Moving notes re: text within markup
I'm writing a work that has both scores and text, as well as music
embedded within the text. For part of this, I want to put in notes
without a staff, clef, or time signature, like so:
\markuplines {
\vspace #2
\justifiedlines
{ ...[text]...semiquavers and demisemiquavers are to be played in some
such ways as \score { { \stemDown d''16( f'') d''-. d''-. } \layout {
\context { \Staff \remove Time_signature_engraver \remove
Staff_symbol_engraver \remove Clef_engraver fontSize = #-3 \override
StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep -3) \override StaffSymbol
#'thickness = #(magstep -3) } } } and \score { { b''32( b'' b'' b'')
b''-. b''-. b''-. b''-. } \layout { \context { \Staff \remove
Time_signature_engraver \remove Staff_symbol_engraver \remove
Clef_engraver fontSize = #-3 \override StaffSymbol #'staff-space =
#(magstep -3) \override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #(magstep -3) } } }
and...[more text]... }
}
I've attached what it looks like at the moment.
I was wondering it I could move the notes up and to the left; even
though I've removed the time signature and clef, the notes don't move to
fill in the space they left behind - as you can see in the picture,
they're just sitting way out to the right.
I've looked through the docs but can't find anything that may be helpful
here. Thanks in advance!
George
attachment: Untitled.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: bracket notehead
MING TSANG wrote Saturday, August 04, 2012 11:47 PM I search lilypond snippet repository with bracket and didn't any. Thank you for showing me to search with parentheses. I've added brackets as an index entry pointing to the section on parentheses. Thanks for pointing this out, Ming. Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Moving notes re: text within markup
George_ wrote:
I'm writing a work that has both scores and text, as well as music
embedded within the text. For part of this, I want to put in notes
without a staff, clef, or time signature, like so:
I've attached what it looks like at the moment.
I was wondering it I could move the notes up and to the left; even
though I've removed the time signature and clef, the notes don't move to
fill in the space they left behind - as you can see in the picture,
they're just sitting way out to the right.
please try to structure your code - the machine can read this code, but for
humans this is very hard (and the result of the compilation doesn't change
if it's written on one or more line(s) !
it could look like (only the 1st \score included):
myLayout = \layout {
indent = 0
\context {
\Staff
\remove Time_signature_engraver
\remove Staff_symbol_engraver
\remove Clef_engraver fontSize = #-3
\override StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep -3)
\override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #(magstep -3)
}
}
\markuplist {
\justified-lines {
% \override-lines #'( line-width . 55 )
% \override #'( baseline-skip . 2.5 )
{...[text]...semiquavers and demisemiquavers are to be played in some
such ways as
\vcenter
\score {
{ \stemDown
d''16( f'') d''-. d''-.
}
\layout { \myLayout }
}
and...[more text]...
}
}
}
hth
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Moving-notes-re%3A-text-within-markup-tp34256740p34256829.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
Re: Moving notes re: text within markup
Thanks for the reply!
-Eluze wrote:
please try to structure your code - the machine can read this code, but
for humans this is very hard (and the result of the compilation doesn't
change if it's written on one or more line(s) !
Sorry, I thought markups all had to be one line...
it could look like (only the 1st \score included):
myLayout = \layout {
indent = 0
\context {
\Staff
\remove Time_signature_engraver
\remove Staff_symbol_engraver
\remove Clef_engraver fontSize = #-3
\override StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep -3)
\override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #(magstep -3)
}
}
\markuplist {
\justified-lines {
% \override-lines #'( line-width . 55 )
% \override #'( baseline-skip . 2.5 )
{...[text]...semiquavers and demisemiquavers are to be played in some
such ways as
\vcenter
\score {
{ \stemDown
d''16( f'') d''-. d''-.
}
\layout { \myLayout }
}
and...[more text]...
}
}
}
hth
Eluze
Nothing's changed - was this supposed to fix my problem?
