >> package" would serve. > > It's released under GPL version 2.0 > Its copyright is held by myself and by my employer, NICTA, who reserve the > right to release it under other licences at other times, and who wish the > notice of copyright in the file to be retained. I am not an expert and can not decide if we can include it given that discrepancy. > I also assert my moral right to be identified as the original author of the > code, If your file says that, it will be respected. Don't bother about being a part of a commit done for another person. > Ultimately I expect all this not to be an issue, as the articulate script is > really a hack. Its functionality should really be part of the Performer > context. And I'm hoping that now that attention has been focussed more on > good MIDI output, someone will start hacking on that code to make the > articulate script obsolete. > > Peter C >> > -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
2011/3/19 Federico Bruni : > Il giorno ven, 18/03/2011 alle 16.54 +0100, Francisco Vila ha scritto: >> The attached patch includes and documents the Articulate script. > > there's a typo in line 76 of the patch: > > +etc., and take rallentendo and accelerando into account. > > s/rallentendo/rallentando Thanks; the published patch for revision already includes this. http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067 -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Hello, Yes very good question. One thing that comes to mind is that I don't want to arrive at a point where musician will be teaching computers to play instead of learning to play themselves. We're long past that point. Many many pop and rock and hip hop keyboardists can't really play, i.e. if you asked them to play some sheet music or reproduce a particular song, they couldn't do it, but they can program loops and effects and assign them to keys and produce some excellent music. Their instrument is the programming and their creativity and imagination. and so we're back to Graham's point. Anyone can now make 'music' without having to spend years learning a 'real' instrument etc. It's not so much some 'musicians' can no longer play an instrument or read music but that some extra 'musicians' can now create music without having to play an instrument or read music etc. That is a good thing. James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
Francisco Vila writes: > 2011/3/20 Peter Chubb : >> On 20/03/2011, at 7:55 PM, Francisco Vila wrote: >>> I've not checked, but is the license compatible with that of lilypond? >>> A simple line stating "this file has the same license as the lilypond >>> package" would serve. >> >> It's released under GPL version 2.0 >> Its copyright is held by myself and by my employer, NICTA, who >> reserve the right to release it under other licences at other times, >> and who wish the notice of copyright in the file to be retained. > > I am not an expert and can not decide if we can include it given that > discrepancy. Not likely to work well. It is not even clear that Peter can release/distribute it under GPL version 2.0 unless it will work unmodified with a version of Lilypond released under GPL version 2.0. If it doesn't, the question is whether it counts as being a derivative of Lilypond. If Peter and/or his employer can't be persuaded to release this as GPL3+ (which does not touch their right to release and distribute it, in parallel, under any license they want to unless the code depends on the work of others), I strongly suggest not distributing it with the rest of Lilypond since any "crosspollination", namely people using the code, its structure, documentation and whatever else will constitute a licensing violation of Peter's and his empoyer's licensing choice. Since that is an accident waiting to happen even if inclusion of articulate.ly could conceivably count as "mere aggregation", we need to steer clear. Any other GPLvx.0 only (where x includes 3) bombs waiting to happen in the Lilypond code base? -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: 2.13.54 breaks NoteNames vertical spacing
- Original Message -
From: "Keith OHara"
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: 2.13.54 breaks NoteNames vertical spacing
Michael Ellis gmail.com> writes:
In 2.12, the NoteNames output lays close beneath the lyric line.
In 2.13.54 the gap is quite large and the output collides with
markup above the next staff. Is there a workaround?
Try
\layout { \context {
\NoteNames
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-affinity = #UP
}}
The initialization file (engraver-init.ly) actually says
% FIXME: not sure what the default should be here.
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-affinity = #DOWN
So let's set the correct default now. Is there any reason to assume that
note-
names will most often be associated with the staff above or the staff
below ?
If not, we can set staff-affinity to CENTER -- which doesn't really mean
center
but means get close to a staff on either side. I guess the programmer
didn't
think that 'staff-affinity = #PROMISCUOUS was appropriate.
It definitely works best with staff-affinity UP, where the note names are
below the stave. Presumably it would be best with DOWN where they're above.
It also is improved with:
\paper {
system-system-spacing #'padding = #5
}
IIRC, this is all to do with the system spacing not taking account of
non-staff grobs? I do think this is likely to cause a number of problems in
the future.
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: 2.13.54 breaks NoteNames vertical spacing
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Keith OHara"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 7:26 AM
> Subject: Re: 2.13.54 breaks NoteNames vertical spacing
>
>
>> Michael Ellis gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> In 2.12, the NoteNames output lays close beneath the lyric line.
>>> In 2.13.54 the gap is quite large and the output collides with
>>> markup above the next staff. Is there a workaround?
>>>
>>>
>> Try
>> \layout { \context {
>> \NoteNames
>> \override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-affinity = #UP
>> }}
>>
>> The initialization file (engraver-init.ly) actually says
>> % FIXME: not sure what the default should be here.
>> \override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-affinity = #DOWN
>>
>> So let's set the correct default now. Is there any reason to assume that
>> note-
>> names will most often be associated with the staff above or the staff
>> below ?
>>
>> If not, we can set staff-affinity to CENTER -- which doesn't really mean
>> center
>> but means get close to a staff on either side. I guess the programmer
>> didn't
>> think that 'staff-affinity = #PROMISCUOUS was appropriate.
>
> It definitely works best with staff-affinity UP, where the note names are
> below the stave. Presumably it would be best with DOWN where they're above.
> It also is improved with:
>
> \paper {
> system-system-spacing #'padding = #5
> }
>
>
> IIRC, this is all to do with the system spacing not taking account of
> non-staff grobs? I do think this is likely to cause a number of problems in
> the future.
>
Thanks! The staff-affinity setting restores the old behavior. FWIW,
I had to use the \with syntax to get it to actually compile.
\context NoteNames \with {
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-affinity = #UP
} { \notes }
The system-system-spacing change had no effect, AFAICT.
Making staff-affinity to default to #UP seems sensible to me. Oh, and
congrats to the development team; compared to 2.12.3, 2.13.54 does a
noticeably better job of making good trade-offs between note spacing
(horizontally) and lyric syllable spacing.
Cheers,
Mike
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Suppress NoteNames output on ties ?
Could/did you add this to the LSR?
Why not, but not before 1 or 2 days, I have to finish a score before
tomorow. (Working on this snippet was already not very reasonable ...).
I have however change a bit the snippet. It is now cleaner because it
deletes all tie events.
%%%
tiedNoteToSkip = #(define-music-function (parser location music) (ly:music?)
