Re: Directed \tweak commands in 2.15.39
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:39 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:10 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Instead, it would make more sense if people opted to take care of something like a chapter at a time, or the relation between two chapters, and brought them into line. Good point. However, bearing in mind that GLISS may change (a lot of?) things, i think it makes more sense to do it first. Presuming that it == GLISS, I totally disagree. Sorry for being imprecise. I meant it makes more sense to do GLISS first. I am currently redoing the footnote docs. I have spent now about three times the time on ordering material in a good manner and writing understandable prose in the proper style than I changed actually changing things. Now guess someone came and changed the syntax to something different while keeping the functionality the same. Expected effort to adapt to it: 5 minutes. Less than the time gained for the project by a few potential contributors _not_ deciding to give up on LilyPond for good as being too hard for them because of its existing docs. Writing good docs is lots of hard work. Adapting it to a new input syntax, in contrast, dead easy. Most of the work will likely even be done by convert-ly. As long as GLISS changes only the /naming/ of the commands/properties/etc., you are completely right. However, i'd like to discuss some more fundamental changes during GLISS; i'm thinking about GLISS a lot and i have a quite strong feeling that there are some big changes that would really benefit LilyPond. And they would probably quite noticeably change the way in which users write lily code. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
attachment: 2.15.39.pngattachment: 2.14.2.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Ugly default note spacing in single staff polyphony
In the following, to look correctly positioned, the final A in the bar
needs to be moved slightly to the right relative to the notes in the
other voice each side of it. I tried moving the note to the right using
\override NoteColumn #'force-hshift, but that didn't move the note. What
can I use? I think it needs to go about half a staff space to the right,
without increasing the spacing between the C notes in the other voice.
\version 2.15.39
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
{ r8 c4 c c8 r c4 c c8 }
\\
{ a,4 a' a' a,, a' \once \override NoteColumn #'force-hshift =
#0.5 a' }
}
Nick
attachment: test.preview.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Grace Note Thickness
I'm not aware I gave you any instructions. :) I just ment that I've change the beam-thickness in the graceSettings file. Sorry for the missunderstanding and for my poor english. :S Pierre 2012/5/23 Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com 2012/5/23 Pierre Perol-Schneider pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com: Dear Thomas, I've followed your instruction and when I code : (...) I'm not aware I gave you any instructions. :) Problem comes with the polyphony : (...) Well, I see the problem, but I'm too tired to have any useful idea. Perhaps tomorrow. Cheers, Harm ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Source management tools for lilypond projects
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:24:11PM +0800, James Harkins wrote: Not sure if this was already discussed (I've been following the thread somewhat loosely), but it seems to me that git makes it a whole lot easier to handle a build token by virtue of the repositories being decentralized. Yes, it does, especially if there are clear boundaries between the responsibilities of the contributors. This seems to be the case for Urs, and probably a lot of lilypond projects, and my introduction of the build token idea was not a useful contribution. Sorry for that. Git is really awesome. Agreed. How about Urs, Susan, you and I collaborating on a one-page score via github as a way of confirming our understanding, and demonstrating how it can be done? Even a few staves would be enough to confirm a suitable workflow. Keep it very simple. Something that any of us could write in thirty minutes, say, on our own, but share the work via git. Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall South Mains West Linton EH46 7AY Scotland Tel: 01968 661994 Mob: 07786 677582 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz (was: Slides from LilyPond talk at Chemnitzer Linuxtage are up)
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: For those who are interested in my talk about LilyPond at the recent event in Chemnitz, the slides are at URL:http://chemnitzer.linux-tage.de/2012/vortraege/900. Since my talks tend to do more than just reading off the slides, the impression may be rather sketchy. I would guess that in a few days, the video and/or audio of the talk will get up as well, but you might be lucky and miss out on me starting off on performing the Agnus Dei as the wireless mic prudently chose to refuse assisting me in this endeavor. And now the video recordings are online as well. Same URL. For those interested in the more hands-on details, I start talking about some notational problems of the accordion at 16:00 (at which time approximately I demolish the microphone with detrimental effects on the sound quality of the talk), and there are a few measures of semi-coordinated (usually I don't play this instrument standing up, and not sight-reading from a laptop screen) playing and singing (old Bach, avoiding copyright issues) at about 24:00. I mention funding problems for my work at the end of the talk. It turns out that this month has dropped so far in one-time monetary contributions compared to the rather slow uptake of regular contributions that the minimal amount for being able to afford housing, eating, and health insurance will likely be missed significantly. So I'll have to pitch in again from my private savings, and they are not excessive. If the situation does not rise to the level of at least bare life support soonish, I will not be able to afford working on LilyPond any more. Read the gist of the story at URL:http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-24lang=en#an_urgent_request_for_funding and successive LilyPond Report issues for my reports on the success of my request. Enjoy! -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Grace Note Thickness
On 24 May 2012 10:39, Pierre Perol-Schneider pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com wrote: I just ment that I've change the beam-thickness in the graceSettings file. Sorry for the missunderstanding and for my poor english. :S Hi Pierre, Thomas, dear LilyPond users, Could you please make sure you do not cross-post your messages to the French users mailing list (lilypond-user-fr)? I think it's a fair policy to have only messages in French there and keep the ones in English on the international mailing lists only. If some French users want to know what's going on in the LilyPond worldwide community they can (and usually do) subscribe to the international mailing lists. Pierre, if you have some nice tips you learned from the international mailing lists and that you want to share with the French community, please feel free to send it in French to lilypond-user-fr. Thank you in advance. Cheers, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Source management tools for lilypond projects
Am 24.05.2012 10:57, schrieb Colin Hall: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:24:11PM +0800, James Harkins wrote: Not sure if this was already discussed (I've been following the thread somewhat loosely), but it seems to me that git makes it a whole lot easier to handle a build token by virtue of the repositories being decentralized. Yes, it does, especially if there are clear boundaries between the responsibilities of the contributors. This seems to be the case for Urs, and probably a lot of lilypond projects, and my introduction of the build token idea was not a useful contribution. Sorry for that. Git is really awesome. Agreed. How about Urs, Susan, you and I collaborating on a one-page score via github as a way of confirming our understanding, and demonstrating how it can be done? Even a few staves would be enough to confirm a suitable workflow. Keep it very simple. Something that any of us could write in thirty minutes, say, on our own, but share the work via git. Cheers, Colin. Hi all, I was just busy writing to express my gratitude for all this input. By now I think I have acquired enough information to be contented. So while still being interested in reading anything more, I'd say nobody _needs_ to give more of his/her time. I have for some time now being decided to go for working with git. But I won't make any experiments with our current project. This project triggered my thinking about this subject - but as we're rapidly approach the publication date, and we're in this case only two people having to keep the integrity of the project, it will work the way we started. And it's way too late to try out fundamental changes ... I have a project in mind which will become my first bigger experience with a git repository: an open library with many tools and concepts we developed during the project (including quite some very clever coding we profited from on this list and bug-lilypond). But I will only start to think of it when the current project is ready. And now to your idea, Colin: I find this is a very good idea. For me personally this would be an opportunity to make sure I'm already on the right track when starting the library project. And to get feedback and discussion on the way. I would suggest documenting such an experiment, so it will become useful for others. And I suggest to set the ground 'privately' (say: we four) and then open it up for others from the list so we have more contributors and thus more 'potential' of collisions. I suggest that I will come back to you privately when our current edition is finished. I would then setup a free github account, and we would start thinking about what to do concretely. If anyone wants to start right now, then of course: do. But I probably won't be very active until mid/end June. And (I stated already, but maybe I should repeat this here: I don't have any practical experience with versioning systems (although I'm surely 'techy' enough to get it quickly ...)) This experiment could well also serve as a pre-test for a larger idea that I have in mind (maybe for 2013): I would like to do a 'public experiment' on how fast and efficient we can collaboratively produce a large score - thanks to the text based approach. I'd like to do this as a proof-of-concept project to promote some of LilyPond's qualities to a wider target group ... Imagine a large symponic movement (or possibly something oratoric) from the end of the 19th century (so it's in the public domain) of 10 minutes. If we'd have 20 contributors, each dealing with one or two parts, it should grow very speedily, documented through daily builds. Maybe we could even find something that we can produce as a first edition, which would give us quite some attention in the scholarly world of music edition (furthermore: this _could_ generate money for the development of Lilypond - provided one agrees upon not to give the result to the public domain. One could for example make a score freely available but keep the performance rights (an editor of a first edition can hold the performance rights for 25 years, the royalties are similar to those of the copyright of a composer). But that's nothing do discuss already now ... ). [ This is one of my goals on a grander scale: convince as many editors as possible of LilyPond's qualities and potential (therefore the mentioned library also stresses concepts in that direction (support of editorial annotations, in-source communication or -documentation. And I have some more ideas that can't be quickly hacked but might hopefully be realized in the future: Support for pdf layers, a script that extracts 'critical comments' from the sources ...)). If responsible editors, say of Critical Editions start getting convinced of LilyPond, it may increase the pressure on the publishers to slowly tolerate the use of LilyPond. I won't say I have influence in this area, but I will definitely do some lobbying with a few
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such
reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that
has _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has
once been fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a
regression but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
David's hard work and funding
Hi David, thanks for your fantastic work for the Lilypond project! On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:28 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: I mention funding problems for my work at the end of the talk. It turns out that this month has dropped so far in one-time monetary contributions compared to the rather slow uptake of regular contributions that the minimal amount for being able to afford housing, eating, and health insurance will likely be missed significantly. FWIW, I also intend to join Wilbert's 'Nieuwe Liedboek' project, and donate whatever I get from that project to you. Chirst van Willegen -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Ugly default note spacing in single staff polyphony
2012/5/24 Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net:
In the following, to look correctly positioned, the final A in the bar needs
to be moved slightly to the right relative to the notes in the other voice
each side of it. I tried moving the note to the right using \override
NoteColumn #'force-hshift, but that didn't move the note. What can I use? I
think it needs to go about half a staff space to the right, without
increasing the spacing between the C notes in the other voice.
