Publishers using LilyPond?
Hello, I was wondering if there are (well-known) sheet music publishing companies (or engraving services) using GNU LilyPond, if so which ones? So far I know there are many composers/musicians on this list who use it, as well as web services providing an online IDE/editor, what about the companies/ engraving services? It seems a lot of them had been focusing on Finale/Sibelius for a long time. -- Daniel E. Moctezuma ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
I know this topic changed from Sibelius going belly up to parallelization, but I don't know where else to put it... I'm a current Sibelius user who found Lilypond after panicking a little and a doing quick web search for open source notation software. I don't know how many other users may check out LP, but I love it so far. I just asked my wife to choose among the same piece I printed using Sibelius, the Finale demo, and LP, and she immediately pointed to the LP score and said That one's perfect. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Sibelius-Software-UK-office-shuts-down-tp17227p130605.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Publishers using LilyPond?
Hi Daniel, That topic has cropped up before (maybe more than once) - search for a thread called Lilypond lobbying in the archive. I have asked Schott Publishing about that, and here's what they replied (in my own translation, German original below): Basically, we can handle all music file formats that can be converted to either Finale or Sibelius, which are the main programs we work with. Those two programs have proved to be most suited for achieving our engraving style. It has become standard over the last few years that publishers and composers deliver their finished scores to us, which doesn't preclude post-editing in our house. For those cases too, we will ask you for Finale- or Sibelius-readable files since those are easiest to handle. It isn't, however a knock-out criterion - in certain cases, we will do in-house engravings of handwritten manuscripts. Grundsätzlich können wir mit allen Notendaten arbeiten, die sich entweder nach Finale oder Sibelius konvertieren oder umwandeln lassen. Das sind die beiden Haupt-Programme mit denen wir heute arbeiten. Sie haben sich im Laufe der Jahre etabliert und bewährt und passen am besten zu den Anforderungen unseres Stichbildes. Es ist in den letzten Jahren zum Standard geworden, dass Herausgeber oder Autoren die Notendateien ihrer Werke für den Notensatz fertig bei uns abliefern (was eine Nachbearbeitung hier im Hause nicht ausschließt). In diesen Fällen bitten wir entsprechend auch um Daten für Finale und Sibelius, da diese am einfachsten zu verarbeiten sind. Ausschlusskriterium für die Annahme eines Werkes ist dies jedoch nicht, vereinzelt wird auch noch nach handschriftlichen Manuskripten direkt hier im Hause gesetzt. Maybe now would be a good time to demonstrate to publishers what Lilypond has to offer. Best, Robert On 14 Aug 2012, at 08:03, Daniel E. Moctezuma democtez...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I was wondering if there are (well-known) sheet music publishing companies (or engraving services) using GNU LilyPond, if so which ones? So far I know there are many composers/musicians on this list who use it, as well as web services providing an online IDE/editor, what about the companies/ engraving services? It seems a lot of them had been focusing on Finale/Sibelius for a long time. -- Daniel E. Moctezuma ___ 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
Part combine problems
Hello, I'm having problems using \partcombine: 1. I have 3 voices, how can I use \partcombine (or equivalent) with 3 or more voices? (in this case 3) 2. Each of the voices have dynamics (on the same beats), using \partcombine with 2 voices show them correctly but the dynamics are duplicated. Note that those voices have different slurring (does that word exist?). 3. Following the case above, using the same slurring on both voices outputs correctly but with a warning cannot end slur. 4. How can I add the lyrics line to the \partcombine staff? 5. How can I add the lyrics line if I combine the 3 voices (note that Voice 1 and 2 share the same lyrics, Voice 3 has different lyrics) Attached to this email is a .ly file for this case (using LilyPond 2.15.39). Thanks in advance. -- Daniel E. Moctezuma test.ly Description: Binary data ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part combine problems
Daniel E. Moctezuma democtez...@gmail.com writes: Hello, I'm having problems using \partcombine: 1. I have 3 voices, how can I use \partcombine (or equivalent) with 3 or more voices? (in this case 3) Cf. URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2610 2. Each of the voices have dynamics (on the same beats), using \partcombine with 2 voices show them correctly but the dynamics are duplicated. Note that those voices have different slurring (does that word exist?). 3. Following the case above, using the same slurring on both voices outputs correctly but with a warning cannot end slur. 4. How can I add the lyrics line to the \partcombine staff? 5. How can I add the lyrics line if I combine the 3 voices (note that Voice 1 and 2 share the same lyrics, Voice 3 has different lyrics) Attached to this email is a .ly file for this case (using LilyPond 2.15.39). Cf URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2584: the last fix concerning spanners has been in 2.15.42. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Emmentaler Glyph numbers
Hi list,
sorry if this is 'findable' somewhere. But I have searched for so many
new things recently that I may not be seeing the wood for the trees
anymore ;-)
I need to insert single music glyphs in LaTeX text and would definitely
prefer using the Emmentaler ones for this (not only, but also for
consistency, as the other music in the document is LilyPond).