(let ((prev-was-tie? #f))
(define (tied-note->skip evt)
(let ((elt (ly:music-property evt 'element))
(elts (ly:music-property evt 'elements))
(name (ly:music-property evt 'name)))
(cond ((and prev-was-tie? (eq? name 'EventChord))
(set! prev-was-tie? #f)
(skip-of-length evt))
((eq? name 'TieEvent)
(set! prev-was-tie? #t)
#f) ;; all tie events will be deleted
(else
(if (ly:music? elt) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'element
(tied-note->skip elt)))
(if (pair? elts) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'elements
(filter-map tied-note->skip elts)))
evt
(tied-note->skip music)))
mymusic = { c'4 c' ~ c'2 }
\score {
<<
\new Voice \mymusic
\context NoteNames \displayMusic \tiedNoteToSkip \mymusic
>>
}
%%%
It should be the default behaviour IMHO (or at least a possible tunable
option).
Well, i never use the NoteNames context, so i have no ideas how it should
behaves.
Gilles, going back at work ...
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
splitting measures in half.... or so
Hi, I am working on a renaissance-piece and want to split measures across systems. Is this possible without disarranging the measure numbers? Gr. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:24:42AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Not likely to work well. It is not even clear that Peter can > release/distribute it under GPL version 2.0 unless it will work > unmodified with a version of Lilypond released under GPL version 2.0. > If it doesn't, the question is whether it counts as being a derivative > of Lilypond. The suggestion that a .ly file would somehow be a derivative work of lilypond is ridiculous. Writing a C++ to be compiled with gcc does not constitute a derivate work of gcc. Writing an html file to be displayed in Firefox does not consistute a derivative work of firefox. Creating graphics in GIMP does not constitute a derivative work of gimp. etc. articulate.ly is a 668-line .ly file containing a bunch of scheme. It is absolutely not a derivative work of lilypond. > I strongly suggest not distributing it with the rest of > Lilypond since any "crosspollination", namely people using the code, its > structure, documentation and whatever else will constitute a licensing > violation of Peter's and his empoyer's licensing choice. The documentation was written by Francisco. I agree that this could cause a problem if anybody (other than Peter or a NICTA employee) ever tried to "port" these functions into a Performer. > Since that is an accident waiting to happen even if inclusion of > articulate.ly could conceivably count as "mere aggregation", we need to > steer clear. articulate.ly is an optional include. It's less "aggrevated" than the "public domain" snippets which we include in the manual. I can't imagine how anything that we (potentially) distribute could be more "mere aggrevation" than articulate.ly. > Any other GPLvx.0 only (where x includes 3) bombs waiting to happen in > the Lilypond code base? A few quick greps suggests that we have some "2.0 or later" stuff, which isn't a problem. texinfo.tex, the big contender in my mind for 2.0, is 3.0 or later. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: splitting measures in half.... or so
On 20 March 2011 14:50, christian wrote: > > Hi, > > I am working on a renaissance-piece and want to split measures across systems. > Is this possible without disarranging the measure numbers? AFAIK \bar "" \break does not disarrange the measure numbers. See NR 4.3.1 Line breaking http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/line-breaking.html Cheers, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:07:09AM +0100, Xavier Scheuer wrote: > I'm glad that articulate is finally somewhat included officially into > LilyPond, since I asked for it 9 months ago So what? I have been pointing out that it would be easy to add for 2 years. And on the more general topic of "useful scheme functions it would be nice to include", I've been trying to recruit interested workers since 2007. Nobody's been interested. We are having this discussion because Francisco spent approximately 60 minutes working on this. Apparently you didn't care enough about this issue to spend 60 minutes working. So don't snark at everybody else who *also* didn't want to bother spending the time on this. - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
Henning! Nice work so far! Would be nice to have those things too. How difficult would be to have precise and smooth cresc. and dim. within the same note? But in this case you would have to know the instrument, given that a piano could not change the dynamics unless the next note is played. At the same time a violin would have total control of dynamics, if in the same note or a group of notes. Maybe it's more complicated to implement , for example, a dim . and a crescendo. which have a rhythmic aspect. For example: a short and sudden dim. followed by a smooth and long crescendo with the same note. Cheers! ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
On 20 March 2011 15:39, Graham Percival wrote: > > So what? I have been pointing out that it would be easy to add > for 2 years. And on the more general topic of "useful scheme > functions it would be nice to include", I've been trying to > recruit interested workers since 2007. Nobody's been interested. I was not here in 2007. > We are having this discussion because Francisco spent > approximately 60 minutes working on this. Apparently you didn't > care enough about this issue to spend 60 minutes working. So > don't snark at everybody else who *also* didn't want to bother > spending the time on this. No, I do not really care about this issue. As I said in the second part of my sentence (that you did not quote in your reply above), this is a popular request by French users _other than me_ on the LilyPond French Users mailing list. I forward requests form French users to the international list, I report bugs from French to the appropriate place, but I do not solve/fix everything I am aware of. The goal of my message above was to thank Francisco to take care of this, and to express the gratitude of the French community for which this improvement will be warmly welcome. My goal was not to "snark" (BTW this verb was not in my English-French dictionary), nor to wake up the grumpy, unpleasant, abrupt Graham. Cheers, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
Graham Percival writes: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:24:42AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> Not likely to work well. It is not even clear that Peter can >> release/distribute it under GPL version 2.0 unless it will work >> unmodified with a version of Lilypond released under GPL version 2.0. >> If it doesn't, the question is whether it counts as being a derivative >> of Lilypond. > > The suggestion that a .ly file would somehow be a derivative work > of lilypond is ridiculous. Depends on how interlocked and crossdependent it is with internals of Lilypond and whether or not stuff has been cross-copied. > Writing a C++ to be compiled with gcc does not constitute a > derivate work of gcc. If the code is part of a C compiler based on gcc, things are not reasonably separate to warrant talking of "mere aggregation" without examining the details. A .ly file that represents some score certainly is separate from Lilypond. A .ly file that is intended to run as an integrated part of Lilypond when typesetting, however: I would not be able to call that a separate work without analyzing the source. > Writing an html file to be displayed in Firefox does not consistute a > derivative work of firefox. Writing a renderer in Javascript intended to do part of the display job of Firefox certainly results in an overall work that cannot in all cases considered the Javascript renderer a separate and independent work from Firefox. > Creating graphics in GIMP does not constitute a derivative work of > gimp. etc. > articulate.ly is a 668-line .ly file containing a bunch of scheme. > It is absolutely not a derivative work of lilypond. That is not the question. The license of Lilypond _and_ the license of articulate.ly _demand_ that the work _as_ _a_ _whole_ (with all its parts) be licensed under the GPLv3+ or GPLv2, respectively. If those works can't be reasonably considered independent, distributing them as one work intended to do one job is in breach of the respective licenses. > I can't imagine how anything that we (potentially) distribute > could be more "mere aggrevation" than articulate.ly. "aggregation", please. See above. >> Any other GPLvx.0 only (where x includes 3) bombs waiting to happen in >> the Lilypond code base? > > A few quick greps suggests that we have some "2.0 or later" stuff, > which isn't a problem. texinfo.tex, the big contender in my mind > for 2.0, is 3.0 or later. texinfo is not operating interlocked with or as a part of Lilypond, but used as a separate independent documentation compiler as far as I can tell, even though calling it is part of the build process. So I don't think its license, whatever it may be, should provide a problem as long as we don't put a general "everything in this tarball is distributed under license xxx" claim somewhere. Lilypond-book's calls of various TeX engines also don't exercise anything but their standard exposed and published API, so this also just constitutes mere aggregation with regard to the licenses. That it (and other components) are written in Python is also not an issue. And so on. I don't see that articulate.ly can be considered independent and separate like that. I'd have to look at it to tell. Since there is no published or generally accessible Midi API in Lilypond (I'd certainly want for one to be there), I have my doubts. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
On 11-03-20 03:27 AM, Francisco Vila wrote: 2011/3/19 Federico Bruni: Il giorno ven, 18/03/2011 alle 16.54 +0100, Francisco Vila ha scritto: The attached patch includes and documents the Articulate script. there's a typo in line 76 of the patch: +etc., and take rallentendo and accelerando into account. s/rallentendo/rallentando Thanks; the published patch for revision already includes this. http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067 I've added issue 1568 to track the status of this enhancement, Francisco. Colin Campbell Bug Squad -- The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tie collision with note
On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:21 AM, Nicholas Moe wrote:
That makes the tie how I want it, but I need to shift the middle notes
to the right in the second measure to show that they are their own
voice, whilst keeping the stems up. How could I do that?