\version 2.15.39
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
{ r8 c4 c c8 r c4 c c8 }
\\
{ a,4 a' a' a,, a' \once \override NoteColumn #'force-hshift = #0.5
a' }
}
Nick
Hi Nick,
\override NoteColumn #'force-hshift seems to need a note from another
voice as a substantial reference-point.
But if you try to insert such a (invisible) note the following
NoteColumn is moved, too. And the resulting code is worse:
\version 2.15.38
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
{ r8 c4 c c8 r c4 c4*1/2 \hideNotes c' \unHideNotes c,8 }
\\
{ a,4 a' a' a,, a' \once \override NoteColumn #'force-hshift = #0.5 a' }
}
Trying to use 'X-offset instead seems to work:
\version 2.15.38
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
{ r8 c4 c c8 r c4 c4 c8 }
\\
{ a,4 a' a' a,, a' \once \override NoteColumn #'X-offset = #0.5 a' }
}
HTH,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se writes: tor 2012-05-24 klockan 11:28 +0200 skrev David Kastrup: I mention funding problems for my work at the end of the talk. It turns out that this month has dropped so far in one-time monetary contributions compared to the rather slow uptake of regular contributions that the minimal amount for being able to afford housing, eating, and health insurance will likely be missed significantly. So I'll have to pitch in again from my private savings, and they are not excessive. If the situation does not rise to the level of at least bare life support soonish, I will not be able to afford working on LilyPond any more. Read the gist of the story at URL:http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-24lang=en#an_urgent_request_for_funding and successive LilyPond Report issues for my reports on the success of my request. When donating, is there any mechanism in place by which funds will be donated only if some target level is reached by all donations together? I'm speculating people might be more comfortable when they know that they will lose money if and only if it is precisely what makes the difference between you working and not working on LilyPond full time. Since I invested more half a year of fulltime work on my own savings before even starting to seriously ask for donations, and since people don't pay more than one or two months in advance, the only person really losing money when I stop working on LilyPond is myself. Everybody else gets more developer time than they paid for, and it is not like it is not a total bargain. And it is not like I cash in donations at the start of a month, and then tell people I'll quit right away. As far as I can tell, such a mechanism isn't described in the payment plans you suggest. The plans are clever in themselves, though. For easy access, I quote the payment plan proposals: The idea is to contribute a fixed minimum, and if a specified target is not reached by all contributions, you contribute proportionally up to a cap. Of course, you are free to pick all three numbers yourself, but here are a few models: • [Regular] €25 per month fixed, no cap. This is the payment plan to pick once everything is sailing smoothly and you don’t want to contribute unduly much or think about it unduly much. • [Lifesaver] Minimum €0, cap €250 per month, monthly target €800. That means that if the target (which basically allows me to postpone my decision to work elsewhere) is reached with everybody’s minimum already, you are not billed. This is the option to pick if you don’t want to support a single person as much as keep the LilyPond project from losing me. You do what is necessary to avoid my leaving, but nothing else. Yes, it will be annoying if it turns out you have to pay the cap more than once, but it will also be annoying for me not even to afford survival in spite of highly qualified work. • [Torchbearer] Minimum €50, cap €150 per month, monthly target €1200. This is a model aimed at being reasonably comfortable for you as well as for me if everything works out. Well, so far there is actually only one person on a variable plan. Everybody else has either chosen an unconditional monthly payment (and usually promised to keep it up for a certain period of time) or one-time donations. And since, of course, everybody is free to change his mind at any time depending on the information I provide about ongoing payments, it is not like there is much of a danger that I will go stinking rich because of people unnecessarily paying the maximum amount of money they can afford while on an unconditional payment plan. You propose a system with a guarantee that I will not get any payment at all unless a minimum is met, meaning that I have to finance the whole month on my own. This is not exactly going to extend the time I will be able to work on LilyPond while tapping into my own non-replenishable reserves. I don't see that it would make sense for me to offer a plan where people pay less in case more is needed. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such
reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that has
_deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has once
been fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a regression
but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for in
the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a previous
version is a regression. People can then either report it as a change, at
which point it is a feature, or they can fix it, at which point the old
functionality is restored.
Cheers,
MS
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On 24/05/12 21:19, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that has
_deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has once been
fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a regression but
just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for in
the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a previous
version is a regression. People can then either report it as a change, at
which point it is a feature, or they can fix it, at which point the old
functionality is restored.
Reverting to the previous behaviour is simply a matter of
\set beamExceptions = #'((end . (((1 . 8) . (6)
Nick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
Am 24.05.2012 14:14, schrieb Nick Payne:
On 24/05/12 21:19, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat,
which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading
such reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and
that has _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something
that has once been fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a
regression but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully
accounted for in the change log and that you feel leads to worse
behavior than a previous version is a regression. People can then
either report it as a change, at which point it is a feature, or they
can fix it, at which point the old functionality is restored.
Reverting to the previous behaviour is simply a matter of
\set beamExceptions = #'((end . (((1 . 8) . (6)
Nick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Well, not having followed this too closely:
I have the impression that you experience an effect or side effect of
the heavily changed beaming.
It this is the case, could you please check if this is documented? Maybe
you overlooked something.
Or maybe there's need for a documentations suggestion?
Best
Urs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Grace Note Thickness
2012/5/24 Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com: Hi Pierre, Thomas, dear LilyPond users, Could you please make sure you do not cross-post your messages to the French users mailing list (lilypond-user-fr)? Hi Xavier, sorry, I answered to all, not investigating the adresses. Will do in future. -Harm ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Grace Note Thickness
2012/5/24 Pierre Perol-Schneider pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com:
I'm not aware I gave you any instructions. :)
I just ment that I've change the beam-thickness in the graceSettings file.
Sorry for the missunderstanding and for my poor english. :S
Pierre
2012/5/23 Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com
2012/5/23 Pierre Perol-Schneider pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com:
Dear Thomas,
I've followed your instruction and when I code :
(...)
I'm not aware I gave you any instructions. :)
Problem comes with the polyphony :
(...)
Well, I see the problem, but I'm too tired to have any useful idea.
Perhaps tomorrow.
Cheers,
Harm
Hi Pierre,
in the NR 1.2.6 Special rhythmic concerns, Known issues and warnings
you can read:
The use of grace notes within voice contexts confuses the way the
voice is typeset. This can be overcome by inserting a rest or note
between the voice command and the grace note.
Seems that changing graceSettings is confused too.
I didn't manage to apply the shown workaround to your example.
But replacing \voiceOne, \voiceTwo with \stemUp, \stemDown works,
although this will lead to some other problems.
So I come up with the code below, containing three suggestions, I'd
prefer `Suggestion II'.
`Suggestion III' is needed only, if you want a complete new definition
of graceSettings.
\version 2.15.38
\score {
\new Staff
Suggestion I
% $(add-grace-property 'Voice 'Beam 'beam-thickness '0.5)
% \override Staff.Beam #'beam-thickness = #0.55
\new Voice = first
{
\clef treble_8
\time 3/8
\stemUp
e'4. | %2
\appoggiatura { b'32 [ c'' b' ais' ] } b'8 [ c'' b'16
\glissando e'' ] | %2
}
\new Voice= second
{ \stemDown a,8 a, a, }
Suggestion II
\layout {
\override Beam #'beam-thickness = #0.55
$(add-grace-property 'Voice 'Beam 'beam-thickness '0.5)
}
Suggestion III
% \layout {
% \override Beam #'beam-thickness = #0.55
% \context {
% \Voice
% graceSettings = #`(
% (Voice Stem direction ,UP)
% (Voice Stem font-size -3)
% (Voice Flag font-size -3)
% (Voice NoteHead font-size -3)
% (Voice TabNoteHead font-size -4)
% (Voice Dots font-size -3)
% (Voice Stem length-fraction 0.8)
% (Voice Stem no-stem-extend #t)
% (Voice Beam beam-thickness 0.5)
% (Voice Beam length-fraction 0.8)
% (Voice Accidental font-size -4)
% (Voice AccidentalCautionary font-size -4)
% (Voice Slur direction ,DOWN)
% (Voice Script font-size -3)
% (Voice Fingering font-size -8)
% (Voice StringNumber font-size -8)
% )
% }
% }
}
HTH,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On 24/05/12 22:17, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 14:14, schrieb Nick Payne:
On 24/05/12 21:19, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is
not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat,
which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading
such reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and
that has _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e.
something that has once been fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a
regression but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully
accounted for in the change log and that you feel leads to worse
behavior than a previous version is a regression. People can then
either report it as a change, at which point it is a feature, or
they can fix it, at which point the old functionality is restored.