As I'm using XeLaTeX it is quite easy to install and access the
Emmentaler otf fonts and write (for example)
\newcommand{\fingerOne}{{\fontspec{Emmentaler}\char31} }
which gives the desired output.
My problem is that I don't seem to find a complete list of the Unicode
codes of Emmentaler's glyphs that I can use for different commands. In
the character Map of my Ubuntu's default Font Viewer I only see a few
correct glyphs, mixed with many others that apparently are from other
fonts (I assume the viewer is confused by Emmentaler's non-standard
encoding).
On the list I found a solution using XeTeXglyph, but didn't succeed with it.
So:
Any hint for
- a complete list of Unicode codes for the Emmentaler fonts?
- a Ubuntu tool where I can lookup the numbers?
- any other working solution to include Emmentaler glyphs in a XeLaTeX
document?
Thanks
Urs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Ledger line visibility issue
Thanks very much for all the suggestions - I will try them out.
Yes, I am wanting to set a lower limit to how close notes are squeezed to meet
the page-breaking = #ly:page-turn-breaking
requirement so that ledger lines do not almost overlap producing something akin
to a moire pattern .
I need to think more carefully about page turns possibly change the squeezing
just for the affected bars. Thinking cap on...Some
music just does not allow nice page turns maybe I'll just have to get the
scissors out?
Syntax is a huge problem - the manuals often provide several ways to achieve a
result fine but they almost never indicate the full
syntax and the required context. This is not a complaint - I can imagine the
complexity and breadth of the program. This with its
many highly skilled contributors makes a single unified context an extremely
difficult goal to achieve.
Could I suggest that the tutorial is rather too quick to drop from the full
input context down to short snippets which leaves the
learner confused not knowing which sections of input to assume are implied and
where to slot the snippet and what else is implied by
the snippet.
For instance when combining music files into a part score via a \include
somemusic.ly in the \newstaff section I seem to need the
. construct which is not the same as {...} .
I feel like a tyro who thinks he has just about understood the basics of C++
and is thrown by the more complex structures on page
100...I need to understand the overall context before I can reliably fiddle
with the components but life is short.
I have looked at the templates but these (quartets for example) seem to be far
more complex than files I have prepared for quartets
is there any move to allow users to share their files under the Lilypond
umbrella many of us have our own modest web sites or are
copyright problems to onerous to allow this?
regards
Peter Gentry
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Emmentaler Glyph numbers
OK, I found my way myself. Sorry for the noise (which might prove not to
be noise after all ...)
The wrong characters in my Ubuntu character map were obviously some
default glyphs for the Unicode glyphs at this point.
After trying out the codes from 00 to FF and finding only a few single
glyphs I gave up (fortunately) and installed FontForge.
So now I know the Emmentaler Glyphs are located from E100 throughout E31C.
I already started writing some commands for this and will turn this into
a library to be developed on GitHub.
I will only be actively writing commands that I might use, so I'd be
glad if others would participate to make it more complete.
When I have started this up, I'll post a link soon.
