Re: transferring Lilynet
2013/11/20 Mike Blackstock : > If anybody wants, it can be moved to my server, and I can give someone a > shell account for maintenance. This may be a good idea. But i'm worried that Valentin didn't answer. Does someone have a more direct contact with him? Graham, maybe? Or Mike - you were both living in Paris for some time? > Also Janek, re. lilypond compilation on my > server - if you'd like to have a stab at compiling lilypond where I failed, > I can give you an account with the sources I installed and we discussed - it > might be easier than me sending you log files from the compilation output. Thanks, that might be worth trying, but later - i'm too busy now. best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Question about \paper{} as a curiosity
Joshua Nichols wrote
> I noticed something I was typesetting recently:
>
> Whenever I mark my margins inside \paper{} before setting the
> #(set-paper-size
> "x"), it ignores any indent, top-margin, or bottom-margin commands. But,
> whenever I set the paper size before the margins, it obeys the other
> commands.
>
> How come? I glanced over the reference, and couldn't find anything about
> it.
see
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/notation/paper-size-and-automatic-scaling#setting-the-paper-size:
"When the set-paper-size function is used, it must be placed before any
other functions
used within the same \paper block."
otherwise they (the functions you invoked) are overwritten.
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Question-about-paper-as-a-curiosity-tp154207p154209.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: Question about \paper{} as a curiosity
Am 21.11.2013 00:02, schrieb Joshua Nichols:
I noticed something I was typesetting recently:
Whenever I mark my margins inside \paper{} before setting
the #(set-paper-size "x"), it ignores any indent, top-margin, or
bottom-margin commands. But, whenever I set the paper size before the
margins, it obeys the other commands.
How come? I glanced over the reference, and couldn't find anything
about it.
Looks like #(set-paper-size) sets these values. So if you use it after
setting values manually they get silently overridden.
HTH
Urs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Question about \paper{} as a curiosity
I noticed something I was typesetting recently:
Whenever I mark my margins inside \paper{} before setting the #(set-paper-size
"x"), it ignores any indent, top-margin, or bottom-margin commands. But,
whenever I set the paper size before the margins, it obeys the other
commands.
How come? I glanced over the reference, and couldn't find anything about it.
Snippet below:
\paper {
#(set-paper-size "letter")
right-margin = 1\in
left-margin = 1\in
top-margin = 1\in
bottom-margin = 1\in
indent = 0\in
}
= correct output
\paper {
right-margin = 1\in
left-margin = 1\in
top-margin = 1\in
bottom-margin = 1\in
indent = 0\in
#(set-paper-size "letter")
}
= incorrect output
Sincerely,
Josh
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: transferring Lilynet
If anybody wants, it can be moved to my server, and I can give someone a shell account for maintenance. Also Janek, re. lilypond compilation on my server - if you'd like to have a stab at compiling lilypond where I failed, I can give you an account with the sources I installed and we discussed - it might be easier than me sending you log files from the compilation output. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote: > Hi Valentin, > > since lilynet.net is dead, it would be good to transfer the archives > someplace else (i've heard that you do have them?). We could probably > add the articles to the lilypond blog, either as archival posts or > pages. > > I don't know how much time i could spend on this, but i wouldn't want > to leave LilyPond Report stuff in the current condition. > > best, > Janek > > ___ > 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: Lyrics not lining with different voice
Hi Eluze, > please reply to all Sorry about that, I forgot to change the email address to the list address. > each time you \write \new Lyrics a _new_ context is created which also means > a new line. to write to the same line use \context > > I guess this is what you want: Thank you! Everything aligns properly now. Regards, -- TY ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Fwd: Lyrics not lining with different voice
Hi Eluze,
> I think your nesting of lyrics in the same (Lyric) context is the culprit;
> maybe it's clearer to use a construct like
>
> \new Lyrics = X \lyricsto "part one" \lyricI
> \context Lyrics = X \lyricsto "part two" \lyricIII
>
> where there is no nesting
It doesn't work when I add more lines of lyrics to it. I'm using the shortened
code below which gives me a funky line arrangements, but my music breaks at end
of "part one" so the lyrics line spacing returns to normal.