Reverting to the previous behaviour is simply a matter of
\set beamExceptions = #'((end . (((1 . 8) . (6)
Nick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Well, not having followed this too closely:
I have the impression that you experience an effect or side effect of
the heavily changed beaming.
It this is the case, could you please check if this is documented?
Maybe you overlooked something.
Or maybe there's need for a documentations suggestion?
My search of the documentation regarding beaming didn't find much
information on what the defaults are/are intended to be:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/learning/automatic-and-manual-beams
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/beams
I had a look in Gould - she merely says that in 3/4 time, any number of
eighth notes can be beamed together. However, I would say that in 3/4
time, if you're default is to beam six eighth notes together, then r8 c
c c c c should be beamed as either r8 c[ c c c c] (i.e. 2.14 behaviour)
or r8 c c[ c] c[ c], but not the current 2.15.39 default of r8 c c[ c c c].
Nick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:19:29PM +0200, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote: A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that has _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has once been fixed to work in that specific way. If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a regression but just a newly introduced bug. Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for in the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a previous version is a regression. I believe that Urs has the correct definition, although I don't have a reference handy. It should be in the CG, or at least the GOP decision from last summer, though. If we try to account for accidental changes of accidentally-working stuff, 2.16 will never be out (until/unless we change the release policy during GOP 2, which I will be proposing). - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Grace Note Thickness
I thank you very much for your nice help Thomas.
2012/5/24 Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com
2012/5/24 Pierre Perol-Schneider pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com:
I'm not aware I gave you any instructions. :)
I just ment that I've change the beam-thickness in the graceSettings
file.
Sorry for the missunderstanding and for my poor english. :S
Pierre
2012/5/23 Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com
2012/5/23 Pierre Perol-Schneider pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com:
Dear Thomas,
I've followed your instruction and when I code :
(...)
I'm not aware I gave you any instructions. :)
Problem comes with the polyphony :
(...)
Well, I see the problem, but I'm too tired to have any useful idea.
Perhaps tomorrow.
Cheers,
Harm
Hi Pierre,
in the NR 1.2.6 Special rhythmic concerns, Known issues and warnings
you can read:
The use of grace notes within voice contexts confuses the way the
voice is typeset. This can be overcome by inserting a rest or note
between the voice command and the grace note.
Seems that changing graceSettings is confused too.
I didn't manage to apply the shown workaround to your example.
But replacing \voiceOne, \voiceTwo with \stemUp, \stemDown works,
although this will lead to some other problems.
So I come up with the code below, containing three suggestions, I'd
prefer `Suggestion II'.
`Suggestion III' is needed only, if you want a complete new definition
of graceSettings.
\version 2.15.38
\score {
\new Staff
Suggestion I
% $(add-grace-property 'Voice 'Beam 'beam-thickness '0.5)
% \override Staff.Beam #'beam-thickness = #0.55
\new Voice = first
{
\clef treble_8
\time 3/8
\stemUp
e'4. | %2
\appoggiatura { b'32 [ c'' b' ais' ] } b'8 [ c'' b'16
\glissando e'' ] | %2
}
\new Voice= second
{ \stemDown a,8 a, a, }
Suggestion II
\layout {
\override Beam #'beam-thickness = #0.55
$(add-grace-property 'Voice 'Beam 'beam-thickness '0.5)
}
Suggestion III
% \layout {
% \override Beam #'beam-thickness = #0.55
% \context {
% \Voice
% graceSettings = #`(
% (Voice Stem direction ,UP)
% (Voice Stem font-size -3)
% (Voice Flag font-size -3)
% (Voice NoteHead font-size -3)
% (Voice TabNoteHead font-size -4)
% (Voice Dots font-size -3)
% (Voice Stem length-fraction 0.8)
% (Voice Stem no-stem-extend #t)
% (Voice Beam beam-thickness 0.5)
% (Voice Beam length-fraction 0.8)
% (Voice Accidental font-size -4)
% (Voice AccidentalCautionary font-size -4)
% (Voice Slur direction ,DOWN)
% (Voice Script font-size -3)
% (Voice Fingering font-size -8)
% (Voice StringNumber font-size -8)
% )
% }
% }
}
HTH,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \autochange between treble^8 and treble
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jonghyun Kim agitato...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Janek! I'm Apple User. Is it right? /Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/share/lilypond/current/scm/autochange.scm i guess so... i don't have a Mac, but this looks plausible. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Do I send crash reports to this list?___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Lilypond segfaults on Ubuntu, doesn't compile music on Mac
The following music doesn't compile on the mac and causes a segfault on Linux.
Environments:
Mac OSX Lion
Ubuntu 12.04
LilyPond Versions
2.14.2-1 (mac)
2.14.2-2 (ubu from apt-get)
Command from ubu:
jbarnes@jbarnes-OptiPlex-780:~/mac/Documents/apc/music$ lilypond
WhenILookIntoYourHoliness.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.14.2
Processing `WhenILookIntoYourHoliness.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...
Interpreting music... [8][16][24][32]Segmentation fault (core dumped)
There was no core file in the directory. Ubuntu sent a crash report yesterday.
Notes:
1) There is no error message when compiling (Cmd+R) on the mac. It silently
fails.
2) If you uncomment out the lines indicated and comment out the lines following
it will compile (2 places in the file).
3) if you remove the music after the problem areas, keeping the voice structure
intact, it will compile.
Any help appreciated.
Jeff
\version 2.14.2
pianoRH = \relative c''' {
\time 4/4
\key d \major
\new Voice {
\voiceOne
a8 a a a a4. a8
a fis b g4. ~ b g4 fis8 g
a a a d, fis a, a d,4. b8
% uncomment the following line and comment out the next
% d, b a fis2 d b g e4 fis cis8 g dis
r8 cis ais16 e d fis, d, gis eis b a fis d b2
a a a a a4 a8 a
a fis cis b g d ~ b g d a16 a g d g,4 fis cis fis,
r4 \times 8/7 { dis32 e g b d c b } \times 8/7 { gis a c e g fis e }
\times 8/7 { dis e g b d c b }
\times 8/7 { a g fis e d c b } \times 8/7 { a g fis e d cis b } a4
fis'' dis b fis8 g e c g
a a a a a4. a a,8
a fis d a b g e b4. r4 fis cis ais fis8 g ees bes g
a fis d a a e cis a a fis d a fis \times 2/3 { a e cis a4 a
fis d a b b, }
d, g,8 b d, g b, fis16 g a fis dis8 g e c fis dis b g e c
a a a a a4 a8 a
a fis d a b g d b4 a8 g d g,4 a fis d a
g b,8 fis a, e g,4 e c aes g2
e d b g
\times 2/3 { a fis d a4 b gis e b cis ais fis cis }
r4 d' g,16 b d, b d, g b, g b, d g, d g, b d, b d, g
b, g b,16 a
b g d2 \times 2/3 { cis ais fis cis4 d d, e e, }
a, e cis2 ~ a e cis8 fis a e d4
b d,2.. fis dis cis ais8
\times 2/3 { g e d b4 e g, fis a, } g b,2
r4 e8 e d g,4 e a,
fis2 g
a \times 2/3 { a e cis a4 b b, cis cis, }
{
d b g d1
} \\ {
\voiceOne
r8. d' g, d16 d g, d8. b d, b16 b d, b8. g b, g16 g b,
g8 fis fis,
}
g d g,2 \times 2/3 { cis, ais fis cis4 d e }
a,2 fis cis fis,4. e8
d2.. fis8
\times 2/3 { g b,4 e g, fis a, } g b,2
r4 e8 e d b g4 cis
\change Staff = bss
d fis,8 a d, d fis, fis a, d fis, fis a, \change Staff =
trbl a d, d fis,
fis a,2. fis' cis fis,4
}
\new Voice {
\voiceTwo
e,, cis a1
d b2. cis ais fisis4
e cis a4 s2.
