Re: Simultaneous accidental breaks cross-staff stem

[Malte Meyn]

Am 19.07.2016 um 22:39 schrieb Joel C. Salomon:

 From “Arrival of the Wolves”: an accidental in the upper Staff’s
voiceOne shifts a chord in its voiceTwo so it no longer aligns with the
corresponding note in the lower Staff, yielding the attached result.


You can force the  to the right place with
  \once \override NoteColumn.force-hshift = 0
Then you’ll need to shift the a sharp too:
  \once \override NoteColumn.force-hshift = -1 (or -1.1?)

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slur over single note?

[Andrew Bernard]

All the rest of the signs are phrasing slurs in this snippet. I would say
it’s also a phrasing slur, and not a mistake or error.

The Peter Pan score seems to be full of such _descriptive_ indications. Not
all scores are entirely _prescriptive_.

Andrew
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slur over single note?

[David Wright]

On Tue 19 Jul 2016 at 15:12:37 (-0700), Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote:
> > >> >> It could be a LaissezVibrer tie, but I'm wondering if there isn't
> > >a
> > >> >> connection to the next bar. The tie extends so far and touches the
> > >> >> BarLine at the end of that measure that makes me wonder, but it's
> > >> >only
> > >> >> speculation at this point. Given the ending tip's vertical
> > >position,
> > >> >> too, it almost looks like it could be a slur. What does the next
> > >bar
> > >> >> look like?
> > >> >
> > >> >The next bar doesn’t have any partial ties or slurs.
> > >>
> > >> But is there an a or any other note that could reasonably be tied or
> > >slurred to in the next measure?
> > >>
> > >> From my experience as editor this really looks like a broken tie or
> > >slur where the engraver forgot to supply the second part. This happens
> > >extremely often.
> > >>
> > >> Best would be an image of the next system.
> > >
> > >Attached. Every bar in the piece looks like the other three bars,
> > >except for two cadences at which beat 4 is a crochet in the bass.
> > >So IMHO it's to make sure the note is sustained right through the
> > >bar, as this movement lacks any pedalling. A tie here wouldn't make
> > >sense in the context.
> 
> 
> Another possible interpretation is that the A whole note should be tied to
> the eighth-note A in the first chord of the next measure.
> 
> In that view, the error is the omission of the tie in the first measure of
> the next system.

Two errors, in that case. It's engraved as a slur, not a tie. That
might not be clear in my tiny attachment, but the OP's shows it.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: 17th century English kbd ornaments

[Michael Rivers]

Just my opinion, but I think it is usually a good idea to use an original
source such as Purcell's mentioned in the original post, rather than rely on
a secondary source such as Dolmetsch.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/17th-century-English-kbd-ornaments-tp148407p192853.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: Lyrics.LyricText.font-size in layout block

[tisimst]

On Tuesday, July 19, 2016, Noeck [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n192849...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am 19.07.2016 um 22:54 schrieb tisimst:
> > real-lyric-font-size = x*(1+y/6)*(12/20)
>
> I doubt this formula as y = -6 should give half of the normal size and
> not a negative number. I still think this is correct:
>
> factor = 2^((font-size-1)/6
>

Ah, yes. Thank you for correcting me. Not sure what I was thinking.
Shouldn't it be without the -1 though?

factor = 2^(font-size/6)

--
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Lyrics-LyricText-font-size-in-layout-block-tp192840p192852.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: Slur over single note?

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

> >> >> It could be a LaissezVibrer tie, but I'm wondering if there isn't
> >a
> >> >> connection to the next bar. The tie extends so far and touches the
> >> >> BarLine at the end of that measure that makes me wonder, but it's
> >> >only
> >> >> speculation at this point. Given the ending tip's vertical
> >position,
> >> >> too, it almost looks like it could be a slur. What does the next
> >bar
> >> >> look like?
> >> >
> >> >The next bar doesn’t have any partial ties or slurs.
> >>
> >> But is there an a or any other note that could reasonably be tied or
> >slurred to in the next measure?
> >>
> >> From my experience as editor this really looks like a broken tie or
> >slur where the engraver forgot to supply the second part. This happens
> >extremely often.
> >>
> >> Best would be an image of the next system.
> >
> >Attached. Every bar in the piece looks like the other three bars,
> >except for two cadences at which beat 4 is a crochet in the bass.
> >So IMHO it's to make sure the note is sustained right through the
> >bar, as this movement lacks any pedalling. A tie here wouldn't make
> >sense in the context.


Another possible interpretation is that the A whole note should be tied to
the eighth-note A in the first chord of the next measure.

In that view, the error is the omission of the tie in the first measure of
the next system.


David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Lyrics.LyricText.font-size in layout block

[Noeck]

Hi,

Am 19.07.2016 um 22:54 schrieb tisimst:
> real-lyric-font-size = x*(1+y/6)*(12/20)

I doubt this formula as y = -6 should give half of the normal size and
not a negative number. I still think this is correct:

factor = 2^((font-size-1)/6)

Cheers,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Lyrics.LyricText.font-size in layout block

[Noeck]

Hi Colin,

> My question is:
> Is there documentation of what number I should give to get a particular
> decrease or increase in font size?
> 
> There is this page:
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/internals/lyrictext
> 
> From the above page:
> The font size, compared to the ‘normal’ size. 0 is style-sheet’s normal
> size, -1 is smaller, +1 is bigger. Each step of 1 is approximately 12%
> larger; 6 steps are exactly a factor 2 larger. Fractional values are
> allowed.

I don't know what is the reason for this (apparent?) contradiction
between the default value of 1.0 above this paragraph and the 'normal'
size 0.

But lyrics seem to have a default font-size of 1.0.