Nick
I understand. How about this (thanks, JEdit and LilyPondTool!)
\version "2.13.54"
\relative c' {
\clef "bass"
\voiceOne
<<
{ d1~ d2 c }
\new Voice {
\voiceThree
\shiftOff
\once \override Tie #'control-points = #'( ( 2.2771 . 2.348)
( 3.8427 . 3.344) ( 7.3296 . 3.486) ( 10.176 . 2.348) )
a1~
\shiftOn
a2 g
}
\new Voice {
\voiceTwo
d2\( f
e2 e\)
}
>>
}
Stan
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: OpenType ligatures
Ok :o\ So, for the moment, "sed -i [...] lyrics.ily" is the best solution. Thanks anyway ! Bertrand ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 04:23:12PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival writes: > > > The suggestion that a .ly file would somehow be a derivative work > > of lilypond is ridiculous. > > Depends on how interlocked and crossdependent it is with internals of > Lilypond and whether or not stuff has been cross-copied. If there's no allowances for "interoperability", and if the amount of "interlocked-ness" (how do we measure this?) of articulate.ly means that it's a derivative work, then any serious use of scheme functions in lilypond would automatically mean that the music must be GPLv3 or later. That's crazy. If that's actually true -- which I doubt -- then I would argue in the strongest possible terms that we should add a "using the lilypond scheme API does not require that the music is placed under the GPLv3", similar to our font exception. My personal stake is that I'm using scheme to extract music events from lilypond for Vivi. I was planning on placing Vivi under the GPLv3, but I *don't* like being forced to do so. If using lilypond scheme actually means that -- and if we don't add an exception to allow the use of scheme code and calling ly:music-functions in our own .ly files -- then I'll seriously look at dropping lilypond input and use musicxml instead. > A .ly file that represents some score certainly is separate from > Lilypond. A .ly file that is intended to run as an integrated part of > Lilypond when typesetting, however: I would not be able to call that a > separate work without analyzing the source. Please examine articulate.ly in detail and give your opinion about whether it is legal for Peter (and NICTA) to place that work under the GPLv2. This is a very serious allegation, and I think we should clear it up immediately, before even thinking about any patches. I will admit that one comment in articulate.ly says: % Gradually speed up a piece of music. Stolen from the feather % code in % the Lilypond base. % Overflows moment and causes infinite Lilypond loop, or segv % --- DON'T USE #(define (ac:accel music factor) Since articulate.ly was primarily written in 2008, I would expect this to have come from the GPLv2 version of lilypond (as it was until Fall 2009... actually, the stable 2.12 version is still under GPLv2). And it that "DON'T USE" comment is accurate, then perhaps the entire function should be removed to avoid confusion. > > articulate.ly is a 668-line .ly file containing a bunch of scheme. > > It is absolutely not a derivative work of lilypond. > > That is not the question. Isn't that precisely the question? You wrote: "It is not even clear that Peter can release/distribute it under GPL version 2.0 unless it will work unmodified with a version of Lilypond released under GPL version 2.0" If articulate.ly is not a derivative work, then he (and/or his employer) are free to choose any license they wish. If, for some reason, articulate.ly *is* a derivative, then he (and/or his employer) are *not* free to choose any license. At the moment, I don't care about the patch. I'm shocked at the suggestion that Peter's research might be illegal, and I would like you to clarify this as soon as possible. Please example articulate.ly in detail, and give your opinion as to whether it consititutes a derivate work. - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Help with changing notehead glyph
Hello,
I am trying to use one of the note glyphs as listed in the NR section
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/the-feta-font#special-
notehead-glyphs
I have tried a combination of \overrides but cannot seem to get the glyph
I'd like - in fact nothing changes
So for example in a \context { \Voice { }} I added
\override NoteHead #'glyph-name = #'"noteheads.u2do"
But it didn't do anything (I didn't get an error, so at least I know that
my formatting of the command is correct if not the interface/grob)
I also looked in font-table.ly (which is where the page is generated from)
it wasn't obvious what to use.
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Thank you.
James
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:35:37AM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi Trevor,
>
> > Of course, we can't know about "good stuff" that vanished and has not been
> > rediscovered :)
>
> Have you ever heard Mozart's son's piano music? There are some
> pieces (especially the Mazurkas) which are clearly superior in
> construction and emotional depth to many of the more popular --
> and thus, by Graham's definition, "better" -- pieces of other
> composers.
Hmm. Seeing it put that way ("what way? you mean, accurately?"
"... yes."), I'd like to retract part of it.
IMO, the world would be a better place if we were more precise in
our musical judgements. If you want to make a subjective
judgement (such as "clearly superior in construction and emotional
depth"), then that's fine; just make it clear that this is your
personal opinion. If you don't specify that something is a
personal opinion, then "go objective or go home".
The easiest objective judgement is popularity -- or rather,
"amount of CDs sold", "amount of tracks downloaded from a legal
free music site", or even "amount of tracks downloaded from any
source, including quasi-legal (i.e. not legal) and
not-even-quasi-legal sources".
Judgements like "harmonic complexity" or "melodic construction"
can be objective, but you need to specify which algorithm you're
using to determine the harmonies (or melodic stuff). And then use
that algorithm strictly. Which, for practical purposes, means
using computer score analysis.
Since we don't even have widespread use of things as (relatively)
simple as harmonic analysis, let alone having a good way of
weighing individual components (like rhythm, melody, structure,
etc)., I think that the only objective judgement we can make is
popularity. That's why I linked popularity to "quality" so
strongly.
However, I'm hoping that over the next 5-10 years, musicologists
will see the light and start working with tools like David Huron's
stuff, and then we'll see widespread use of automatic
melodic/harmonic/etc analysis. Once that happens, then we really
might be able to say "Mozart's music is better than Madonna's
music because xyz", where xyz is rooted in completely objective
algorithms.