Best
Urs
Am 14.08.2012 12:25, schrieb Urs Liska:
Hi list,
sorry if this is 'findable' somewhere. But I have searched for so many
new things recently that I may not be seeing the wood for the trees
anymore ;-)
I need to insert single music glyphs in LaTeX text and would
definitely prefer using the Emmentaler ones for this (not only, but
also for consistency, as the other music in the document is LilyPond).
As I'm using XeLaTeX it is quite easy to install and access the
Emmentaler otf fonts and write (for example)
\newcommand{\fingerOne}{{\fontspec{Emmentaler}\char31} }
which gives the desired output.
My problem is that I don't seem to find a complete list of the Unicode
codes of Emmentaler's glyphs that I can use for different commands. In
the character Map of my Ubuntu's default Font Viewer I only see a few
correct glyphs, mixed with many others that apparently are from other
fonts (I assume the viewer is confused by Emmentaler's non-standard
encoding).
On the list I found a solution using XeTeXglyph, but didn't succeed
with it.
So:
Any hint for
- a complete list of Unicode codes for the Emmentaler fonts?
- a Ubuntu tool where I can lookup the numbers?
- any other working solution to include Emmentaler glyphs in a XeLaTeX
document?
Thanks
Urs
___
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
Bar number inconsistency with repeats and partial bars?
In the example below, Lilypond doesn't count the initial partial bar
when numbering the bars, but the partial bars at the end of the first
repeat and beginning of the second repeat each get their own bar number.
Commercial scores I have with this repeat structure treat these two bars
as though they are one for the purposes of numbering the succeeding
bars. To get the same numbering in Lilypond I have to explicitly set the
bar numbering at the beginning of the second repeat.
I had a look in Gould but couldn't see any recommendation for how the
bars should be numbered in this situation.
\version 2.15.43
\relative c'' {
\override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#t #t #f)
\repeat volta 2 {
\partial 4 c4 |
c c c c |
\set Score.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3 4) c c c |
}
\repeat volta 2 {
\set Score.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 1 4) c |
% \set Score.currentBarNumber = #3
\set Score.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 4 4) c c c c |
c c c c |
\set Score.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3 4) c c c |
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Sibelius and LilyPond parallels (was: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown])
Michael Rivers michaeljriv...@gmail.com writes: I know this topic changed from Sibelius going belly up to parallelization, but I don't know where else to put it... One needs to adapt the subject line... I'm a current Sibelius user who found Lilypond after panicking a little and a doing quick web search for open source notation software. I don't know how many other users may check out LP, but I love it so far. I just asked my wife to choose among the same piece I printed using Sibelius, the Finale demo, and LP, and she immediately pointed to the LP score and said That one's perfect. I found it interesting that its text input form does not even enter this story. I find that quite often this is what makes a major difference to people (meaning that it is an important factor for either choosing, tolerating or rejecting LilyPond). Thanks for the thumbs-up! -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re:Ledger line visibility issue (Peter Gentry)
The suggestions used verbatim did not seem to work in my file but after
fiddling about a bit the following seems to do the trick.
Thanks again.
%
% K388 Serenade Clarinet 1
% ---
\version 2.14.2
date = #(strftime %d-%m-%Y (localtime (current-time)))
#(set-global-staff-size 20)
% ---
% set the paper layout for binding
% ---
\paper {
two-sided = ##t
inner-margin = 20 \mm
outer-margin = 10 \mm
binding-offset = 5 \mm
first-page-number = #1
blank-after-score-page-force = #10
page-breaking = #ly:page-turn-breaking
ragged-bottom = ##t }
.
.etc etc
.
% ---
% define staffclarinet
% ---
ledgers = \override Staff.LedgerLineSpanner #'minimum-length-fraction = #0.4
staffclarinet = \new Staff {
\set Staff.instrumentName = Clt [1]
\set Staff.midiInstrument = clarinet
}
.
etc etc
.