% uncomment the following line and comment out the next
% s2. ais, fisis4
d b a fis ais, fisis4
fis' e cis a2. fis d a8 e cis a
s1
e b e,1
s1
fis' d a2.. s8
s1
s
s1
fis, d a8 fis d a fis d a e cis a fis d a4 e cis a8 fis d a
s1
s
s
{
d' a fis d
} \\ {
s4 b16 g g d d b b g g d d8
}
s1
s
s
s
s
e'8 cis d e d b cis d16 e
fis2 s2
s1
s
s
cis8 b bes a gis2
}
}
pianoLH = \relative c' {
\tempo 4 = 120
\time 4/4
\key d \major
d,,4 fis' a,2.
g,16 b d e \times 4/6 { fis e d cis b a } \times 4/6 { g fis e d cis b } a16
b f' ees
d4 fis' a,2.
g,4 ~ g16 fis e d c4 a
a' d,2 fis' a,
g,16 d' e fis g b,4 b, e, a d,
g c,2 b,
a2. fis''' cis g4
d,, fis' a,2.
g,4 g' b,2 g a,4
d,2 fis' a,2
g,4 g' b, g a,2
d,8 a' fis' a, d, a' fis'4
g,8 d' g4 b, e, a d,
g c,2 bes,
a2
fis'
g g,1
a a,2 g' a,
a fis,2. ais cis,4
\times 4/6 {b,,16 fis' b cis16 d cis } \times 4/6 { b fis d b fis d } b2
b'' e,2 g' e,4 a fis,
b g,2 b,8 a16 b cis4
fis d2 g e,
{
\voiceOne
a16 g fis e d a fis e d2
\change Staff = trbl
\voiceTwo
s8. g'' d b16 g d b8. d b g16 d b g8. b g d16 b g d4
} \\ {
fis,2 s2
g1
}
g' e,2 g a,4 g,
fis2 ais
b b,
e'1
a,
d, ~
d2 r4 fis'' cis ais
}
\score {
\new PianoStaff
\set PianoStaff.instrumentName = #Piano
\new Staff = trbl { \pianoRH }
\new Staff = bss { \clef bass \pianoLH }
\midi { }
\layout { }
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Lilypond fails to compile music on mac, segfaults on Linux
I'm trying to post a crash report. It seems all my messages are getting bounced from the list server. ?? Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
- Original Message -
From: m...@apollinemike.com
To: Urs Liska li...@ursliska.de
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which
should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such
reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that
has _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has
once been fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a
regression but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for
in the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a
previous version is a regression. People can then either report it as a
change, at which point it is a feature, or they can fix it, at which point
the old functionality is restored.
Looks to me like a bug in 2.14.2. Beaming 5 quavers together doesn't give
much clue to the beat pattern?
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
- Original Message -
From: m...@apollinemike.com
To: Urs Liska li...@ursliska.de
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which
should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such
reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that
has _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has
once been fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a
regression but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for
in the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a
previous version is a regression. People can then either report it as a
change, at which point it is a feature, or they can fix it, at which point
the old functionality is restored.
Regression or no regression, think
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2246 caused this change.
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se writes: When donating, is there any mechanism in place by which funds will be donated only if some target level is reached by all donations together? I'm speculating people might be more comfortable when they know that they will lose money if and only if it is precisely what makes the difference between you working and not working on LilyPond full time. In my opinion, the cap thing does exactly that. Besides, i think the core of the problems lies elsewhere: 1) most of the people thinks this doesn't concern them 2) many people think i cannot afford / i'm not comfortable with donating 10 euro/month, so i won't donate anything. This is really sad; Lily has hundreds (thousands?) of users and if they donated 1 euro each month (doesn't this sound funny concerning how powerful LilyPond is?) it would make a big difference. You propose a system with a guarantee that I will not get any payment at all unless a minimum is met, meaning that I have to finance the whole month on my own. This is not exactly going to extend the time I will be able to work on LilyPond while tapping into my own non-replenishable reserves. I don't see that it would make sense for me to offer a plan where people pay less in case more is needed. I agree with David. best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ly2video - create videos from your LilyPond projects
This is great! one question: How did you manage to create that endless, one-system layout? Best Urs Am 23.05.2012 20:15, schrieb FireTight: Hello, my name is Jiri FireTight Szabo and I would like to introduce program ly2video to you. This program can generate videos from your LilyPond projects that contains moving music staff, which is synchronized to music ( http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL444F0513202699C4feature=view_all examples ). If you are interested, you can download it http://code.google.com/p/ly2video/downloads/detail?name=ly2video_v1.0.zip here . I hope you will enjoy it! :) What do you need to use ly2video? - Python 2.7 - GNU LilyPond 2.14.2 - FFmpeg - TiMidity++ How to use it: Just call ly2video.py [options] from command line. Options: -h, --help: show help message and exit -i FILE, --input=FILE: input LilyPond project -o FILE, --output=FILE: name of output video (e.g. myNotes.avi, default is input + .avi) -c COLOR, --color=COLOR: name of color of middle bar (default is red) -f FPS, --fps=FPS: frame rate of final video (default is 30) -r HEIGHT, --resolution=HEIGHT: resolution of final video (options: 360, 720, 1080, default is 720) --title-at-start: adds title screen at the start of video (with name of song and its author) --title-delay=SECONDS: time to display the title screen (default is 3 seconds) --windows-ffmpeg=PATH: (for Windows users) folder with ffpeg.exe (e.g. C:\ffmpeg\bin\) --windows-timidity=PATH: (for Windows users) folder with timidity.exe (e.g. C:\timidity\) Known issues: - music written with \partial command can cause a lot of bugs - commands like \override Stem #'stroke-style = #grace skip notes - videos created with title screen can have some bitrate issues ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Ugly default note spacing in single staff polyphony
Nick Payne wrote: In the following, to look correctly positioned, the final A in the bar needs to be moved slightly to the right relative to the notes in the other voice each side of it. Boy, that's a tough situation. Personally, I would not call your example ugly. The note heads, for example, are perfectly spaced. I understand that you don't like the closeness of the stems, but if you move that note over, it's going to disturb the proportionality of the note heads, and I'm guessing it's going to look worse. Have you considered stretching the overall spacing in that bar? -- Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com Providenza Boekelheide, Inc. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ly2video - create videos from your LilyPond projects
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Looks great! A few notes — almost all negative, so I should say that aside from these, it seems a really excellent start. 1) In the download, the Python script isn’t executable. See if you can make it so within the zip file. [I have some package dependency issues, so the rest of this is based on the videos.] 2) Can you smooth out the speed transitions? When the music isn’t laid out in linear time — i.e., when it is laid out normally — the scroll has to speed up and slow down. Right now, it’s a little jerky and honestly a little nauseating to me. In physics terms, the third derivative of position (the “jerk”, where first is velocity and second is acceleration) seems to have some singularities, which is unnatural and upsetting to naturally-evolved brains. 3) Can you get rid of the page breaks? This may be a ’pond limitation, but an effectively infinitely wide page would be cool. With that, I would turn off the title and other info that is centered on the “page”; it seems silly to have that scroll by a minute into the piece. 4) Do articulate or similar tricks work? IOW, can this handle synthesizing separate \layout and \midi blocks into a single video? ~Chris - -- Chris Maden, text nerd URL: http://crism.maden.org/ LIVE FREE: vote for Gary Johnson, Libertarian for President. URL: http://garyjohnson2012.com/ URL: http://lp.org/ GnuPG fingerprint: DB08 CF6C 2583 7F55 3BE9 A210 4A51 DBAC 5C5C 3D5E -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPvmRvAAoJEEpR26xcXD1eR14H/RrCdK8pgYU5dV9hwg7jBmal HlXAN5HQQIf+X4+wLFOROKZHvo/i21D6dl/RgJNJPyXs3/+GT9hN3l3MNKG8Nov3 OndHM2bY5M1MsWunrTKRf32PXfUkE2tTnseHC0pBc4Z6/BFHjNwlexxa2a4Tuxut C9uTaUWBkdlvdsM33APxt+9e54ia3W+R5rPeng/lcKG2cjZFVpJNisfMJLP3wm5Q idbuQUEC+YiOkSuEUHLx6L5UrS1rAJ5sQaEHCyoLPt49UgpLXLhy20wqDVRE45Db ekl3W7oEnUxUM+NwH8me6cFPiKXA8QjhT6G/x/l/WFuxwxfmWAU3zflkmyCgsno= =wUjy -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ly2video - create videos from your LilyPond projects
There are page breaks, too. But they are not often, in the videos at least. Nils On Thu, 24 May 2012 18:05:11 +0200 Urs Liska li...@ursliska.de wrote: This is great! one question: How did you manage to create that endless, one-system layout? Best Urs Am 23.05.2012 20:15, schrieb FireTight: Hello, my name is Jiri FireTight Szabo and I would like to introduce program ly2video to you. This program can generate videos from your LilyPond projects that contains moving music staff, which is synchronized to music ( http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL444F0513202699C4feature=view_all examples ). If you are interested, you can download it http://code.google.com/p/ly2video/downloads/detail?name=ly2video_v1.0.zip here . I hope you will enjoy it! :) What do you need to use ly2video? - Python 2.7 - GNU LilyPond 2.14.2 - FFmpeg - TiMidity++ How to use it: Just call ly2video.py [options] from command line. Options: -h, --help: show help message and exit -i FILE, --input=FILE: input LilyPond project -o FILE, --output=FILE: name of output video (e.g. myNotes.avi, default is input + .avi) -c COLOR, --color=COLOR: name of color of middle bar (default is red) -f FPS, --fps=FPS: frame rate of final video (default is 30) -r HEIGHT, --resolution=HEIGHT: resolution of final video (options: 360, 720, 1080, default is 720) --title-at-start: adds title screen at the start of video (with name of song and its author) --title-delay=SECONDS: time to display the title screen (default is 3 seconds) --windows-ffmpeg=PATH: (for Windows users) folder with ffpeg.exe (e.g. C:\ffmpeg\bin\) --windows-timidity=PATH: (for Windows users) folder with timidity.exe (e.g. C:\timidity\) Known issues: - music written with \partial command can cause a lot of bugs - commands like \override Stem #'stroke-style = #grace skip notes - videos created with title screen can have some bitrate issues ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se writes: When donating, is there any mechanism in place by which funds will be donated only if some target level is reached by all donations together? I'm speculating people might be more comfortable when they know that they will lose money if and only if it is precisely what makes the difference between you working and not working on LilyPond full time. In my opinion, the cap thing does exactly that. Besides, i think the core of the problems lies elsewhere: 1) most of the people thinks this doesn't concern them 2) many people think i cannot afford / i'm not comfortable with donating 10 euro/month, so i won't donate anything. This is really sad; Lily has hundreds (thousands?) of users and if they donated 1 euro each month (doesn't this sound funny concerning how powerful LilyPond is?) it would make a big difference. It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. The talk in Chemnitz was disturbing in that respect. I was rather straight about the need to finance my further contribution to LilyPond, and there was no shortage of listeners coming to me after the talk, letting some LilyPond problem getting solved by me (so it was clear that they were actually using LilyPond on a regular basis), and afterwards wishing me with somewhat shifty eyes most sincerely good luck in my quest for funding, and that it would be a real shame if I were not successful with it. I did not win any funders there. I suppose that in real life, I act too polite and understanding to actually be successful at what more or less amounts to rubbing people's noses in their inconsistent expectations. Of course, it does not win me any favors with victims of such behavior from me in mailing lists, but there are bystanders who may get into thinking. I really wish I knew how to deal with that sort of cognitive dissonance more gracefully, but grace has never really been my strong suit. But then check LilyPond's issue database for grace, and you'll see that this is par for the course. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Source management tools for lilypond projects