(or at least, in objective algorithms, using some constants that
were derived from collecting listening data from hundreds of
people in music psychology experiment -- that would be a good
balance between completely subjective judgements of musicologists,
and completely mathematical analyses)
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Help with changing notehead glyph
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 06:01:47PM +, James Lowe wrote:
> I am trying to use one of the note glyphs as listed in the NR section
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/the-feta-font#special-
> notehead-glyphs
IIRC most of those are from Ancient music, so if you look through
that chapter, you might find out how to use it "for real"? I'm
not certain about this. (this is a rare occurence of me saying
"look at the docs" without meaning "RTFM" :)
> I also looked in font-table.ly (which is where the page is generated from)
> it wasn't obvious what to use.
that file only generates stuff with markup; you could print out
the notehead doing something like
\markup { \musicglyph #'ufont.u2 }
but that won't help if you want it in your actual score.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 04:50:04PM +0200, Dmytro O. Redchuk wrote:
>
> Can't imagine how many issues they could fix instead of that waste of time...
That goes for *anything* we do for entertainment -- including
academic music / musicology / history / lilypond work / etc.
Any one of us could have devoted our lives to researching ways of
creating clean water, or researching how to reducing pollution
from energy sources (or making more energy-efficient appliances),
or simply volunteering to teach basic mathematics and literacy to
the illiterate (either in our own countries, or in other
countries).
I really, honestly, love Vocaloid ("that waste of time"). On an
objective level, it's allowed many people to create music. On a
subjective level, listening (and watching) Vocaloid music has
brought me more pleasure than *any* academic music composition
(going back as far as the Rite of Spring, which may or may not be
considered to be "academic", but it was covered in my second-year
music theory course, so there).
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:26:40AM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Rather, I'm railing against the following [possibly inevitable, but still > disheartening] reality: > > In the 1940s, a barometer of popular taste was Frank Sinatra ... > In the 1960s, the barometer was Bob Dylan (who can write great ... > Today, the barometer is people who can do none of the above, > doing *all* of the above -- heavily "assisted" by AutoTune™, > AutoCorrect™, and all the other AutoCrutches™ "creators" have > come to rely on, and (more unfortunately) consumers have come to > accept (or even prefer). I don't find this disheartening -- I consider this a triumph of science. Leaving aside the effects of marketing (which are substantial, and defrays my "popular = good" claim from a few days ago), we've (apparently) reached the point where the combined efforts of a singer, sound engineers, computer programmers, composers, arrangers, sound sample recordings, and the generic term "producers", produces more popular music than a single singer (or a single singer/piano/guitar player / poet/composer). Granted, in many (most?) ways, a "produced" musical recording is *not* the same art form as a live music concert. I somewhat consider "produced music recordings" to be in a category like theatre or movies -- they might involve live music at some point (as background), but the final product involves a huge number of components (and people) other than live musicians playing music. *shrug* Perhaps in a few years, the "live music recordings vs. produced music" division will be more clear in people's minds. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Suppress NoteNames output on ties ?
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Gilles THIBAULT
wrote:
> #(define-music-function (parser location music) (ly:music?)
> (let ((prev-was-tie? #f))
> (define (tied-note->skip evt)
> (let ((elt (ly:music-property evt 'element))
> (elts (ly:music-property evt 'elements))
> (name (ly:music-property evt 'name)))
> (cond ((and prev-was-tie? (eq? name 'EventChord))
> (set! prev-was-tie? #f)
> (skip-of-length evt))
> ((eq? name 'TieEvent)
> (set! prev-was-tie? #t)
> #f) ;; all tie events will be deleted
> (else
> (if (ly:music? elt) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'element
> (tied-note->skip elt)))
> (if (pair? elts) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'elements
> (filter-map tied-note->skip elts)))
> evt
> (tied-note->skip music)))
Thank you, Gilles. This is very nice and works almost perfectly. I've
found one case where it isn't yet quite right.
I was copying a part from Bernstein's Chichester Psalms. In Movement
I, there is a section in 7/4 with dashed bars in each measure after
beat 4. To save typing, I had created a variable thus:
bdash = { \noBreak \bar "dashed" }
The \noBreak is necessary to prevent system breaks at the dashed bar.
I noticed that the function was not suppressing the NoteNames output
for notes tied across the dashed bar lines. It appears that the
\noBreak is the culprit.
mymusic = {
\time 7/4
c'2 c'2 ~ \bar "dashed" c'2.^"ok" |
c'2 c'2 ~ { \noBreak \bar "dashed" } c'2.^"fail" |
c'2 c'2 ~ \noBreak c'2.^"fail" |
}
I will try to debug and fix it -- unless someone already knows the answer!
Cheers,
Mike
<>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Help with changing notehead glyph
pkx166h wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to use one of the note glyphs as listed in the NR section
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/the-feta-font#special-
> notehead-glyphs
>
> I have tried a combination of \overrides but cannot seem to get the glyph
> I'd like - in fact nothing changes
>
> So for example in a \context { \Voice { }} I added
>
> \override NoteHead #'glyph-name = #'"noteheads.u2do"
>
>
>
> But it didn't do anything (I didn't get an error, so at least I know that
> my formatting of the command is correct if not the interface/grob)
>
>
> I also looked in font-table.ly (which is where the page is generated from)
> it wasn't obvious what to use.
>
> Can anyone point me in the right direction?
>
maybe
\override NoteHead #'stencil = #(lambda (grob)
(grob-interpret-markup grob
(markup #:musicglyph "noteheads.u2do")))
which i found i-don't-know-where!
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Help-with-changing-notehead-glyph-tp31195213p31195496.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: Tie collision with note
Thanks, Stan, for all your help on this. I checked out LilyPondTool
and JEdit and was able to see how to get control points from the slur
tweak tool. But as I was trying to figure out how to use the slur
tweak tool, I came across another tweak that works even better. I
adapted \shapeSlur from the Lilypond Snippet Repository
(http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=63) and turned it into \shapeTie.
(Thanks, LSR!) With this I can specify offsets for each control point
of the tie. This way, the tweak scales with the layout of the music.
Here's the example with the addition of this tweak:
%-
\version "2.13.54"
shapeTie =
#(define-music-function (parser location offsets) (list?)