% ---
% First Score block - one for each movemnet
% --
\score {
\staffclarinet
\transpose bes c'
\include K388_Cc_M1_L1.ly
\ledgers
.
etc
..
regards
Peter Gentry
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Sibelius and LilyPond parallels
David == David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: David I found it interesting that its text input form does not even David enter this story. I find that quite often this is what makes David a major difference to people (meaning that it is an important David factor for either choosing, tolerating or rejecting David LilyPond). There's a Sibelius user who's contributed a lot to my current project (unfortunately, via midi2ly) and I reported a transcription error by emailing the lilypond code for both his and my transcriptions to him. His response was: Xavier I didn't know lilypond is encoded this way. Xavier It reminds me of note processor, the music notation Xavier software that I used on DOS operated computers. Xavier I actually found it less tiresome to use and faster than Xavier sibelius. He's subsequently said that for his next project he'll try lilypond. So there is a population that likes text input that we aren't reaching. -- Laura (mailto:lcon...@laymusic.org, twitter: @serpentplayer) (617) 661-8097 233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139 http://www.laymusic.org/ http://www.serpentpublications.org After much pondering, I think I understand a basic reason why a glass of something reviving is so welcome in the early evening. Partly, of course, it's just that, to revive, to relax, but it's also a convenient way of becoming a slightly different person from your daytime self, less methodical, less calculating -- however you put it, somebody different, and the prospect of that has helped to make the day tolerable. And, conversely, it's not having that prospect that makes the day look grim to the poor old ex-boozer, more than missing the alcohol as such. Changing for dinner used to be another way of switching roles. Coming home from work has a touch of the same effect. Writers haven't got that advantage -- when they finish work they're at home already. So perhaps they need that glass of gin extra badly. Any excuse is better than none. Kingsley Amis, _Every Day Drinking_ ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature
james james.lilyp...@googlemail.com writes:
In the following:
\version 2.14.2
\score {
\relative c' {
\time 2/4
\set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 4) . ,SHARP) ((0 . 3) . ,SHARP))
\clef treble
c8 a c d
%%% Commenting out the following line solves the problem %%%
\clef bass
e fis d c
}
\layout {}
}
The clef change causes lilypond to error and not produce output. This
also errors in 2.15., while 2.12 does not error. Is there some way
around this?
Ok, consider me annoyed now. Yes, we have some snippets documenting
this sort of thing, but what is it even supposed to mean?
The actual accidental _code_ knows two kinds of accidental entries: one
_without_ octave entry for the key signature, and one _with_ octave
entry _and_ bar/measure position for signifying a locally changed key
signature by a particular accidental in the music with given note and
octave and time.
The actual code does not try making sense of a _key_ signature entry
_with_ octave (and consequently without bar/measure position). And what
is a key signature with octave location actually supposed to mean? Do
we need an accidental for a note in key signature but one octave higher,
or not?
So I fail to make _any_ sense of your example. If I had to guess, I'd
say the octave specifications are there for overriding the default
octaves chosen by the key signature engraver, but without being fixed to
a certain octave concerning their effect on the music.
However, with _that_ interpretation, a clef change like you propose
above leads to accidentals displayed up in the sky in ledger line
domain. What's the key engraver to do in this case? Transpose the
whole octave-enriched key signature down by entire octaves (thus keeping
the arrangement of the scale) until it starts making sense again? Leave
it in the sky with ledger lines? Without?
What is your expectation? For what kind of music and situation is this
useful?
Without an answer to that question, I don't really know the direction
the fix should be taking properly.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bar number inconsistency with repeats and partial bars?
On 14 August 2012 13:34, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote:
In the example below, Lilypond doesn't count the initial partial bar when
numbering the bars, but the partial bars at the end of the first repeat and
beginning of the second repeat each get their own bar number. Commercial
scores I have with this repeat structure treat these two bars as though they
are one for the purposes of numbering the succeeding bars. To get the same
numbering in Lilypond I have to explicitly set the bar numbering at the
beginning of the second repeat.
I had a look in Gould but couldn't see any recommendation for how the bars
should be numbered in this situation.
Hi Nick,
If you do not change the measure length at the end of the first volta
and at the beginning of the second one you get the correct output,
AFAICS.