Hi, On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Colin Hall colingh...@gmail.com wrote: How about Urs, Susan, you and I collaborating on a one-page score via github as a way of confirming our understanding, and demonstrating how it can be done? Even a few staves would be enough to confirm a suitable workflow. Good idea! I suggest to choose a piece with two independent staves, though; otherwise collisions during work will happen all the time and won't reflect real workflow that much. On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Urs Liska li...@ursliska.de wrote: This experiment could well also serve as a pre-test for a larger idea that I have in mind (maybe for 2013): I would like to do a 'public experiment' on how fast and efficient we can collaboratively produce a large score - thanks to the text based approach. cool! :D I'd like to do this as a proof-of-concept project to promote some of LilyPond's qualities to a wider target group ... Imagine a large symponic movement (or possibly something oratoric) from the end of the 19th century (so it's in the public domain) of 10 minutes. I suggest something simpler notation-wise, perhaps from an earlier period - Bach, Haendel? If we choose a piece without markings (dynamics, articulations, fingerings etc) it will require significantly less tweaking, and i think that LilyPond shows her potential best when there's just music in the ly files (- things won't break when a different paper size or transposition is requested). Consider the Credo example i've published in previous LilyPond Report: http://news.lilynet.net/IMG/pdf/Coronation_Mass_-_Credo_2-15-33_marked.pdf Getting something like this to publication quality would require a lot of work (yeah, all colored places should be fixed). OTOH, Haendel's Dixit Dominus (http://javanese.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/3/35/IMSLP13037-232dixit.pdf) contains only notes, ties and lyrics. It would probably be almost perfect out-of-the-box. If we'd have 20 contributors, each dealing with one or two parts, it should grow very speedily, documented through daily builds. Maybe we could even find something that we can produce as a first edition, which would give us quite some attention in the scholarly world of music edition (furthermore: this _could_ generate money for the development of Lilypond I suggest to use a KickStarter-based approach: if the initial project proves that we can produce such scores effectively, create a project on kickstarter.com. Really, to me this seems a perfect way: - we get the money *before* doing the work - we don't have to bother with maintaining licenses, royalties etc - the result of out work can be released free (this will make people more enthusiastic) If you haven't seen Open Goldberg Variations project yet, see here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/293573191/open-goldberg-variations-setting-bach-free?ref=live the situation becomes more and more interesting :) best wishes, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped)
2012/5/23 Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com: Ok, I checked the archives and saw another crash report on \shape, so I'll post my details here. Environments: Ubuntu 12.04 Mac OSX Lion Versions: 2.14.2 on ubu 2.14.2-1 on mac Command on ubu: jbarnes@jbarnes-OptiPlex-780:~/mac/Documents/apc/music$ lilypond WhenILookIntoYourHoliness.ly GNU LilyPond 2.14.2 Processing `WhenILookIntoYourHoliness.ly' Parsing... Interpreting music... Interpreting music... [8][16][24][32]Segmentation fault (core dumped) No core file in that directory. Ubuntu sent a crash report (attached). Description on mac: I used the ui to compose the music saved and used Command+R to compile. An older version of the pdf came up. The attached ly file causes the crash. (Sorry its so long) If you comment out lines 50 and 96, then uncomment line 49 and 95, the crash doesn't happen. Regards, Jeff Hi Jeff, got a segfault with 2.14.2 But it compiles fine with 2.15.39 Only a warning: warning: ignoring too many clashing note columns Do I send crash reports to this list? I've got 5 mails from you concerning the Segmentation fault. -Harm ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Some messages seem to drop out and never reach me, but I understand the following was written by David Kastrup: You propose a system with a guarantee that I will not get any payment at all unless a minimum is met, meaning that I have to finance the whole month on my own. This is not exactly going to extend the time I will be able to work on LilyPond while tapping into my own non-replenishable reserves. I don't see that it would make sense for me to offer a plan where people pay less in case more is needed. Yes, what I described would be an all-or-nothing plan. I'm thinking that people might be unwilling to dump money on something that might turn out not to reach any reasonable target anyway. I'll describe it some more in case I wasn't clear. Say, for example, that you are working a different job but would like to return to developing LilyPond full time. You could collect funds with a target that would support you for some predetermined time on the condition that all donations will be returned if the target is not reached (and you will then not leave your job for LilyPond). The analogy would be how no-one would like to pump money into a company that fails anyway, but you might pump money into it if you know that is what saves it. I don't _know_ if people reason like this, but I speculate they might, so I thought I'd put it out there for you to consider. A different idea: Could you partner with a publishing house that might see something in LilyPond that would be beneficial for them. They get all the support they want and they get the bugfixes and features they need the most. In return, they pay you for doing that as well as working on LilyPond in general. You don't have to comment on this. I'm satisfied by just getting to share my thoughts. Jonas ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Hi Jonas, On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se wrote: Some messages seem to drop out and never reach me, but I understand the following was written by David Kastrup: You propose a system with a guarantee that I will not get any payment at all unless a minimum is met, meaning that I have to finance the whole month on my own. This is not exactly going to extend the time I will be able to work on LilyPond while tapping into my own non-replenishable reserves. I don't see that it would make sense for me to offer a plan where people pay less in case more is needed. Yes, what I described would be an all-or-nothing plan. I'm thinking that people might be unwilling to dump money on something that might turn out not to reach any reasonable target anyway. But in this situation the donations reach reasonable target - just look at David's Investors' Reports. Say, for example, that you are working a different job but would like to return to developing LilyPond full time. You could collect funds with a target that would support you for some predetermined time on the condition that all donations will be returned if the target is not reached (and you will then not leave your job for LilyPond). I don't _know_ if people reason like this, but I speculate they might, so I thought I'd put it out there for you to consider. Ah, so it's not your opinion - this is what you think *others* may be thinking? If they /do/ think like that, it would be very unfortunate, because the situation is definitely not like the one you described above. A different idea: Could you partner with a publishing house that might see something in LilyPond that would be beneficial for them. They get all the support they want and they get the bugfixes and features they need the most. In return, they pay you for doing that as well as working on LilyPond in general. That's a good idea, but from what i know no publishing company (at least one big enough to pay David significant amount of money) wants to hear about LilyPond - they're all Finale, Sibelius or go away; we don't care about the quality you provide. There's only one way to change this: publish more good and significant music editions with independent publishers (that's what Urs Liska's doing right now). But it won't make much sense for David to run his own publishing company. best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Ugly default note spacing in single staff polyphony
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote: In the following, to look correctly positioned, the final A in the bar needs to be moved slightly to the right relative to the notes in the other voice each side of it. I tried moving the note to the right using \override NoteColumn #'force-hshift, but that didn't move the note. What can I use? I think it needs to go about half a staff space to the right, without increasing the spacing between the C notes in the other voice. Interesting case. But i'm afraid that optical spacing (http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/essay/engraving-details#optical-spacing) wasn't designed with polyphony in mind and it may be hard to change it. -- Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com wrote: Wouldn't your time be more wisely spent trying to get corporate sponsors? I see a lot more success stories in the open source world where a corporation donates developers to projects the company have an interest in. As in, 1) convince a large publishing house they'd be better off relying on an open source music engraver Unfortunately, that's not going to happen soon. Even small, local publishers (i've asked some not long ago) are not interested in anything else than Finale/Sibelius. I predict that it will take 3-5 years before any major publisher begins using LilyPond, let alone switching significant part of the production to it - they are just too set in stone. And that's assuming some improvements in LilyPond. And some significant editions created with LilyPond by independent publishers. I'm probably saying a lot of crude things that offend people. I have a limited knowledge of LilyPond's history and culture. I'm sorry if I offend. I'm just a straight-shooter, that's all i'm not offended - of course i cannot speak for David. (and a newbie to this list). welcome! :) Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Janek Warchoł wrote: Unfortunately, that's not going to happen soon. Even small, local publishers (i've asked some not long ago) are not interested in anything else than Finale/Sibelius. I predict that it will take 3-5 years before any major publisher begins using LilyPond, let alone switching significant part of the production to it - they are just too set in stone. That's really unfortunate, because the LilyPond format has some provable and very significant advantages over the Finale/Sibelius formats. It's exactly the same situation as troff and LaTeX vs Word and InDesign. LilyPond, being a text format, can be diffed by source code control and configuration management tools. With binary formats, all you can do is replace the file with the newer version. You can't find the differences between versions, unless the vendor's tool happens to provide that feature. Further, binary formats decay over time. If you had a document from Word 5 from 1992, I doubt very much that Word 2010 could even open it, and it would be hard to find a converter. Because LilyPond is in human-readable text form, it can be read forever, and folks can write automated tools to update old versions to new formats. -- Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com Providenza Boekelheide, Inc. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Ugly default note spacing in single staff polyphony
Marek Klein
0918 610 720
http://gregoriana.sk
2012/5/24 Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net
In the following, to look correctly positioned, the final A in the bar
needs to be moved slightly to the right relative to the notes in the other
voice each side of it. I tried moving the note to the right using \override
NoteColumn #'force-hshift, but that didn't move the note. What can I use? I
think it needs to go about half a staff space to the right, without
increasing the spacing between the C notes in the other voice.