#{
\once \override Tie #'control-points = #(alter-curve $offsets)
#})
#(define ((alter-curve offsets) grob)
;; get default control-points
(let ((coords (ly:tie::calc-control-points grob))
(n 0))
;; add offsets to default coordinates
(define loop (lambda (n)
(set-car! (list-ref coords n)
(+ (list-ref offsets (* 2 n))
(car (list-ref coords n
(set-cdr! (list-ref coords n)
(+ (list-ref offsets (1+ (* 2 n)))
(cdr (list-ref coords n
(if (< n 3)
(loop (1+ n)
;; return altered coordinates
(loop n)
coords))
\relative c' {
\clef "bass"
\voiceOne
<<
{ d1~ d2 c }
\new Voice {
\voiceThree
\shiftOff
\shapeTie #'(1 -.25 1 -.25 -1.375 -.25 -1.375 -.25)
a1~
\shiftOn
a2 g
}
\new Voice {
\voiceTwo
d2\( f
e2 e\)
}
>>
}
%-
Best,
Nick
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Stan Sanderson
wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:21 AM, Nicholas Moe wrote:
>
>> That makes the tie how I want it, but I need to shift the middle notes
>> to the right in the second measure to show that they are their own
>> voice, whilst keeping the stems up. How could I do that?
>>
>> Nick
>
>
> I understand. How about this (thanks, JEdit and LilyPondTool!)
>
> \version "2.13.54"
>
> \relative c' {
> \clef "bass"
> \voiceOne
> <<
> { d1~ d2 c }
> \new Voice {
> \voiceThree
> \shiftOff
> \once \override Tie #'control-points = #'( ( 2.2771
> . 2.348) ( 3.8427 . 3.344) ( 7.3296 . 3.486) ( 10.176 . 2.348) )
> a1~
> \shiftOn
> a2 g
> }
> \new Voice {
> \voiceTwo
> d2\( f
> e2 e\)
> }
> >>
> }
>
> Stan
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: Help with changing notehead glyph
pkx166h wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to use one of the note glyphs as listed in the NR section
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/the-feta-font#special-
notehead-glyphs
I have tried a combination of \overrides but cannot seem to get the glyph
I'd like - in fact nothing changes
So for example in a \context { \Voice { }} I added
\override NoteHead #'glyph-name = #'"noteheads.u2do"
But it didn't do anything (I didn't get an error, so at least I know that
my formatting of the command is correct if not the interface/grob)
I also looked in font-table.ly (which is where the page is generated from)
it wasn't obvious what to use.
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
maybe
\override NoteHead #'stencil = #(lambda (grob)
(grob-interpret-markup grob
(markup #:musicglyph "noteheads.u2do")))
which i found i-don't-know-where!
The exact note-head you were looking for is part of Shape Note notation.
If you look for that part of the documentation (I got to it simply by
searching for the word "shape"), it explains how to turn the shape notes
on and off for your score, if that was what you wanted to do. To get
just one of these notes, and to leave the rest of your score untouched,
it will be better to use Eluze's (or a similar) solution.
--
David
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Suppress NoteNames output on ties ?
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Michael Ellis
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Gilles THIBAULT
> wrote:
>> #(define-music-function (parser location music) (ly:music?)
>> (let ((prev-was-tie? #f))
>> (define (tied-note->skip evt)
>> (let ((elt (ly:music-property evt 'element))
>> (elts (ly:music-property evt 'elements))
>> (name (ly:music-property evt 'name)))
>> (cond ((and prev-was-tie? (eq? name 'EventChord))
>> (set! prev-was-tie? #f)
>> (skip-of-length evt))
>> ((eq? name 'TieEvent)
>> (set! prev-was-tie? #t)
>> #f) ;; all tie events will be deleted
>> (else
>> (if (ly:music? elt) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'element
>> (tied-note->skip elt)))
>> (if (pair? elts) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'elements
>> (filter-map tied-note->skip elts)))
>> evt
>> (tied-note->skip music)))
>
> Thank you, Gilles. This is very nice and works almost perfectly. I've
> found one case where it isn't yet quite right.
>
> I was copying a part from Bernstein's Chichester Psalms. In Movement
> I, there is a section in 7/4 with dashed bars in each measure after
> beat 4. To save typing, I had created a variable thus:
>
> bdash = { \noBreak \bar "dashed" }
>
> The \noBreak is necessary to prevent system breaks at the dashed bar.
> I noticed that the function was not suppressing the NoteNames output
> for notes tied across the dashed bar lines. It appears that the
> \noBreak is the culprit.
>
> mymusic = {
> \time 7/4
> c'2 c'2 ~ \bar "dashed" c'2.^"ok" |
> c'2 c'2 ~ { \noBreak \bar "dashed" } c'2.^"fail" |
> c'2 c'2 ~ \noBreak c'2.^"fail" |
> }
>
The failures are fixed if I change
(cond ((and prev-was-tie? (eq? name 'EventChord))
to
(cond ((and prev-was-tie? (eq? name 'NoteEvent))
This seems to work perfectly for single line music without chords.
I'm going to push a little farther and see if I can get it to handle
tied chords correctly. At present the logic cancels itself after the
first note of the chord and the subsequent ones are not suppressed.
Cheers,
Mike
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Hi Graham, > IMO, the world would be a better place if we were more precise in > our musical judgements. Fair enough. > If you don't specify that something is a personal opinion, then "go objective > or go home". Some philosophers would say that every statement is subjective, even "The sun rose today" or "I'm currently typing on a computer" -- it's just that it's easier to convince other people that such subjective statements are "truth". ;) > The easiest objective judgement is popularity -- or rather, > "amount of CDs sold", "amount of tracks downloaded from a legal > free music site", or even "amount of tracks downloaded from any > source, including quasi-legal (i.e. not legal) and > not-even-quasi-legal sources". Yes, quantitative data is more objective than qualitative data. > Judgements like "harmonic complexity" or "melodic construction" > can be objective, but you need to specify which algorithm you're > using to determine the harmonies (or melodic stuff). And then use > that algorithm strictly. Which, for practical purposes, means > using computer score analysis. I like it! > I think that the only objective judgement we can make is popularity. Well, it's the easiest anyway. > (or at least, in objective algorithms, using some constants that > were derived from collecting listening data from hundreds of > people in music psychology experiment -- that would be a good > balance between completely subjective judgements of musicologists, > and completely mathematical analyses) +1. Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Hi Graham, > On a subjective level, listening (and watching) Vocaloid music has > brought me more pleasure than *any* academic music composition > (going back as far as the Rite of Spring I couldn't even make it through one 3-minute Vocaloid song, but have listened with great pleasure to the Rite of Spring perhaps 100 times... so our taste in music clearly differs. =) Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
> I don't find this disheartening -- I consider this a triumph of science. As Patton Oswald once said, "We're Science: all about 'coulda', not about 'shoulda'!" =) > I somewhat consider "produced music recordings" to be in a category like > theatre or movies -- they might involve live music at some point > (as background), but the final product involves a huge number of > components (and people) other than live musicians playing music. Now *that* is an interesting point of discussion… where's my Glen Grant? Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Resetting bar count and showing alternate fingering
Thank You for the pointers Kieren and Robin, Concatenating fingering commands to show alternate fingerings worked like a charm (i.e. "c8-2-3" ). Thank You! On the passages that had incomplete last bars, I tried \cadenzaOn and \partial. These worked to override the automatic bar generator but both methods seemed to fail for me in one respect: The notation for accidentals was not correctly displayed in following measures, with additional natural accidentals getting added by lilypond to the following measure when the bar change should've reset these, and also accidentals carrying over to the next bar and lilypond suppressing the accidental symbol when it should be shown. I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature. The methods of increasing time (i.e. c8*3) or add skip notes to fill the remaining time of the measure worked for the bars and accidentals, but had the undersired side-effect of adding blank spaces at the end of the measure. Since the original score doesn't show time signatures, I opted to globally hide time signatures and switch them arbitrarily using "\time x/y" command according to the note counts on each incomplete bar . This seemed to work well and the following bars displayed accidentals per the default convention. Best Rgds, Javier___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Suppress NoteNames output on ties ?