%===
\version "2.16.2"
melodyI = \relative c' {
\clef treble
\key c \major
\time 4/4
% intro
c c c c
}
melodyII = \relative c' {
% part one
d d d d % ok if I add \break here
}
melodyIII = \relative c' {
% part two
e e e e
}
lyricI = \lyricmode {
\set stanza = #"1. "
part one here
}
lyricII = \lyricmode {
\set stanza = #"2. "
part two here
}
lyricIII = \lyricmode {
\set stanza = #"3. "
part three here
}
lyricIV = \lyricmode {
\set stanza = #"4. "
part four here
}
altI = \lyricmode {
part one here
}
altII = \lyricmode {
part two here
}
altIII = \lyricmode {
part three here
}
altIV = \lyricmode {
part four here
}
\score {
<<
\new Staff {
\repeat volta 3 {
\new Voice = "intro" { \melodyI }
\new Voice = "part one"{ \melodyII }
}
\new Voice = "part two"{ \melodyIII }
}
% lyrics line 1
\new Lyrics = X \lyricsto "part one" {
\override LyricText #'font-family = #'typewriter
\lyricI
}
\new Lyrics = X \lyricsto "part two" {
\override LyricText #'font-family = #'typewriter
\lyricIV
}
\new Lyrics = X \lyricsto "part one" {
\override LyricText #'font-family = #'sans
\altI
}
\new Lyrics = X \lyricsto "part two" {
\override LyricText #'font-family = #'sans
\altIV
}
% lyrics line 2
\new Lyrics {
\lyricsto "part one" {
\override LyricText #'font-family = #'typewriter
\lyricII
}
}
\new Lyrics {
\lyricsto "part one" {
\override LyricText #'font-family = #'sans
\altII
}
}
% lyrics line 3
\new Lyrics {
\lyricsto "part one" {
\override LyricText #'font-family = #'typewriter
\lyricIII
}
}
\new Lyrics {
\lyricsto "part one" {
\override LyricText #'font-family = #'sans
\altIII
}
}
>>
}
%===
Regards,
--
TY
(email resent to list, I always keep forgetting not to use the reply
button on the list web interface.)
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics not lining with different voice
ayutheos wrote
> It doesn't work when I add more lines of lyrics to it. I'm using the
> shortened
> code below which gives me a funky line arrangements, but my music breaks
> at end
> of "part one" so the lyrics line spacing returns to normal on the next
> staff.
please reply to all
each time you \write \new Lyrics a _new_ context is created which also means
a new line. to write to the same line use \context
I guess this is what you want:
\score {
<<
\new Staff {
\repeat volta 3 {
\new Voice = "intro" { \melodyI }
\new Voice = "part one"{ \melodyII }
}
\new Voice = "part two"{ \melodyIII }
}
% lyrics line 1
\new Lyrics = " line 1" \lyricsto "part one" {
\lyricI
}
\context Lyrics = " line 1" \lyricsto "part two" {
\lyricIV
}
\new Lyrics = " line 2" \lyricsto "part one" {
\altI
}
\context Lyrics = " line 2" \lyricsto "part two" {
\altIV
}
% lyrics line 2
[...]
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Lyrics-not-lining-with-different-voice-tp154134p154202.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: Learn from Finale 2014 (seriously)?
2013/11/20 David Kastrup : > Janek Warchoł writes: > >> 2013/11/20 Urs Liska : >>> Am 14.11.2013 12:03, schrieb SoundsFromSound: To be honest, the first thing my eyes went to was the tremolo notehead mess. That looks painful. >>> >>> They noticed too ;-) >>> http://www.finalemusic.com/blog/rolls-tremolos-jari-williamsson-and-finale-2014/ >> >> Fascinating - someone wrote code that fixes their crappy tremolos, and >> instead of incorporating this fix, they let it live as a plugin >> (which, by definition, won't be used by everyone). How miserable. > > They might need a copyright assignment for that to be on the safe side, > and the plugin might solve the problem at a location that does not make > sense for the codebase proper. > > We have a whole lot of solutions for various problems in the LSR instead > of LilyPond's codebase as well. indeed, you're right. > The good thing is that power users/programmers can contribute to the > _core_ and are not reduced to producing "plugins". And a considerable > part of the core is manageable via Scheme rather than C++ and does not > require recompilation for munging LilyPond. > > At least we are getting our stem lengths consistently better (not just > tremoli). The Finale stem lengths, also regarding beamed notes, looks > rather consistently disproportionate when compared with actual engraved > scores (not just in comparison to LilyPond). true. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Learn from Finale 2014 (seriously)?
Janek Warchoł writes: > 2013/11/20 Urs Liska : >> Am 14.11.2013 12:03, schrieb SoundsFromSound: >>> To be honest, the first thing my eyes went to was the tremolo notehead mess. >>> That looks painful. >> >> They noticed too ;-) >> http://www.finalemusic.com/blog/rolls-tremolos-jari-williamsson-and-finale-2014/ > > Fascinating - someone wrote code that fixes their crappy tremolos, and > instead of incorporating this fix, they let it live as a plugin > (which, by definition, won't be used by everyone). How miserable. They might need a copyright assignment for that to be on the safe side, and the plugin might solve the problem at a location that does not make sense for the codebase proper. We have a whole lot of solutions for various problems in the LSR instead of LilyPond's codebase as well. > Anyone wants to write a blog post about it? ;-) I'm too busy now. Well, I do find it amusing, but it's not like we are in a position to gloat regarding user contributions. The good thing is that power users/programmers can contribute to the _core_ and are not reduced to producing "plugins". And a considerable part of the core is manageable via Scheme rather than C++ and does not require recompilation for munging LilyPond. At least we are getting our stem lengths consistently better (not just tremoli). The Finale stem lengths, also regarding beamed notes, looks rather consistently disproportionate when compared with actual engraved scores (not just in comparison to LilyPond). -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Learn from Finale 2014 (seriously)?