\version 2.15.39
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
{ r8 c4 c c8 r c4 c c8 }
\\
{ a,4 a' a' a,, a' \once \override NoteColumn #'force-hshift = #0.5
a' }
}
Maybe it is proportional notation what you are looking for?
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/proportional-notation
\version 2.15.39
\score {
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
{ r8 c4 c c8 r c4 c c8 }
\\
{ a,4 a' a' a,, a' \once \override NoteColumn #'force-hshift = #0.5
a' }
}
\layout {
\context {
\Score
proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 10)
}
}
}
attachment: proportional.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ly2video - create videos from your LilyPond projects
Hi Jiri, On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 8:15 PM, FireTight fireti...@gmail.com wrote: my name is Jiri FireTight Szabo and I would like to introduce program ly2video to you. This program can generate videos from your LilyPond projects that contains moving music staff, which is synchronized to music Cool! Having visual playback like that is what my choir misses after we switched to Lily from Finale. I have one idea: instead of moving the score, move the line. It will be easier on eyes (especially in fast tempos), and i suppose that the jerks will be less visible. thanks! Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Ugly default note spacing in single staff polyphony
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Marek Klein ma...@gregoriana.sk wrote: Maybe it is proportional notation what you are looking for? I don't think so. using proportional notation doesn't fix the lack of optical spacing between notes in different voices issue. The a is still visually closer to c on the left - it's just that the overall spacing is looser, so this is less visible. best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Tim Roberts t...@probo.com wrote: Janek Warchoł wrote: Unfortunately, that's not going to happen soon. Even small, local publishers (i've asked some not long ago) are not interested in anything else than Finale/Sibelius. I predict that it will take 3-5 years before any major publisher begins using LilyPond, let alone switching significant part of the production to it - they are just too set in stone. That's really unfortunate, because the LilyPond format has some provable and very significant advantages over the Finale/Sibelius formats. It's exactly the same situation as troff and LaTeX vs Word and InDesign. LilyPond, being a text format, can be diffed by source code control and configuration management tools. With binary formats, all you can do is replace the file with the newer version. You can't find the differences between versions, unless the vendor's tool happens to provide that feature. Urs Liska has plans for making music publishers aware of these advantages - see last messages from Source management tools for lilypond projects thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-05/msg00561.html Further, binary formats decay over time. If you had a document from Word 5 from 1992, I doubt very much that Word 2010 could even open it, and it would be hard to find a converter. Because LilyPond is in human-readable text form, it can be read forever, and folks can write automated tools to update old versions to new formats. Unfortunately not all changes in Lily syntax are handled by convert-ly (updating script), so the situation is not as good as we would like it to be. Things should get much better after GLISS (Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standarization, expected this summer), though. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. Man, I feel ya. I started playing around with LilyPond recently. I like it. As someone who uses a lot of open source software, though, only a few projects have won a donation of my hard-earned bucks. I don't want to discourage you, but I think depending on individual users to support you is not going to work out the way you want. If this upsets you, read the GPL again. Sorry for being so curt and I'll probably get flamed for it, because LilyPond is so highly-regarded (and rightly so). Wouldn't your time be more wisely spent trying to get corporate sponsors? I see a lot more success stories in the open source world where a corporation donates developers to projects the company have an interest in. As in, 1) convince a large publishing house they'd be better off relying on an open source music engraver, 2) get hired by them and 3) bingo, your dream job. There are risks. The project could fork, the corporation may have different goals than yours, etc. I'm just saying that if the LilyPond project doesn't support you, don't go down with it. I'm probably saying a lot of crude things that offend people. I have a limited knowledge of LilyPond's history and culture. I'm sorry if I offend. I'm just a straight-shooter, that's all (and a newbie to this list). Best regards, Jeff - Original Message - From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org To: Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:53 PM Subject: Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se writes: When donating, is there any mechanism in place by which funds will be donated only if some target level is reached by all donations together? I'm speculating people might be more comfortable when they know that they will lose money if and only if it is precisely what makes the difference between you working and not working on LilyPond full time. In my opinion, the cap thing does exactly that. Besides, i think the core of the problems lies elsewhere: 1) most of the people thinks this doesn't concern them 2) many people think i cannot afford / i'm not comfortable with donating 10 euro/month, so i won't donate anything. This is really sad; Lily has hundreds (thousands?) of users and if they donated 1 euro each month (doesn't this sound funny concerning how powerful LilyPond is?) it would make a big difference. It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. The talk in Chemnitz was disturbing in that respect. I was rather straight about the need to finance my further contribution to LilyPond, and there was no shortage of listeners coming to me after the talk, letting some LilyPond problem getting solved by me (so it was clear that they were actually using LilyPond on a regular basis), and afterwards wishing me with somewhat shifty eyes most sincerely good luck in my quest for funding, and that it would be a real shame if I were not successful with it. I did not win any funders there. I suppose that in real life, I act too polite and understanding to actually be successful at what more or less amounts to rubbing people's noses in their inconsistent expectations. Of course, it does not win me any favors with victims of such behavior from me in mailing lists, but there are bystanders who may get into thinking. I really wish I knew how to deal with that sort of cognitive dissonance more gracefully, but grace has never really been my strong suit. But then check LilyPond's issue database for grace, and you'll see that this is par for the course. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Let me first tell you that a _separate_ and unannounced mail copy of something _also_ sent to a mailing list is considered quite rude since it more often than not forces the recipient to answer the same mail twice. I'll not repeat the points I made in private communication, but for the sake of other readers, I'll answer your probably worst misconception here as well because it is actually wide-spread. Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com writes: It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. Man, I feel ya. I started playing around with LilyPond recently. I like it. As someone who uses a lot of open source software, though, only a few projects have won a donation of my hard-earned bucks. I don't want to discourage you, but I think depending on individual users to support you is not going to work out the way you want. If this upsets you, read the GPL again. Please read URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney. And after that, read the GPL again. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se writes: Some messages seem to drop out and never reach me, but I understand the following was written by David Kastrup: You propose a system with a guarantee that I will not get any payment at all unless a minimum is met, meaning that I have to finance the whole month on my own. This is not exactly going to extend the time I will be able to work on LilyPond while tapping into my own non-replenishable reserves. I don't see that it would make sense for me to offer a plan where people pay less in case more is needed. Yes, what I described would be an all-or-nothing plan. I'm thinking that people might be unwilling to dump money on something that might turn out not to reach any reasonable target anyway. I'll describe it some more in case I wasn't clear. Say, for example, that you are working a different job but would like to return to developing LilyPond full time. I don't see the point in hypotheticals. They distract from reality. The reality is described in URL:http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-24#an_urgent_request_for_funding, and alternate universes can make their own plans more competently than I would be able to. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote: Looks to me like a bug in 2.14.2. Beaming 5 quavers together doesn't give much clue to the beat pattern? +1, 2.14 behavior seems wrong to me. BTW, Ted Ross says in 3/4, [...] notes on the second beat can be beamed with notes on the third beat and gives example with f8[ g] a[ g f g]. Unfortunately, there's no example with rest like ours. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Tim Roberts t...@probo.com writes: Janek Warchoł wrote: Unfortunately, that's not going to happen soon. Even small, local publishers (i've asked some not long ago) are not interested in anything else than Finale/Sibelius. I predict that it will take 3-5 years before any major publisher begins using LilyPond, let alone switching significant part of the production to it - they are just too set in stone. That's really unfortunate, because the LilyPond format has some provable and very significant advantages over the Finale/Sibelius formats. It's exactly the same situation as troff and LaTeX vs Word and InDesign. LilyPond, being a text format, can be diffed by source code control and configuration management tools. The same could be said for MusicXML. LilyPond is human readable. And, for better or worse, it is programmable. Further, binary formats decay over time. If you had a document from Word 5 from 1992, I doubt very much that Word 2010 could even open it, and it would be hard to find a converter. I am pretty sure XML-based formats will decay as well, text or not. LilyPond, of course, also decays, but being human-readable, it still preserves information that has a chance of getting recovered. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Hi Jeff, On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com wrote: Do I send crash reports to this list? Not quite. They /usually/ should go to bug-lilyp...