The \noBreak is necessary to prevent system breaks at the dashed bar.
I noticed that the function was not suppressing the NoteNames output
for notes tied across the dashed bar lines. It appears that the
\noBreak is the culprit.
mymusic = {
\time 7/4
c'2 c'2 ~ \bar "dashed" c'2.^"ok" |
c'2 c'2 ~ { \noBreak \bar "dashed" } c'2.^"fail" |
c'2 c'2 ~ \noBreak c'2.^"fail" |
}
Oups, yes i see the problem. Some event like 'LineBreakEvent are integrated
an EventCHord elements list
The failures are fixed if I change
(cond ((and prev-was-tie? (eq? name 'EventChord))
I have not tested but it propably list to errors messages if you use several
several notes for each chord.
Here is an other workaround (well the code becomes a bit heavier)
%%ù
tiedNoteToSkip = #(define-music-function (parser location music) (ly:music?)
(let ((prev-was-tie? #f))
(define (tied-note->skip evt)
(let ((elt (ly:music-property evt 'element))
(elts (ly:music-property evt 'elements))
(name (ly:music-property evt 'name)))
(cond ((and prev-was-tie?
(eq? name 'EventChord)
(pair? elts)
(ly:duration? (ly:music-property (car elts) 'duration)))
(set! prev-was-tie? #f)
(skip-of-length evt))
((eq? name 'TieEvent)
(set! prev-was-tie? #t)
#f) ;; all tie events will be deleted
(else
(if (ly:music? elt) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'element
(tied-note->skip elt)))
(if (pair? elts) (ly:music-set-property! evt 'elements
(filter-map tied-note->skip elts)))
evt
(tied-note->skip music)))
mymusic = { c'4 c' ~ \noBreak c'2 }
\score {
<<
\new Voice \mymusic
\context NoteNames \tiedNoteToSkip \mymusic
>>
}
Gilles
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Suppress NoteNames output on ties ?
I have not tested but it propably list to errors messages if you use several several notes for each chord. I meant : it propably *leads* to errors messages Gilles ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Release candidate 3 of 2.14 - LilyPond 2.13.54 released
On 3/19/11 4:41 PM, "Frédéric Bron" wrote: >> LilyPond 2.13.54 is out; this is the third release candidate of the >> upcoming 2.14 stable release. > > I noticed that convert-ly does not converts auto beaming settings. > Kind regards, > Frédéric > > Parsing... > indications.ly:6:9: error: GUILE signaled an error for the expression > beginning here > # > (override-auto-beam-setting '(end 1 8 3 4) 3 8 'Score) > Didn't convert-ly give you a message that said you needed to change it manually? Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
strangeness on fresh install [OT?]
This weekend I upgraded my Linux system from Fedora 11 to Fedora 14 (and got
all updates) and I have just now installed, as root, the latest stable version
of Lilypond. When I tried just getting the current version number I got this
in the console:
*
$ lilypond -v
/usr/local/lilypond/usr/bin/lilypond: error while loading shared libraries:
libgmp.so.3: cannot enable executable stack as shared object requires:
Permission denied
*
Then, an SELinux alert popped up. I got the detailed report which follows
below. I suppose this is off topic but I thought I'd start here.
Thanks,
David
*
SELinux is preventing /usr/local/lilypond/usr/bin/lilypond from using the
execstack access on a process.
* Plugin allow_execstack (53.1 confidence) suggests
If you believe that
None
should not require execstack
Then you should clear the execstack flag and see if
/usr/local/lilypond/usr/bin/lilypond works correctly.
Report this as a bug on None.
You can clear the exestack flag by executing:
Do
execstack -c None
* Plugin catchall_boolean (42.6 confidence) suggests ***
If you want to allow unconfined executables to make their stack executable.
This should never, ever be necessary. Probably indicates a badly coded
executable, but could indicate an attack. This executable should be reported in
bugzilla
Then you must tell SELinux about this by enabling the 'allow_execstack' boolean.
Do
setsebool -P allow_execstack 1
* Plugin catchall (5.76 confidence) suggests ***
If you believe that lilypond should be allowed execstack access on processes
labeled unconfined_t by default.
Then you should report this as a bug.
You can generate a local policy module to allow this access.
Do
allow this access for now by executing:
# grep lilypond /var/log/audit/audit.log | audit2allow -M mypol
# semodule -i mypol.pp
Additional Information:
Source Contextunconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1
023
Target Contextunconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1
023
Target ObjectsUnknown [ process ]
Sourcelilypond
Source Path /usr/local/lilypond/usr/bin/lilypond
Port
Host rockhopper
Source RPM Packages
Target RPM Packages
Policy RPMselinux-policy-3.9.7-31.fc14
Selinux Enabled True
Policy Type targeted
Enforcing ModeEnforcing
Host Name rockhopper
Platform Linux rockhopper 2.6.35.6-45.fc14.i686 #1 SMP Mon
Oct 18 23:56:17 UTC 2010 i686 i686
Alert Count 2
First SeenSun 20 Mar 2011 09:07:42 PM GMT
Last Seen Sun 20 Mar 2011 09:07:54 PM GMT
Local ID 8b557660-272a-4b68-86d8-982fac2bd97a
Raw Audit Messages
type=AVC msg=audit(1300655274.856:51941): avc: denied { execstack } for
pid=28870 comm="lilypond"
scontext=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
tcontext=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 tclass=process
type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1300655274.856:51941): arch=i386 syscall=mprotect
success=no exit=EACCES a0=bfb41000 a1=1000 a2=107 a3=bfb41774 items=0
ppid=28856 pid=28870 auid=500 uid=500 gid=500 euid=500 suid=500 fsuid=500
egid=500 sgid=500 fsgid=500 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm=lilypond
exe=/usr/local/lilypond/usr/bin/lilypond
subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)
Hash: lilypond,unconfined_t,unconfined_t,process,execstack
audit2allow
#= unconfined_t ==
# This avc can be allowed using the boolean 'allow_execstack'
allow unconfined_t self:process execstack;
audit2allow -R
#= unconfined_t ==
# This avc can be allowed using the boolean 'allow_execstack'
allow unconfined_t self:process execstack;
*
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tie collision with note
Indeed, a much cleaner and more elegant approach.