Lily code
\version 2.15.43
\relative c'' {
\override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#t #t #f)
\repeat volta 2 {
\partial 4 c4 |
c c c c |
c c c
}
\repeat volta 2 {
c |
c c c c |
c c c c |
\set Score.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3 4)
c c c |
}
}
End of lily code
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: clef change confuses manual key signature
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes:
james james.lilypond at googlemail.com writes:
\set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 4) . ,SHARP) ((0 . 3) . ,SHARP))
Ok, consider me annoyed now. Yes, we have some snippets documenting
this sort of thing, but what is it even supposed to mean?
I suspect people really want the form that applies to all octaves
{ \set Staff.keySignature = #`((3 . ,SHARP) (4 . ,SHARP))
b1 \clef bass \break b1 }
but start first trying the exact syntax in the example in the manual,
before interpreting the text around that example to get what they want.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Emmentaler Glyph numbers
So now I know the Emmentaler Glyphs are located from E100 throughout E31C. Don't rely on character code numbers! As soon as a new glyph gets added to the Emmentaler font, they can change. The only reliable way to access the glyphs is with glyph names. Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Can I modify sizes in pango-font-tree?
Hi all
I'm using the following recommended code, which works properly with any
font I've tried:
\version 2.14.2
\paper {
myStaffSize = #20
#(define fonts
(make-pango-font-tree fontname-1
fontname-2
fontname-3
(/ myStaffSize 20)))
}
... but some of the fonts I'd like to use are out of proportion with
each other, so that (for example) I have to call one of them \tiny to
make it look like the normal size of the other two. Is there a way to
scale fonts in the tree so that in the score they will all match when
set at normal size?
I've searched the documentation on fonts, and found only the code above,
which works fine; except perhaps that it doesn't have this feature. I
also glanced at /usr/share/lilypond/2.14.2/scm/font.scm , but didn't
know how to read it or whether it contained anything useful for me.
--
Thanks
David R
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with Lilypond yet, but am getting there. I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Michael Rivers I'm a current Sibelius user who found Lilypond after panicking a little and a doing quick web search for open source notation software. I don't know how many other users may check out LP, but I love it so far. I just asked my wife to choose among the same piece I printed using Sibelius, the Finale demo, and LP, and she immediately pointed to the LP score and said That one's perfect. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Sibelius-Software-UK-office-shuts-down-tp17227p130605.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com writes: I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with Lilypond yet, but am getting there. I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius. How would that happen? I would imagine that if you keep your scores and software version unchanged, they should remain working on a given system. Unless somebody else edits them with a newer version and sends you the results. You'll have the same backward compatibility problem with LilyPond (or pretty much any software) in that case, but the human-readable format makes it more likely to wedge in a backward-compatible replacement at the problematic places. And of course, there is no need to _buy_ upgrades. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: setting Delia Derbyshire's abstract electronic scores
El 13/08/2012 21:55, martinwguy martinw...@gmail.com escribió: Is Lilypond capable of helping with exotic stuff like this, from Delia Dervyshire's notes for her, maybe lost, Radio Newsreel signature tune e.g. the bottom of http://delia-derbyshire.net/papers/html/dd164139.html the top left and bottom left corners of http://delia-derbyshire.net/papers/html/dd164239.html or most of http://delia-derbyshire.net/papers/html/dd164209.html ? M I am curious to see what others respond. At first I ask you: where is the music? LP is for music engraving. Looking at the 100 percent graphic score, my question is the reverse: are the GIMP or Inkscape capable of music engraving? ___ 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: Writing a repeated rhythm
Lo?c Chahine loic.chah...@hotmail.fr writes:
Hi all!
I am trying to find a function to simplify repeated rhythm writing. I
have a part with many bars like:
r8 c16( c? c c c c) r8 d16( d? d d d d)
and I think it would be easier to write something like:
\myRh { c d }
I found some Snippets, like this one:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=302
or this one:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=465
But they seem not to work with 2.15.42, and I am not able to update
them.