For clarification, this is what I have, formatted:
\markuplines {
\vspace #2
\justifiedlines
{ ...[text]...and demisemiquavers are to be played in some such ways as
\score {
{ \stemDown d''16( d'') d''-. d''-. }
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\remove Time_signature_engraver
\remove Staff_symbol_engraver
\remove Clef_engraver fontSize = #-3
\override StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep -3)
\override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #(magstep -3)
}
}
} and
\score {
{ d''32( d'' d'' d'') d''-. d''-. d''-. d''-. }
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\remove Time_signature_engraver
\remove Staff_symbol_engraver
\remove Clef_engraver fontSize = #-3
\override StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep -3)
\override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #(magstep -3)
}
}
} and...[more text]... }
}
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Moving-notes-re%3A-text-within-markup-tp34256740p34257032.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
Re: Moving notes re: text within markup
George_ wrote: Nothing's changed - was this supposed to fix my problem? sorry, I should have emphasized my changes - in short I have added indent = 0 in the \layout and \vcenter before the \score this should help! Eluze -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Moving-notes-re%3A-text-within-markup-tp34256740p34257115.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
Re: bracket notehead
Thank you. Blessing in+, Ming. From: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk To: MING TSANG tsan...@rogers.com; Andrew Hawryluk ahawry...@gmail.com Cc: lilypond-usermailinglist lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2012 3:02:38 AM Subject: Re: bracket notehead MING TSANG wrote Saturday, August 04, 2012 11:47 PM I search lilypond snippet repository with bracket and didn't any. Thank you for showing me to search with parentheses. I've added brackets as an index entry pointing to the section on parentheses. Thanks for pointing this out, Ming. Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down
On 02/08/12 17:51, Graham Percival wrote: In short: if there is a concerted effort to create a quick render output, I would be absolutely shocked if it wasn't at least 10 times faster than the current output. (1) How paralellized is the current code -- and if not much or at all, what do you think the scope is for doing so? E.g. once basic pagination is in place, could all other elements be engraved in separate per-page threads? Likewise, any parts of a score separated by an explicit page break could be engraved by separate threads. (2) Are there any statistics on compile time vs. input file size? It doesn't necessarily help Lilypond to be blazingly fast on a 2-page, 4-part choral score if it's horrendously slow in a 100-page full-orchestra operatic score. I recall that Valentin's opera was a nightmare to render both in terms of time and of memory used along the way. (3) The real speed issue is not so much from-scratch compile times but recompile times -- how long _should_ it take to re-render the score if e.g. I add a single staccato dot to one note? Sibelius' publicity always used to make much of the fact that if Wagner had wanted to add a new bar at the start of the entire Ring Cycle, using Sibelius it would have taken no more than 1 second. That kind of speed-of-tweaking may be worth more than speed of first compile -- ideally, you'd be able to type stuff into the editor in e.g. Frescobaldi, and see the score change in front of your eyes. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Converting lilypond to Sibelius
I have to do an arrangement of a piece that is in a lilypond file and I need to do the arrangement in Sibelius. Is there some way for Sibelius to read lilypond the way that it can read a Finale file? I don't think it could be XML compatible, but I would hope it would easier than reading a PDF. Thanks! ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Turning a lilypond file into a Sibelius file
I have a rather interesting problem. I need to turn a lilypond file into a Sibelius file. It seems that lilypond is not XML compatible, but is there a way to convert it that would make it easier and more accurate than converting a PDF file? Thanks for letting me know Warren Cohen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down
On 5 août 2012, at 12:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote: On 02/08/12 17:51, Graham Percival wrote: In short: if there is a concerted effort to create a quick render output, I would be absolutely shocked if it wasn't at least 10 times faster than the current output. (1) How paralellized is the current code -- and if not much or at all, what do you think the scope is for doing so? E.g. once basic pagination is in place, could all other elements be engraved in separate per-page threads? Likewise, any parts of a score separated by an explicit page break could be engraved by separate threads. LilyPond currently only works on a single thread and the code base is definitely not optimized for parallel processing. GCC may do this automatically when compiling LilyPond (I'm not sure how GCC works). There are many places where parallel processing could be implemented in LilyPond - outputting broken lines and pages, as you suggest above, is one of them. (2) Are there any statistics on compile time vs. input file size? It doesn't necessarily help Lilypond to be blazingly fast on a 2-page, 4-part choral score if it's horrendously slow in a 100-page full-orchestra operatic score. I recall that Valentin's opera was a nightmare to render both in terms of time and of memory used along the way. In 2.15 we did some profiling on this a while back and