@gnu.org . On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com wrote: Ok, I checked the archives and saw another crash report on \shape, That's because \shape is an external, user-defined function. In other words, the crash wasn't Lily's fault, it was \shape's fault. But don't feel bad about this. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Let me first tell you that a _separate_ and unannounced mail copy of something _also_ sent to a mailing list is considered quite rude since it more often than not forces the recipient to answer the same mail twice. Point taken. Won't happen again. Please read URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney. Yeah, I've read that before. Just curious. If there wasn't a free as in beer version of a GPL software package, wouldn't one logically expect a fork? How does GNU address that? I'm just guessing, but there are a limited number of people who have the knowledge and skills to maintain a fork. That argument, it seems to me has limited traction, though. Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com writes: Let me first tell you that a _separate_ and unannounced mail copy of something _also_ sent to a mailing list is considered quite rude since it more often than not forces the recipient to answer the same mail twice. Point taken. Won't happen again. Please read URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney. Yeah, I've read that before. Just curious. If there wasn't a free as in beer version of a GPL software package, wouldn't one logically expect a fork? How does GNU address that? You can't fork what has not been written yet. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:37 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com writes: Just curious. If there wasn't a free as in beer version of a GPL software package, wouldn't one logically expect a fork? How does GNU address that? You can't fork what has not been written yet. I suppose the situation might be as follows: source code is freely available (on website, github or whatever), but the binaries are not. Anyone tech-savvy enough to serve himself doesn't have to pay, but simple users do have. I think that if the price was low (say, 5$) nobody might be interested in forking it. And actually, releasing source for free but binaries for fee makes some sense. After all, build process can be a hassle (Graham, for example, spends much of his time precisely to serve LilyPond binaries to everyone on the planet). cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Ugly default note spacing in single staff polyphony
On 25/05/12 02:47, Tim Roberts wrote:
Nick Payne wrote:
In the following, to look correctly positioned, the final A in the bar
needs to be moved slightly to the right relative to the notes in the
other voice each side of it.
Boy, that's a tough situation. Personally, I would not call your
example ugly. The note heads, for example, are perfectly spaced. I
understand that you don't like the closeness of the stems, but if you
move that note over, it's going to disturb the proportionality of the
note heads, and I'm guessing it's going to look worse. Have you
considered stretching the overall spacing in that bar?
Harm suggested the correct override to get better looking output. In
commercial scores with this situation, the layout is as in the second
bar below, with the down-stemmed note shifted to the right so that the
notehead is no longer centred between the two noteheads in the other
voice but is centred between the stems. Looks much better on the page
like that:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
{ r8 c4 c c8 r c4 c c8 }
\\
{ a,4 a' a' a,, a' \once \override NoteColumn #'X-offset = #0.5
a' }
}
Nick
attachment: test.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:37 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com writes: Just curious. If there wasn't a free as in beer version of a GPL software package, wouldn't one logically expect a fork? How does GNU address that? You can't fork what has not been written yet. I suppose the situation might be as follows: source code is freely available (on website, github or whatever), but the binaries are not. Anyone tech-savvy enough to serve himself doesn't have to pay, but simple users do have. I think that if the price was low (say, 5$) nobody might be interested in forking it. Personally, I do not like this milk the less computer-savvy people approach. Ardour does some things that way IIRC. I have done quite a bit of GPLed contract work (and it was me who spelled out the release under GPL and who was responsible for release into the public): people pay to get a particular job done. And not every job consists of licensing software: some people actually need to _use_ it. If nobody does the job, it does not get done, simple as that. And if it gets released under the GPL, they have a chance of finding other contractors and/or having some community maintenance happen for free. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
I suppose the situation might be as follows: source code is freely available (on website, github or whatever), but the binaries are not. Anyone tech-savvy enough to serve himself doesn't have to pay, but simple users do have. I think that if the price was low (say, 5$) nobody might be interested in forking it. All of the donations I've made to open source projects have been in the $25 range. And actually, releasing source for free but binaries for fee makes some sense. Agreed. Especially on platforms where build environments aren't free or installed. Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond fails to compile music on mac, segfaults on Linux
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:42:17PM +, Jeff wrote: I'm trying to post a crash report. It seems all my messages are getting bounced from the list server. ?? I see your post to lilypond-user, Jeff. Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On 2012-05-24, at 12:56 PM, Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com wrote: And actually, releasing source for free but binaries for fee makes some sense. Agreed. Especially on platforms where build environments aren't free But if I had to pay to update from 2.14 to 2.16, I just wouldn't, and never mind unstable 2.odd. With fewer users updating, bugs would not be found and features not explored, appreciated, and improved. I am not sure how much I would be willing to pay for Lilypond. Can justify to my wife paying, say, $20 for some free software that I use occasionally and do not make any profit on? I think I would be slightly more comfortable making a donation to Lilypond rather than to David Kastrup, even if in the end the money goes to the same purse. Maybe the reason is that my donation would be in appreciation of what works, not payment towards future features. Just some thoughts, sadly no solution. Why don't we find some billionaire who can just hire David to do what David does best? Regards, Mogens ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On May 24, 2012, at 1:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Let me first tell you that a _separate_ and unannounced mail copy of something _also_ sent to a mailing list is considered quite rude since it more often than not forces the recipient to answer the same mail twice. This in unfortunately more or less enforced by the list server being configured to not set replies to go back to the list; it is configured to send replies back to the poster to whom one is responding. I've asked about this in the past, since this this is the only mailing list I have seen configured this way in nearly 20 years of using the Internet, but only succeeded in arousing the ire of one or two people and being told this is the way it is, tough cookies. The end result will be a lot of e-mails that the list will never see and will never get archived, and a lot of unnecessary duplicate e-mails. I'll not repeat the points I made in private communication, but for the sake of other readers, I'll answer your probably worst misconception here as well because it is actually wide-spread. Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com writes: It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. Man, I feel ya. I started playing around with LilyPond recently. I like it. As someone who uses a lot of open source software, though, only a few projects have won a donation of my hard-earned bucks. I don't want to discourage you, but I think depending on individual users to support you is not going to work out the way you want. If this upsets you, read the GPL again. Please read URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney. And after that, read the GPL again. Another part of this misconception is that my bucks are harder to earn then your bucks, so I ain't givin' them to ya. (Says the hypocrite who hasn't gotten around to donating himself...) If you use open source software, you should treat it as free-as-in-speech and not free-as-in-beer. I don't usually donate just for a trial of some software, but if I use it a lot it is incumbent on me to donate unless that is clearly not necessary (e.g., the developer says I don't need your money, use it with my blessing. The software doesn't have to win your financial support- your regular use of free software means it is of value to you and you should contribute. As someone else pointed out, if every one of Lilypond's 100,000 users donated just €1 a year that would probably cover David's full time employment on Lilypond development and probably some other costs. Instead, like public TV in the US, only a fraction of customers contribute (says the hypocrite who hasn't gotten around to donating himself...). It's always interesting that people who will pay $2000 for a computer balk at paying $5 for open source software. Lilypond lacks a centralized system for making contributions, which may be part of the discomfort as centralized systems give the illusion of accountability and reliability even though even casual thought will reveal what nonsense that is. Given the international nature of the project, I suspect setting up a centralized funding system would be a very complex undertaking and would involve a lot of lawyer time, massive issues with taxation, etc. The current model is just to send money directly to the developer- mainly David, since he's the one willing to make himself available to the project full-time. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On May 24, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Jeff Barnes wrote: Wouldn't your time be more wisely spent trying to get corporate sponsors? I see a lot more success stories in the open source world where a corporation donates developers to projects the company have an interest in. Hmm. OpenOffice for example?* As in, 1) convince a large publishing house they'd be better off relying on an open source music engraver, 2) get hired by them and 3) bingo, your dream job. There are risks. The project could fork, the corporation may have different goals than yours, etc. Those are not risks. They are guarantees. And most assuredly few corporate sponsors would permit the project to be published under the GPL. The notion of owing intellectual property has become so very deeply ingrained in corporate culture around the world that the GPL is a dealbreaker. The notion of users having freedom is anathema to most. *That is sarcasm, in case you have not done your homework about OpenOffice. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Tim McNamara wrote; On May 24, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Jeff Barnes wrote: Wouldn't your time be more wisely spent trying to get corporate sponsors? I see a lot more success stories in the open source world where a corporation donates developers to projects the company have an interest in. Hmm. OpenOffice for example?* Would you stipulate that there are successful GPL projects involving corporate sponsors? As in, 1) convince a large publishing house they'd be better off relying on an open source music engraver, 2) get hired by them and 3) bingo, your dream job. There are risks. The project could fork, the corporation may have different goals than yours, etc. Those are not risks. They are guarantees. And most assuredly few corporate sponsors would permit the project to be published under the GPL. The notion of owing intellectual property has become so very deeply ingrained in corporate culture around the world that the GPL is a dealbreaker. My company, a large cable provider in the US, uses a lot of GPL code in its distributed products. It also donates developer time to many of those projects. The notion of users having freedom is anathema to most. That may be true of some, perhaps most as you put it. But I think the deal breaker is more along the lines of losing some perceived competitive advantage by having to give back optimizations or improvements to the codebase. I don't think that's necessarily applicable to Lily. The end product being distributed is paper (or perhaps a pdf file). I don't think the GPL extends to that, does it? One doesn't need to make Lily source code notices on every piece of music they distribute engraved with LilyPond, do they? Also, do I understand correctly that a company could make changes to the source code and use it without giving it back? They probably should to be good citizens, but are they required to do so if they don't distribute LilyPond according to GPL? But most forward thinking publishing companies would give the source code back. After all, their core business isn't LilyPad, it's publishing. Somebody help me with my wrong thinking. :) Regards, Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Full bar tremolo with accidentals fails
Hi Marcos, On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 01:40:04AM +0100, Colin Hall wrote: On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:08:44PM -0300, Marcos da Silva Sampaio wrote: Hello, I'm using a tremolo in a full bar. I used the code below, but it fails and I got this error message: An official Lilypond release binary does not include these checks and will continue past a programming error. This may well allow you to typeset your music successfully. It would be very helpful to us if you tried an official Lilypond release binary on your Lilypond source. If it works, great, the job is done. If it fails please let us know. Have you had a chance to try your Lilypond source with an official binary release yet? Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
This is a long discussion. We had similar ones in the past. That's useless. I followed the development of 2.15. in every detail, that I understood and I want to say that due to David's engagement and skill-ranks LilyPond has improved in a way that I hardly can believe. If David isn't payed for his work in an amount that he can survive, he's forced to leave LilyPond. I don't want that. So I support him. Nothing more to say. -Harm ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is
not beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
Hi Nick,
Thanks for reporting this unexpected behaviour and for stimulating
some useful discussion. It seems that:
Default beaming for this case changed from 2.14.2 to 2.15.39.
A workaround has been provided to restore the previous behaviour.
Graham, as project manager, has confirmed this should not be classed as a
regression.
Phil Holmes has identified the change to beaming that is most likely
responsible.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2246
which is titled beaming in 3/4 - a setting to not beam 3 eights
against the beat so it looks like the design is not clear.
There is an existing, open tracker for beaming in 3/4:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1817
I'm creating a tracker so that someone can take up the task of
designing this feature.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2566
Cheers,
Colin.
--
Colin Hall
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Barcheck errors with Timing.measurePosition and multiple voices
With more than one voice, using Timing.measurePosition for partial bars
results in spurious barcheck errors and also causes problems with
automatic beaming:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
{
\partial 4.
c4. |
c8 c c c c c |
c c c c c c |
\set Timing.measurePosition = #(ly:make-moment -3 8)
c4. |
}
\\
{
\partial 4.
c,4. |
c8 c c c c c |
c c c c c c |
\set Timing.measurePosition = #(ly:make-moment -3 8)
c4. |
}
}
If instead of using Timing.measurePosition I use Score.measureLength for
the partial bars, then the barcheck and beaming errors disappear but the
bar numbering is incorrect with multiple repeat sections:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
\override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#t #t #t)
\repeat volta 2 {
\partial 4.
c4. |
c8 c c c c c |
\set Score.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3 8)
c4. |
}
\repeat volta 2 {
\set Score.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3 8)
c4. |
\set Score.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3 4)
c8 c c c c c |
\set Score.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3 8)
c4. |
}
}
attachment: a.pngattachment: b.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Barcheck errors with Timing.measurePosition and multiple voices
On 25/05/12 12:26, Nick Payne wrote: With more than one voice, using Timing.measurePosition for partial bars results in spurious barcheck errors and also causes problems with automatic beaming... Sorry, I should have mentioned that this is with 2.15.39. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Barcheck errors with Timing.measurePosition and multiple voices
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote:
With more than one voice, using Timing.measurePosition for partial bars
results in spurious barcheck errors and also causes problems with automatic
beaming:
...
c c c c c c |
\set Timing.measurePosition = #(ly:make-moment -3 8)
c4. |
You don't need to change the length of a measure where repeat and the
end of the piece is involved. So in your second example just taking
all of the measureLength overrides out make it work as expected. There
are valid times to adjust the measure length, but it isn't needed in
this example.
Secondly, from what I understand of setting measure position the error
makes sense. By setting it at the end of the measure you're saying
that the measure still has some more time left, but you also have a
bar check at the same time. This may also explain the beaming issues.
You can cheat this by moving the \set later in the measure:
s8 \set Timing.measurePosition = #(ly:make-moment -2 8) s4 (see below)
Lastly, you should separate out the \partial, repeats, and other
top-level directives into parallel music (and move it to a variable).
That way you avoid duplicating them in each voice.
\score
{
\new Staff \relative c''
{
\time 3/4
{
\partial 4.
s4. |
s2.*2 |
s8 \set Timing.measurePosition = #(ly:make-moment -2 8) s4
}
{
c4. |
c8 c c c c c |
c c c c c c |
c4. |
}
\\
{
c,4. |
c8 c c c c c |
c c c c c c |
c4. |
}
}
}
-Jay
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Beam position override flips notehead
I wish to manually override the position of a beam, but Lily insists on
flipping the direction of a notehead.
Any ideas on how to avoid this?
Thx, Javier
\version 2.14.2
\score {
\new Staff
\relative c'{
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(-0.9 . -1.6 )
c8[ c']
}
\layout {
ragged-right = ##t
}
}attachment: BeamOverride_FlipsNoteHead.gif___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beam position override flips notehead
On 25/05/12 13:20, J Ruiz wrote:
I wish to manually override the position of a beam, but Lily insists
on flipping the direction of a notehead.
Any ideas on how to avoid this?
Thx, Javier
\version 2.14.2
\score {
\new Staff
\relative c'{
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(-0.9 . -1.6 )
c8[ c']
}
\layout {
ragged-right = ##t
}
}
\relative c'{
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(-0.9 . -1.6 )
c8[ \once \override Stem #'direction = #DOWN c']
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Mogens Lemvig Hansen mog...@kayju.com writes: Just some thoughts, sadly no solution. Why don't we find some billionaire who can just hire David to do what David does best? You'll find that billionaires tend to be a bit hard to approach since there are millions of people with ideas that they could or should be financing. They would not be billionaires if it would faze them. In the last LilyPond report, I cited Grapes of Wrath: While one-time payments have declined somewhat, some more people pitched in with monthly payments for several months (3 to 12 months). A surprisingly large ratio of one or more-time contributors have not committed to regular plans because they don’t feel that their own financial/job situation allows them to plan ahead that far. I was reminded of Steinbeck’s ``Grapes of Wrath’’ where Ma Joad, after getting credit in a store from a clerk rather than the store, says `I’m learnin’ one thing good,’ she said. `Learnin’ it all a time, ever’ day. If you’re in trouble or hurt or need— go to poor people. They’re the only ones that’ll help— the only ones.’ Of course, the analogy is not all that fitting since I am appealing to those who have a fortune, namely that of being able to feel excited about a project like LilyPond. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Text on slurs (faking bends etc)
deletia/ Hi Marc, I'm will try to extend your work on bend.ly to include a few new cases. I'm in the process of laying out some material by The Hellecasters and as you can imagine I'm encountering many instances which require rather exotic representations of bending techniques; double-stops, behind-the-nut bends, bending harmonics, etc. 1. I want to make sure that I'm working with the latest-and-greatest copy of bend.ly. 2. This will be my first crack at a Lilypond/Scheme hack, although I would describe myself as an old-school veteran software developer. I'm gladly accepting reading tips and recommendations -- anything which might help streamline/accelerate/flatten the Lilypond learning curve. 3. Of course the goal here is to a) build what I need to finish my own work and b) have something worth offering back our community. If this conversation is better off of the mailing list, please drop me a line at p-e-t-e.farmer -at--- gmail (after you strip all the dashes... and add '.com') -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Text-on-slurs-%28faking-bends-etc%29-tp31108179p33906023.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