URL:http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/snippets/pitches#pitches-creating-a-sequence-of-notes-on-various-pitches
Unfortunately, this nice feature only works in absolute mode. If you replace
\new Staff {
by
\new Staff \relative c' {
you will get a very nasty surprise. Is there any simple way to make a
function where repeated notes are not further octaviated in this
situation, without Scheme hacking?
/Mats
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com writes: I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with Lilypond yet, but am getting there. I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: How would that happen? I would imagine that if you keep your scores and software version unchanged, they should remain working on a given system. ... And of course, there is no need to _buy_ upgrades. You'd think so, but the underlying OS changes and Sibelius doesn't rev old versions to keep up. The last version of Sibelius that I paid for now crashes on boot. As a result I can't launch Sibelius for tweaks like key changes. The only solution is to re-enter a score in Lilypond. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
El 14/08/2012 21:21, Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com escribió: Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com writes: I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with Lilypond yet, but am getting there. I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: How would that happen? I would imagine that if you keep your scores and software version unchanged, they should remain working on a given system. ... And of course, there is no need to _buy_ upgrades. You'd think so, but the underlying OS changes and Sibelius doesn't rev old versions to keep up. The last version of Sibelius that I paid for now crashes on boot. As a result I can't launch Sibelius for tweaks like key changes. The only solution is to re-enter a score in Lilypond. He meant there is no need to buy lilypond upgrades, I think. ___ 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
version 2.16
Hi, If I have a newer \version in my lilypond score than the LilyPond I am using I am getting a Fatal Error message, but my score compiles just fine, giving a perfect PDF or MIDI. I would expect a Warning, not a Fatal error message ? Using lilypond-2.15.95 In my testfile using: \version 2.16.0 -- MT ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com writes: Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com writes: I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with Lilypond yet, but am getting there. I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: How would that happen? I would imagine that if you keep your scores and software version unchanged, they should remain working on a given system. ... And of course, there is no need to _buy_ upgrades. The last sentence was in reference to using LilyPond. You'd think so, but the underlying OS changes and Sibelius doesn't rev old versions to keep up. The last version of Sibelius that I paid for now crashes on boot. Oh wow. Considering how long binaries tend to work on GNU/Linux (where there actually is much less proprietary/binary software for which this is ultimately important), with several versions of dynamic libraries being installable at the same time, this is somewhat off-putting. As a result I can't launch Sibelius for tweaks like key changes. The only solution is to re-enter a score in Lilypond. It is not really new, but I keep being surprised at the things proprietary/commercial software vendors are getting away with doing to their paying customers. There are occasions where users hit the mailing lists here getting off on the wrong foot, voicing unrealistic expectations and demands. One tends to have the reaction you can put forward that sort of expectation when you are actually paying for software, but the reality seems to be that as a paying customer you are treated worse. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Emmentaler Glyph numbers
Am 14.08.2012 19:29, schrieb Werner LEMBERG: So now I know the Emmentaler Glyphs are located from E100 throughout E31C. Don't rely on character code numbers! As soon as a new glyph gets added to the Emmentaler font, they can change. The only reliable way to access the glyphs is with glyph names. Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Thanks for this info (although I'd prefer not having to have it :-( ) Can you tell me how I can access a glyph by name from XeLaTeX / fontspec then? Thanks Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Emmentaler Glyph numbers
Thanks for this info (although I'd prefer not having to have it :-( ) Can you tell me how I can access a glyph by name from XeLaTeX / fontspec then? Looking into XeTeX-reference.pdf, this works for me (assuming that you have emmentaler-20.otf installed where XeTeX can find it): The scripts.varsegno sign: \font\1 = Emmentaler-20 \1 \XeTeXglyph \the\XeTeXglyphindex scripts.varsegno \bye BTW, this is XeTeX from TeXLive 2012. Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: It is not really new, but I keep being surprised at the things proprietary/commercial software vendors are getting away with doing to their paying customers. Vendors have your existing scores as hostages to keep you paying. It's the opposite of a value proposition. Free software also has that hostage effect, but to a lesser extent. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Writing a repeated rhythm
As a follow-up, you didn't mention the perhaps most powerful LSR snippet
of this form, namely http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=346. If you
want it to work with version 2.15.xx, replace the two lines
(pes (ly:music-property (list-ref pitches i) 'elements))
(pnew (ly:music-property (car pes) 'pitch))
by
(pnew (ly:music-property (list-ref pitches i) 'pitch))
/Mats
On 08/14/2012 09:17 PM, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Lo?c Chahine loic.chah...@hotmail.fr writes:
Hi all!