sped this up considerably (there was a bottleneck in the code) but we haven't done any speed-up here since then. I think LilyPond line breaking is O(n log n), although someone more into CS than I would have to confirm this. (3) The real speed issue is not so much from-scratch compile times but recompile times -- how long _should_ it take to re-render the score if e.g. I add a single staccato dot to one note? One idea for LilyPond that has been kicked around for a while is that of .aux files. LaTeX uses these and they help speed up compilation on second passes (they also make it more accurate). The problem is that LilyPond currently has no API - it would take a few months of a few developers time to nail down a core API so that .aux files could be used predictably and without the creation of too many exceptions. This is a high priority of mine but it is a bit too big for me these days and I've got my hands full w/ skyline work :-( Cheers, MS Sibelius' publicity always used to make much of the fact that if Wagner had wanted to add a new bar at the start of the entire Ring Cycle, using Sibelius it would have taken no more than 1 second. That kind of speed-of-tweaking may be worth more than speed of first compile -- ideally, you'd be able to type stuff into the editor in e.g. Frescobaldi, and see the score change in front of your eyes. ___ 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: Turning a lilypond file into a Sibelius file
Unfortunately there is no way to accomplish what you want ATM. There has been some (or even much) discussion about implementing a MusicXML export that doesn't contain all the layout but rather the musical information. But AFAICS that's far from becoming a reality. HTH Urs Am 05.08.2012 16:23, schrieb Warren Cohen: I have a rather interesting problem. I need to turn a lilypond file into a Sibelius file. It seems that lilypond is not XML compatible, but is there a way to convert it that would make it easier and more accurate than converting a PDF file? Thanks for letting me know Warren Cohen ___ 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: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down
m...@mikesolomon.org m...@mikesolomon.org writes: On 5 août 2012, at 12:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote: On 02/08/12 17:51, Graham Percival wrote: In short: if there is a concerted effort to create a quick render output, I would be absolutely shocked if it wasn't at least 10 times faster than the current output. (1) How paralellized is the current code -- and if not much or at all, what do you think the scope is for doing so? E.g. once basic pagination is in place, could all other elements be engraved in separate per-page threads? Likewise, any parts of a score separated by an explicit page break could be engraved by separate threads. LilyPond currently only works on a single thread and the code base is definitely not optimized for parallel processing. What's up with lilypond -djob-count=4 ... ? -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
the new vertical spacing between systems syntax
Concerning the examples in the manual, section 4.4.2:
4.4.2 Explicit staff and system positioning
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/explicit-staff-and-system-positioning
I don't understand the reason that the variables that
override default spacing between systems:
#'line-break-system-details #'((X-offset . 20))
#'line-break-system-details #'((Y-offset . 40))
#'line-break-system-details #'((X-offset . 20) (Y-offset . 40))
#'line-break-system-details #'((alignment-distances . (15)))
#'line-break-system-details #'((X-offset . 20) (Y-offset . 40)
(alignment-distances . (15)))
are within one of the \new Voice brackets:
\new Voice { }
Since these vertical spacing over-rides are to
supposed to effect spacing between systems
why are is this syntax inserted within
just one of the voices of a system?
I would have thought that syntax to indicate
spacing between systems would have been
placed within the \score {} brackets before
any of the \new Staff brackets.
Is my question clear? Thank you for your help.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Turning a lilypond file into a Sibelius file
On Aug 5, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Warren Cohen wrote: I have a rather interesting problem. I need to turn a lilypond file into a Sibelius file. It seems that lilypond is not XML compatible, but is there a way to convert it that would make it easier and more accurate than converting a PDF file? Can lilypond export a midi file? John LInk http://www.cdbaby.com/all/johnlink http://www.myspace.com/johnlinkproject ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
duration-problem while using make-sequential-music
Hi,
trying to write a function to construct and mix/remix some music via
`make-sequential-music' I noticed the following boiled down problem.
The \xyz-function below should return a whole note for { b }
%
\version 2.14.2
\version 2.15.43
xyz =
#(define-music-function (parser location) ()
(make-sequential-music (list
#{ a1 #}
#{ b #})))
\new Voice { \xyz }
%%
Instead a cryptic log-message is printed:
GNU LilyPond 2.15.43
/home/harm/lilypond-git/build/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/music-functions.scm:35:14:
In procedure ly:music-property in expression (ly:music-property mus
(quote types)):
/home/harm/lilypond-git/build/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/music-functions.scm:35:14:
Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting Music): (#procedure
embedded-lilypond (parser lily-string filename line closures) parser
a1 various-tests.ly 95 (list))
(with 2.14.2 the { b } defaults to a quater.)
Intended is that the duration should change only if explicit forced.
What am I missing?