2013/11/20 Urs Liska : > > "Janek Warchoł" schrieb: >>2013/11/20 Urs Liska : >>> Am 14.11.2013 12:03, schrieb SoundsFromSound: To be honest, the first thing my eyes went to was the tremolo >>notehead mess. That looks painful. >>> >>> They noticed too ;-) >>> >>http://www.finalemusic.com/blog/rolls-tremolos-jari-williamsson-and-finale-2014/ >> >>Fascinating - someone wrote code that fixes their crappy tremolos, and >>instead of incorporating this fix, they let it live as a plugin >>(which, by definition, won't be used by everyone). How miserable. >>Anyone wants to write a blog post about it? ;-) I'm too busy now. > > Miserable, yes. But be careful pointing at others: you're replyig in the > context of a thread about a missing LilyPond feature for which there's a > halfway working solution in the LSR and a better one in the mailing list > archives. > How miserable. > > ;-) Indeed, i've arrived at the exact same conclusion. Hmm Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Reminder accidentals with octaviation
pls schrieb: > >On 20.11.2013, at 13:03, Urs Liska wrote: > >> Am 20.11.2013 12:58, schrieb David Kastrup: >>> pls writes: >>> On 20.11.2013, at 12:25, Urs Liska wrote: > a chord is repeated an octave higher, which is indicated by an >\ottava. > Does the repeated chord need accidentals or not? > > Are there rules for this? Do you have any opinions? Gould's gut feeling says you should "repeat an accidental if >sounding at a different octave, even when the same pitch is used with an >octave sign". >>> Huh. That appeals more to my mathematician's gut than my >musician's. >>> >> >> Same with me. >> When looking at my example as a pianist it is _perfectly_ clear what >is meant. >> But looking at it as an editor/engraver, I'm insecure and think "hey, >they _are_ different notes." >> >> I'll be pondering this a little more, waiting for maybe more >opinions. >Gardner agrees with Gould: "Accidentals must also be repeated in a >measure if any of the octave signs is used over or under a note >affected by an accidental." As an accidental not included in a key >signature only affects the pitch it precedes I'd say the octavated >chord needs accidentals, if only to ensure that sight-reading becomes a >tiny little bit less ambiguous. > Thank you. This is enough to convinve me. I'll incorporate it then. 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
Re: Learn from Finale 2014 (seriously)?
"Janek Warchoł" schrieb: >2013/11/20 Urs Liska : >> Am 14.11.2013 12:03, schrieb SoundsFromSound: >>> To be honest, the first thing my eyes went to was the tremolo >notehead mess. >>> That looks painful. >> >> They noticed too ;-) >> >http://www.finalemusic.com/blog/rolls-tremolos-jari-williamsson-and-finale-2014/ > >Fascinating - someone wrote code that fixes their crappy tremolos, and >instead of incorporating this fix, they let it live as a plugin >(which, by definition, won't be used by everyone). How miserable. >Anyone wants to write a blog post about it? ;-) I'm too busy now. > >Janek Miserable, yes. But be careful pointing at others: you're replyig in the context of a thread about a missing LilyPond feature for which there's a halfway working solution in the LSR and a better one in the mailing list archives. How miserable. ;-) 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
Re: Reminder accidentals with octaviation
On 20.11.2013, at 13:03, Urs Liska wrote: > Am 20.11.2013 12:58, schrieb David Kastrup: >> pls writes: >> >>> On 20.11.2013, at 12:25, Urs Liska wrote: >>> a chord is repeated an octave higher, which is indicated by an \ottava. Does the repeated chord need accidentals or not? Are there rules for this? Do you have any opinions? >>> Gould's gut feeling says you should "repeat an accidental if sounding >>> at a different octave, even when the same pitch is used with an octave >>> sign". >> Huh. That appeals more to my mathematician's gut than my musician's. >> > > Same with me. > When looking at my example as a pianist it is _perfectly_ clear what is meant. > But looking at it as an editor/engraver, I'm insecure and think "hey, they > _are_ different notes." > > I'll be pondering this a little more, waiting for maybe more opinions. Gardner agrees with Gould: "Accidentals must also be repeated in a measure if any of the octave signs is used over or under a note affected by an accidental." As an accidental not included in a key signature only affects the pitch it precedes I'd say the octavated chord needs accidentals, if only to ensure that sight-reading becomes a tiny little bit less ambiguous. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Learn from Finale 2014 (seriously)?