I am trying to find a function to simplify repeated rhythm writing. I
have a part with many bars like:
r8 c16( c? c c c c) r8 d16( d? d d d d)
and I think it would be easier to write something like:
\myRh { c d }
I found some Snippets, like this one:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=302
or this one:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=465
But they seem not to work with 2.15.42, and I am not able to update
them.
URL:http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/snippets/pitches#pitches-creating-a-sequence-of-notes-on-various-pitches
Unfortunately, this nice feature only works in absolute mode. If you
replace
\new Staff {
by
\new Staff \relative c' {
you will get a very nasty surprise. Is there any simple way to make a
function where repeated notes are not further octaviated in this
situation, without Scheme hacking?
/Mats
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature
On Aug 14, 2012, at 5:00 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
james james.lilyp...@googlemail.com writes:
So I fail to make _any_ sense of your example. If I had to guess, I'd
say the octave specifications are there for overriding the default
octaves chosen by the key signature engraver, but without being fixed to
a certain octave concerning their effect on the music.
However, with _that_ interpretation, a clef change like you propose
above leads to accidentals displayed up in the sky in ledger line
domain. What's the key engraver to do in this case? Transpose the
whole octave-enriched key signature down by entire octaves (thus keeping
the arrangement of the scale) until it starts making sense again? Leave
it in the sky with ledger lines? Without?
What is your expectation? For what kind of music and situation is this
useful?
Without an answer to that question, I don't really know the direction
the fix should be taking properly.
Honestly, what's most important to me is where the sharps/flats in the key
signature are placed. I attach the image of what I expect:
\include deutsch.ly
\version 2.12.3
\score {
\new Staff
\relative c'{
\time 1/4
\set Staff.keySignature = #`((9 . ,FLAT))
c4*1/3 d es f g a h a g f es d c4
}
\new Staff
\relative c' {
a4*1/3 h c d e fis gis fis e d c h a4
}
{ %% Key Signatures
\clef bass
\set Staff.keySignature = #`(((-1 . -3) . ,SHARP) ((-1 . -4) .
,SHARP))
s4*2 | %1-18
\clef treble
\set Staff.printKeyCancellation = ##f
\set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 4) . ,SHARP) ((0 . 3) . ,SHARP))
}
\layout {}
}
\score {
\new Staff
\relative c'{
\time 1/4
\set Staff.keySignature = #`((9 . ,FLAT))
c4*1/3 d es f g a h a g f es d c4
}
\new Staff
\relative c' {
a4*1/3 h c d e fis gis fis e d c h a4
}
{ %% Key Signatures
\clef bass
\set Staff.keySignature = #`((4 . ,SHARP) (3 . ,SHARP))
s4*2 | %1-18
\clef treble
\set Staff.printKeyCancellation = ##f
\set Staff.keySignature = #`((4 . ,SHARP) (3 . ,SHARP))
}
\layout {}
}
I should note that making minor changes (like to the rhythm) may also solve the
problem, but the important thing, for me at least, is that it shouldn't happen,
regardless.