Regards,
Stan
On Mar 20, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Nicholas Moe wrote:
Thanks, Stan, for all your help on this. I checked out LilyPondTool
and JEdit and was able to see how to get control points from the slur
tweak tool. But as I was trying to figure out how to use the slur
tweak tool, I came across another tweak that works even better. I
adapted \shapeSlur from the Lilypond Snippet Repository
(http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=63) and turned it into \shapeTie.
(Thanks, LSR!) With this I can specify offsets for each control point
of the tie. This way, the tweak scales with the layout of the music.
Here's the example with the addition of this tweak:
%-
\version "2.13.54"
shapeTie =
#(define-music-function (parser location offsets) (list?)
#{
\once \override Tie #'control-points = #(alter-curve $offsets)
#})
#(define ((alter-curve offsets) grob)
;; get default control-points
(let ((coords (ly:tie::calc-control-points grob))
(n 0))
;; add offsets to default coordinates
(define loop (lambda (n)
(set-car! (list-ref coords n)
(+ (list-ref offsets (* 2 n))
(car (list-ref coords n
(set-cdr! (list-ref coords n)
(+ (list-ref offsets (1+ (* 2 n)))
(cdr (list-ref coords n
(if (< n 3)
(loop (1+ n)
;; return altered coordinates
(loop n)
coords))
\relative c' {
\clef "bass"
\voiceOne
<<
{ d1~ d2 c }
\new Voice {
\voiceThree
\shiftOff
\shapeTie #'(1 -.25 1 -.25 -1.375 -.25 -1.375 -.25)
a1~
\shiftOn
a2 g
}
\new Voice {
\voiceTwo
d2\( f
e2 e\)
}
}
%-
Best,
Nick
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Stan Sanderson
wrote:
On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:21 AM, Nicholas Moe wrote:
That makes the tie how I want it, but I need to shift the middle
notes
to the right in the second measure to show that they are their own
voice, whilst keeping the stems up. How could I do that?
Nick
I understand. How about this (thanks, JEdit and LilyPondTool!)
\version "2.13.54"
\relative c' {
\clef "bass"
\voiceOne
<<
{ d1~ d2 c }
\new Voice {
\voiceThree
\shiftOff
\once \override Tie #'control-points =
#'( ( 2.2771
. 2.348) ( 3.8427 . 3.344) ( 7.3296 . 3.486) ( 10.176 . 2.348) )
a1~
\shiftOn
a2 g
}
\new Voice {
\voiceTwo
d2\( f
e2 e\)
}
>>
}
Stan
___
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: Release candidate 3 of 2.14 - LilyPond 2.13.54 released
>> I noticed that convert-ly does not converts auto beaming settings.
> Didn't convert-ly give you a message that said you needed to change it
> manually?
I have run conver-ly for many files so that I did not see the message!
It would have been nice to have a rule that added a comment in the
file it-self, just before the command.
Something like:
%{ convert-ly: you must change this manually %}
#(override-auto-beam-setting '(end 1 8 3 4) 3 8 'Score)
which you can get with:
str = re.sub ('(?=#\\( *(override|revert)-auto-beam-setting)', '%{
convert-ly: you must change this manually %} ', str)
Frédéric
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: scores in columns - vertical alignment
Hi Tim,
2011/3/17 Timothy Sheasby :
> From the LilyPond essay I learned that LilyPond deliberately *avoids*
> lining up the staff lines vertically to make the music look more
> like a hand engraved manuscript . . .
No, that's not true! You misunderstood the concept explained in essay.
LilyPond doesn't introduce artificial randomness to the placement of
notes and bar lines. Barlines shouldn't line up in the example from
essay because the notes in each bar are different (despite having
constant rhythm) - it's the optical spacing that results in these
shifts.
Try compiling this: { \repeat unfold 31 { b b b b } }
You'll notice that systems 2-4, containing exatly the same notes, line
up perfectly.
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
fighting with lyrics
Hello, Having used Lilypond successfully for some instrumental works, I'm typesetting a song with it. Here's a link to the lilypond source: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/356919/ Here's a image as it looks currently: http://imgur.com/Afa3q Two questions: How do I get the hyphens to show? Why does it look like the lyrics are "lagging" behind the notes? Can I make them line up better? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: fighting with lyrics
On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:11 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > Hello, > Having used Lilypond successfully for some instrumental works, I'm > typesetting a > song with it. Here's a link to the lilypond source: > http://paste.pocoo.org/show/356919/ Here's a image as it looks currently: > http://imgur.com/Afa3q > > Two questions: How do I get the hyphens to show? Why does it look like the > lyrics are "lagging" behind the notes? Can I make them line up better? > > Hey Ben, This is not really a response to your question, but the two things you are pointing out are actually common behavior in typesetting: 1) In vocal scores, the hyphens between lyrics disappear when the spacing is tight. 2) The lagging you are taking about is also standard practice - I don't know of any publishers off the top of my head that left-justify their lyrics. There are work-arounds to both questions you're asking, but before going down that road, check out scores on http://imslp.org/ and get acquainted with traditional typographical standards. They have evolved over centuries facilitate reading and performance, and messing with them is generally an uphill battle. Cheers, MS___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: fighting with lyrics
mike apollinemike.com apollinemike.com> writes: > Hey Ben, Hi Mike, Thanks for the comments. > 1)In vocal scores, the hyphens between lyrics > disappear when the spacing > is tight. Wow, really? In my G. Schirmer Barber Collected Songs, all the words are hyphenated. >2)The lagging you are taking about is also standard practice > - I don't know > of any publishers off the top of my head > that left-justify their lyrics. I think you're absolutely right about this. I'm not a singer, so I just want the score to be legible to them. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New version of articulate available
> "Graham" == Graham Percival writes: Graham> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 04:23:12PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> Graham Percival writes: >> >> > The suggestion that a .ly file would somehow be a derivative work >> > of lilypond is ridiculous. >> >> Depends on how interlocked and crossdependent it is with internals >> of Lilypond and whether or not stuff has been cross-copied. Graham> If there's no allowances for "interoperability", and if the Graham> amount of "interlocked-ness" (how do we measure this?) of Graham> articulate.ly means that it's a derivative work, then any Graham> serious use of scheme functions in lilypond would Graham> automatically mean that the music must be GPLv3 or later. I wrote articulate in 2008. At that time, Lilypond was released under GPL v2.0. Therefore at that time there was no conflict. There's no in principle reason why it shouldn't be relicensed under GPL3.0, except it means another round with our lawyers to get a release signed, which I really don't want to have to do. I'll do it if I have to to get it merged, but i was hoping it wouldn't be necessary. Graham> Isn't that precisely the question? You wrote: "It is not even Graham> clear that Peter can release/distribute it under GPL version Graham> 2.0 unless it will work unmodified with a version of Lilypond Graham> released under GPL version 2.0" It will so work. It was written to use the public interfaces provided by version 2.12, which is GPL version 2.0. And that is why GPL v2.0 was chosen as the licence when I went through the rigmarole I had to to get clearance to release it. -- Dr Peter Chubb http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au ERTOS within National ICT Australia ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: 2.13.54 breaks NoteNames vertical spacing
On 11-03-19 08:25 PM, Michael Ellis wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Xavier Scheuer wrote:
On 20 March 2011 01:05, Michael Ellis wrote:
Just installed 2.13.54 on OS X. Attached images show what happens to
the NoteNames engraver (which I use every day) under this release. In
2.12, the NoteNames output lays close beneath the lyric line. In
2.13.54 the gap is quite large and the output collides with markup
above the next staff. Is there a workaround?