Regards,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote: On 02/08/12 14:49, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: If you guys can get a Google Grant for your LilyPond non-profit in the Netherlands, now would be a fantastic time to run ads on Google getting Sibelius users to check out LilyPond. It's sad that it takes an event like this to generate interest in open source software, but at the same time, it'd be a huge waste of money and time if these people tried to somehow revive Sibelius. If somehow this turn of events resulted in a spike in LilyPond users, that'd be a great boon to the community. To be honest, I think this is a point where Lilypond and MuseScore people ought to get together and plan a collective response. It is worth reminding that by providing high-quality notation tools for free, both Musescore and LilyPond have been a contributing factor in both Sibelius' and Finale (see http://www.makemusic.com/Pressroom/Default.aspx?pid=555) current problems It is easy to see how these events could help lilypond long-term, but it's also easy for any response from us to be interpreted negatively. Let the Sibelius users have their personal moment of pain/mourning; if they need open-source music notation, they will certainly be able to find us without our help. On a practical level, it's likely that many Sibelius users will just not want to switch to a tool like Lilypond -- the whole point of Sibelius is a graphical score editor. MuseScore is a more natural home for them, and is probably the only free tool they'd consider. But at the same time, Sibelius is also about beautiful engraving, so there _are_ some who can surely be attracted by LP; MuseScore doesn't (yet) have a level of beauty equivalent to either Sibelius or Lilypond. It would be nice if someone from the sibelius team came out and gave some hints about how the .sib format is structured. We could be of help by rescuing the years of work many users have stashed away as .sib files. (I had a brief look at the file format years ago; the problem is that they run some sort of compression scheme over their data) -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote: More generally than that, I think the reason to discuss is to _discover_ the areas where you can cooperate. There are obvious areas of interaction -- e.g. enabling Lilypond output for MuseScore and ensuring that it gets updated effectively in response to Lilypond syntax changes. I have considered using Lilypond as a back end for front end hacking, but the compile time from .ly to .svg is way too high. Is it architecturally possible to make a significant amount of overhead go away? Are incremental compiles plausible? Architecturally it is very difficult. Rather than making lilypond much more complicated to do incremental rendering, why not invert the problem: have your editor control line breaks, and use lilypond to render just one line of music at a time. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: duration-problem while using make-sequential-music
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
Hi,
trying to write a function to construct and mix/remix some music via
`make-sequential-music' I noticed the following boiled down problem.
The \xyz-function below should return a whole note for { b }
Why?
%
\version 2.14.2
\version 2.15.43
xyz =
#(define-music-function (parser location) ()
(make-sequential-music (list
#{ a1 #}
#{ b #})))
From Changes:
* The construct `#{ ... #}' can now be used not just for
constructing sequential music lists, but also for pitches
(distinguished from single note events by the absence of a
duration or other information that can't be part of a pitch),
Instead a cryptic log-message is printed:
GNU LilyPond 2.15.43
/home/harm/lilypond-git/build/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/music-functions.scm:35:14:
In procedure ly:music-property in expression (ly:music-property mus
(quote types)):
/home/harm/lilypond-git/build/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/music-functions.scm:35:14:
Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting Music): (#procedure
embedded-lilypond (parser lily-string filename line closures) parser
a1 various-tests.ly 95 (list))
That looks more like '( #{ a1 #} ... rather than (list #{ a1 #} ...
this is the unevaluated form. I get instead for
xyz =
#(define-music-function (parser location) ()
(make-sequential-music (list
#{ a1 #}
#{ b #})))
\xyz
-*- mode: compilation; default-directory: /tmp/ -*-
Compilation started at Mon Aug 6 05:50:16
lilypond /tmp/ccc.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.15.42
Processing `/tmp/ccc.ly'
Parsing.../usr/local/share/lilypond/2.15.42/scm/music-functions.scm:35:14: In
procedure ly:music-property in expression (ly:music-property mus (quote types)):
/usr/local/share/lilypond/2.15.42/scm/music-functions.scm:35:14: Wrong type
argument in position 1 (expecting Music): #Pitch b
Compilation exited abnormally with code 1 at Mon Aug 6 05:50:17
(with 2.14.2 the { b } defaults to a quater.)
Intended is that the duration should change only if explicit forced.
What am I missing?
Each #{ ... #} is executed in its own parser copy. There is no useful
default duration, so you should give an explicit duration anyway. For
that reason, #{ b #} is a reasonable shortcut for specifying a naked
pitch. Calling make-sequential-music is a low-level construct. If you
really want this kind of thing to work, you can use
#{ $@(list #{ a1 #} #{ b #}) #}
But since the outer parser (which now sees a pitch second which it turns
into a note event in this place) still has not seen an explicit
duration, you'll get a quarter note anyhow.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Fwd: eps file size
Hello! LilyPond produces EPS files with sizes 1MB (ba_001_1_07.eps) and 20MB (ba_001_1_05.eps) [the files are in the zip: http://nikolay.kirov.be/2013/ba_001.zip] using very similar source codes: ba_001_1_07.ly and ba_001_1_05.ly lilypond -dbackend=eps -o GNU LilyPond 2.14.2 Is there any explanation? Nikolay Kirov Kirov - http://www.math.bas.bg/~nkirov/ http://nikolay.kirov.be/ Office: (+359) 2 979 2850, 2 811 0611 Home: (+359) 2 856 8627, 0887 198 221 nki...@nbu.bg nki...@math.bas.bg ba_001_1_07.ly Description: Binary data ba_001_1_05.ly Description: Binary data td-preamble.ly Description: Binary data ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