key signatures_2.12.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 22:58:57 +0200 james james.lilyp...@googlemail.com wrote: Honestly, what's most important to me is where the sharps/flats in the key signature are placed. Looking at the PDF example, I can't understand which line is supposed to be the good one. They both look wrong to me. When I read music, I want the key signature to be always in the stereotypical (correct) place, and I don't see a reason (in this particular music) for wanting to have it like either of those example lines. I could understand (though not agree with) wanting to have the key signature always in the same range as the notes that are going to be printed in that line, but both examples go against that. Therefore, my question... What is the intention behind wanting to put the key signatures in a different place? How is it supposed to help the person reading it? -- David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:47:52 +0200 Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@fam.tuwien.ac.at wrote: Some old handwritings have e.g. the f sharp in the keysignature not at the top line, but between the lowest and second-lowest line. If you want to create an authentic reprint of the autograph, you might also want to preserve the way the keysignature was printed... You're right; I didn't think of those. But is that what's happening in this situation? -- David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature
David Rogers davidandrewrog...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:47:52 +0200 Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@fam.tuwien.ac.at wrote: Some old handwritings have e.g. the f sharp in the keysignature not at the top line, but between the lowest and second-lowest line. If you want to create an authentic reprint of the autograph, you might also want to preserve the way the keysignature was printed... You're right; I didn't think of those. But is that what's happening in this situation? So the idea would be that the key signature is valid over all octaves, and the octave specification is just for printing the signature itself. That would likely imply having to redo the octaves manually for clef changes. But at least it is behavior that makes some amount of sense. I think I'll pick that interpretation. It will require several code changes. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Emmentaler Glyph numbers
Thank you for this, which also worked for me.
As I wanted to have it the 'fontspec' way, I tried from there and came
up with
\newcommand*{\lilyGlyph}[2]{\fontspec[Scale=#1]{Emmentaler-11}
\XeTeXglyph\XeTeXglyphindex#2 }
and then (for exmple)
\newcommand*{\flatflat}{\raisebox{0.2ex}{\lilyGlyph{1.5}{accidentals.flatflat}}}
Leaving out the scaling and offsetting it looks even more straightforward:
\newcommand*{\lilyGlyph}[1]{\fontspec{Emmentaler-11}
\XeTeXglyph\XeTeXglyphindex#1 }
and then (for exmple)
\newcommand*{\flatflat}{\lilyGlyph{accidentals.flatflat}}
(That's just for the record. Might be somewhat OT, but I think the
intended audience for this may well be LilyPond users...)
Best
Urs
Am 14.08.2012 22:12, schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
Thanks for this info (although I'd prefer not having to have it :-( )
Can you tell me how I can access a glyph by name from XeLaTeX /
fontspec then?
Looking into XeTeX-reference.pdf, this works for me (assuming that you
have emmentaler-20.otf installed where XeTeX can find it):
The scripts.varsegno sign:
\font\1 = Emmentaler-20
\1
\XeTeXglyph \the\XeTeXglyphindex scripts.varsegno
\bye
BTW, this is XeTeX from TeXLive 2012.
Werner
___
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: Bar number inconsistency with repeats and partial bars?
On 15/08/12 01:36, Xavier Scheuer wrote: On 14 August 2012 13:34, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote: In the example below, Lilypond doesn't count the initial partial bar when numbering the bars, but the partial bars at the end of the first repeat and beginning of the second repeat each get their own bar number. Commercial scores I have with this repeat structure treat these two bars as though they are one for the purposes of numbering the succeeding bars. To get the same numbering in Lilypond I have to explicitly set the bar numbering at the beginning of the second repeat. I had a look in Gould but couldn't see any recommendation for how the bars should be numbered in this situation. Hi Nick, If you do not change the measure length at the end of the first volta and at the beginning of the second one you get the correct output, AFAICS. Thanks. That definitely seems the best solution. I was fixated on putting bar checks everywhere and didn't think of that. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature
james james.lilyp...@googlemail.com writes: Honestly, what's most important to me is where the sharps/flats in the key signature are placed. I attach the image of what I expect: That image does not make sense to me at all. Notes appear in key signature (though in a different octave) and still carry an accidental. How do you distinguish a normal key signature (valid across all octaves) from a restricted-octave one (valid only in one octave)? They look the same. I should note that making minor changes (like to the rhythm) may also solve the problem, but the important thing, for me at least, is that it shouldn't happen, regardless. I can't make sense of your score, and I can't even make sense of your sentences. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