Looks like a problem of staff-affinity not defined for NoteNames
context or something like that.
This definitely deserves to be reported.
Could you send a message to bug-lilyp...@gnu.org with a proper minimal
example of code?
Done by CC of this message. Image from example below suggest that
NoteNames vertical is incompletely synchronized with Staff vertical
spacing. Amount of interference varies from line to line. Worst at
bottom of image.
Thanks!
Mike
%
\version "2.13.54"
notes = \relative c {
\repeat unfold 40 { c'4 c c c }
}
mylyrics = \repeat unfold 40 \lyricmode { \tempo "Allegro" ly -- ric ly -- ric }
\score {
<<
\new Voice = "voice" { \notes }
\new Lyrics \lyricsto "voice" { \mylyrics }
\context NoteNames \notes
>>
}
%-
Thanks, Mike. Added as
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1569
Colin Campbell
Bug Squad
--
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who
have too little.
-Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: fighting with lyrics
* Benjamin Peterson [2011-03-21 01:38]: mike apollinemike.com apollinemike.com> writes: Hey Ben, Hi Mike, Thanks for the comments. 1)In vocal scores, the hyphens between lyrics disappear when the spacing is tight. Wow, really? In my G. Schirmer Barber Collected Songs, all the words are hyphenated. All the hyphens are "still there" in your Lilypond score, and if you find a way to spread out the spacing a bit, they will magically appear when needed. They've only been temporarily compressed out of view because there isn't room for them at the current tightness of spacing. That is indeed standard practice for all publishers (leave out the hyphen if putting it in would make a mess.) 2)The lagging you are taking about is also standard practice - I don't know of any publishers off the top of my head that left-justify their lyrics. I think you're absolutely right about this. I'm not a singer, so I just want the score to be legible to them. There is a (slightly hack-ish to type but comes out looking nice) way to get the notes aligned on the first vowel of the syllable instead of centred. There is also the option (cleaner to code) of having each syllable moved (say for example) 30 percent to the right. However, no solution is perfect. Scores that are really well done have each syllable "eyeballed" to a pleasing and/or acceptable distance from _all_ other nearby objects - I haven't seen any computer program capable of automating that process. (Doesn't mean it hasn't been done.) -- David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
spacing error possibly related to Issue 1472
Hi,
The following code produces a spacing error near the end of the line
that looks to me similar to
Issue 1472. If it's a bug I'll report it.
\version "2.13.54"
\relative c'' {
\key ges \major a1 b c d c8 b c b c b c b a4 b c d r8 e d c r2
\key fis \major \break
a1
}
Paul Scott
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
unexpected STRING error with unapparent cause
I'm writing an a cappella piece in Lilypond (actually transcribing one which
is probably copyrighted, hence all notes and titles being removed) primarily
for a midi file with which to practice. I have six different files
('[songtitle].ly', 'intro.ly', 'soprano.ly', 'alto.ly', 'tenor.ly', and
'bass.ly') to keep the code reasonably organized and manageable. Everything
but [songtitle].ly simply defines variables: intro contains the two intro
parts, and the others their respective vocal parts (S/A/T/B). Everything
worked flawlessly until I added to the tenor part after the intro (I worked
my way from top down, so soprano and alto worked). After doing this, I got
the error message:
L:/Music/lilypond/[songtitle]/intro.ly:1:0: error: syntax error, unexpected
STRING
saintro = \relative c' {
L:/Music/lilypond/[songtitle]/intro.ly:24:0: error: syntax error, unexpected
STRING
tbintro = \relative c {
L:/Music/lilypond/[songtitle]/bass.ly:5:0: error: syntax error, unexpected
STRING"
with no error text (it wouldn't tell me just which string it wasn't
expecting) for the error in bass.ly.
The structure (if this helps more) goes as follows:
([songtitle].ly):
\version 2.12.3
\header {
%title/composer etc. defined, no errors
}
\include "soprano.ly"
\include "alto.ly"
\include "tenor.ly"
\include "bass.ly"
\score {
\new ChoirStaff <<
\new Staff {
%set up staff data, no errors
\soprano
}
%same as above for alto, tenor, and bass
>>
\layout { }
\midi { }
}
(intro.ly):
saintro = \relative c' {%error here
%note data, error free
}
tbintro = \relative c { %error here
%note data, error free
}
(soprano.ly):
\version "2.12.3"
\include "intro.ly"
soprano = {
\saintro
\relative c' {
%note data, error free
}
}
I then have the same kind of thing in alto.ly and tenor.ly. In bass.ly:
\version "2.12.3"
\include "intro.ly"
bass = { %error somewhere here (according to description, unexpected
string at character 0 of length 0)
\tbintro
\relative c {
%one measure of note data, because I've been
focusing on fixing the 'problem' with the code rather than writing the part
}
}
I have searched everything I could find to search through rather thoroughly
to no avail. What might be causing this and how can it be fixed? If it
helps, I'm using jEdit to write the files and compile them (simply double
clicking or running through cmd results in error and failure of compilation
as well) with Windows 7.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/unexpected-STRING-error-with-unapparent-cause-tp31197913p31197913.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: lilypond v2.13.54
Hi, 2011/3/17 Phil Holmes > > It looks like the LilyPond installation is no longer adding the path > to the executable to the Windows PATH. I have installed .54 and > don't have it on my path. For me that's actually good - my PATH > variable overflowed and I lost all the ones I wanted. However, > for people who rely on the command line, it'll mean LP won't run. > Can someone check whether this has been changed in the Windows install? I recently uninstalled 2.13.53 and installed 2.13.54 on my WinXP machine and it worked both from command line and by double-clicking. Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
Kieren MacMillan writes: > In the 1940s, a barometer of popular taste was Frank Sinatra (who > could sing/croon/perform, but not really write lyrics or music) > singing/performing/crooning songs written by others (who *could* write > lyrics and/or music, but not sing/croon/perform). > In the 1960s, the barometer was Bob Dylan (who can write great lyrics, > and good music, but can't sing to save his life) singing his own > songs. > Today, the barometer is people who can do none of the above, doing > *all* of the above -- heavily "assisted" by AutoTune™, AutoCorrect™, > and all the other AutoCrutches™ "creators" have come to rely on, and > (more unfortunately) consumers have come to accept (or even prefer). You mean, like frets? Or keyboards when one could pick or hammer the strings directly? The manual inadequacies of keyboard players even sacrifice bowing! -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