2013/11/20 Urs Liska : > Am 14.11.2013 12:03, schrieb SoundsFromSound: >> To be honest, the first thing my eyes went to was the tremolo notehead mess. >> That looks painful. > > They noticed too ;-) > http://www.finalemusic.com/blog/rolls-tremolos-jari-williamsson-and-finale-2014/ Fascinating - someone wrote code that fixes their crappy tremolos, and instead of incorporating this fix, they let it live as a plugin (which, by definition, won't be used by everyone). How miserable. Anyone wants to write a blog post about it? ;-) I'm too busy now. Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Learn from Finale 2014 (seriously)?
Am 14.11.2013 12:03, schrieb SoundsFromSound: To be honest, the first thing my eyes went to was the tremolo notehead mess. That looks painful. The duplicate rests section didn't register with my brain until a few seconds later. I certainly prefer the 2014 "look" more with the merging, for sure, but my eyes didn't process that as "standout" focus point nearly as much as that tremolo did. Interesting. They noticed too ;-) http://www.finalemusic.com/blog/rolls-tremolos-jari-williamsson-and-finale-2014/ ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Reminder accidentals with octaviation
Am 20.11.2013 12:58, schrieb David Kastrup: pls writes: On 20.11.2013, at 12:25, Urs Liska wrote: a chord is repeated an octave higher, which is indicated by an \ottava. Does the repeated chord need accidentals or not? Are there rules for this? Do you have any opinions? Gould's gut feeling says you should "repeat an accidental if sounding at a different octave, even when the same pitch is used with an octave sign". Huh. That appeals more to my mathematician's gut than my musician's. Same with me. When looking at my example as a pianist it is _perfectly_ clear what is meant. But looking at it as an editor/engraver, I'm insecure and think "hey, they _are_ different notes." I'll be pondering this a little more, waiting for maybe more opinions. At least I'm quite sure adding the accidental won't cause serious formatting hiccups, even at that second-to-last-minute stage ... Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Reminder accidentals with octaviation
pls writes: > On 20.11.2013, at 12:25, Urs Liska wrote: > >> a chord is repeated an octave higher, which is indicated by an \ottava. >> Does the repeated chord need accidentals or not? >> >> Are there rules for this? Do you have any opinions? > Gould's gut feeling says you should "repeat an accidental if sounding > at a different octave, even when the same pitch is used with an octave > sign". Huh. That appeals more to my mathematician's gut than my musician's. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Reminder accidentals with octaviation
On 20.11.2013, at 12:25, Urs Liska wrote: > Hi, > > please consider the situation in the attached (or inline?) image. > > > > a chord is repeated an octave higher, which is indicated by an \ottava. > Does the repeated chord need accidentals or not? > Both accidentals in the first chord are necessary (not reminder) accidentals, > so the repeated chord actually has _different_ notes and should need > accidentals of its own. But somehow it seems ridiculous to print them again > at the same staff position. > > Are there rules for this? Do you have any opinions? Gould's gut feeling says you should "repeat an accidental if sounding at a different octave, even when the same pitch is used with an octave sign". ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Reminder accidentals with octaviation
Urs Liska writes: > a chord is repeated an octave higher, which is indicated by an > \ottava. > Does the repeated chord need accidentals or not? > Both accidentals in the first chord are necessary (not reminder) > accidentals, so the repeated chord actually has _different_ notes and > should need accidentals of its own. But somehow it seems ridiculous to > print them again at the same staff position. > > Are there rules for this? Do you have any opinions? My gut feeling would be to treat this exactly as if the 8va indication would not be present, namely as notes of the same pitch. Including adding accidentals if _indeed_ notes of the same pitch were repeated one _visual_ octave lower. But it's likely that someone has a book available where the gut feeling of an actual expert would be spelled out. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reminder accidentals with octaviation
Hi, please consider the situation in the attached (or inline?) image. a chord is repeated an octave higher, which is indicated by an \ottava. Does the repeated chord need accidentals or not? Both accidentals in the first chord are necessary (not reminder) accidentals, so the repeated chord actually has _different_ notes and should need accidentals of its own. But somehow it seems ridiculous to print them again at the same staff position. Are there rules for this? Do you have any opinions? TIA Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Treble clef
2013/11/19 Luca Rossetto Casel : > I can answer: it's a tenorized treble clef. The elements to the right of the > G clef represent a stylized tenor clef.(...) Also, don't be surprised if you find a double treble clef, two closely overlapped g-clef symbols, with the same meaning. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