> But that is not what I'm getting.
> I tried this:
> \layout { Lyrics.LyricText.font-size = #-1 }
> That reduced the lyrics font size to less than half of the default size, by
> the looks of it.

It is really only by the looks of it! 1 - 6 = -5 is half the size and it
looks tiny. But if you measure it, you will see that it is indeed half
the size.

> Next I tried this:
> \layout { Lyrics.LyricText.font-size = #-0.2 }
> I estimate that gave me about 3/4 of the default font size.

Or rather 87% (my optical impression is more like your estimate).

> So I can sort of dial it in by trial and error, but of course it would be
> great to know the exact formula.

The factor with respect to the default font size is (1 is the default
font-size here, other objects have other default sizes, defined in
scm/define-grobs.scm):

factor = 2^((font-size-1)/6)


Cheers,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Lyrics.LyricText.font-size in layout block

[David Kastrup]

Colin Tennyson  writes:

> From the above page:
> The font size, compared to the ‘normal’ size. 0 is style-sheet’s normal
> size, -1 is smaller, +1 is bigger. Each step of 1 is approximately 12%
> larger; 6 steps are exactly a factor 2 larger. Fractional values are
> allowed. 
>
>
> But that is not what I'm getting.
> I tried this:
> \layout { Lyrics.LyricText.font-size = #-1 }

Unlikely.


Parsing.../usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.44/scm/lily.scm:1089:21: In procedure 
ly:parse-file in expression (ly:parse-file file-name):
/usr/local/share/lilypond/2.19.44/scm/lily.scm:1089:21: Wrong type (expecting 
pair): #

(interesting error message, by the way).

> That reduced the lyrics font size to less than half of the default size, by
> the looks of it.

Your minimal example does not contain any lyrics.

> Next I tried this:
> \layout { Lyrics.LyricText.font-size = #-0.2 }
> I estimate that gave me about 3/4 of the default font size.

I estimate this gives pretty much the same error as above.

> So I can sort of dial it in by trial and error, but of course it would be
> great to know the exact formula.

Let's start with a working minimal example and go from there.  The
font-size formula is, indeed, 2**(font-size/6) as stated.  You claim to
be seeing something else but without an actual example it is impossible
to check what is going wrong.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Lyrics.LyricText.font-size in layout block

[tisimst]

Colin,

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Colin Tennyson [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n192840...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> I was looking for a way to change the font size of the lyrics in choir
> music
>
> Looking around I came across a page describing a command 'fontsize' for
> use in markup sections
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/font
>
> On this page it is described that many font properties can be accessed via
> \override followed by dot notation
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/using-variables-for-layout-adjustments
> Example:
> \override Lyrics.LyricText.font-shape = #'italic
>
>
> H, I figured it would be worth a shot to try a font size override in
> the layout block
> first I tried:
> \layout { Lyrics.LyricText.fontsize = #-1 }
> that gave an error, so I tried the other one:
> \layout { Lyrics.LyricText.font-size = #-1 }
> Bingo!
>
> My question is:
> Is there documentation of what number I should give to get a particular
> decrease or increase in font size?
>
> There is this page:
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/internals/lyrictext
>
> From the above page:
> The font size, compared to the ‘normal’ size. 0 is style-sheet’s normal
> size, -1 is smaller, +1 is bigger. Each step of 1 is approximately 12%
> larger; 6 steps are exactly a factor 2 larger. Fractional values are
> allowed.
>
>
> But that is not what I'm getting.
> I tried this:
> \layout { Lyrics.LyricText.font-size = #-1 }
> That reduced the lyrics font size to less than half of the default size,
> by the looks of it.
>
> Next I tried this:
> \layout { Lyrics.LyricText.font-size = #-0.2 }
> I estimate that gave me about 3/4 of the default font size.
>
>
> So I can sort of dial it in by trial and error, but of course it would be
> great to know the exact formula.
>

The formula isn't obvious beyond the "each step of 1 is approximately 12%
larger", but it's not too complicated either. There are two other things,
though. The "normal" size of 0 is 12pt when the staff size is 20pt (as
defined in the add-pango-fonts function in scm/font.scm). However, the
default font-size for LyricText is NOT 0, it's 1, as explained in the
respective Internals Reference page you pointed to. So, the real default
size of LyricText is 14pt. Here would be the "exact formula":

Given
- standard staff-height (20pt)
- normal text size (12pt)
- real staff-height (x)
- chosen font-size (y)

Then the final pt size is calculated to be:

real-lyric-font-size = x*(1+y/6)*(12/20)

Thus, at a real staff-height of 20 and font-size of 0, we get 11pt. At a
font-size of 1, we get 14pt. At a staff-height of 18pt and a font-size of 1
we get 12.6pt.

HTH,
Abraham

P.S. Here is a recent thread that has code for allowing you to specify an
absolute pt size (e.g., regardless of staff-height) instead of the relative
12% increments:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/can-baseline-skip-be-absolute-tp177131p177134.html




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Lyrics-LyricText-font-size-in-layout-block-tp192840p192844.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: Slur over single note?

[Hans Åberg]

> On 19 Jul 2016, at 22:10, Joel C. Salomon  wrote:
> 
> On 2016-07-19 2:37 PM, Urs Liska wrote:

>> Mind sending that (privately if you want) or a download link?
> 
> The file is “39087011212125score.pdf” from
> , the piece “The Flying Away”, pages
> 12–14 in the PDF file (displayed page numbers 10–12); alternatively you
> can find the same file at
> .

The full book is available at 
  https://archive.org/details/musictojmbarrie00barrgoog



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Lyrics.LyricText.font-size in layout block

[Colin Tennyson]

I was looking for a way to change the font size of the lyrics in choir music

Looking around I came across a page describing a command 'fontsize' for use
in markup sections
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/font

On this page it is described that many font properties can be accessed via
\override followed by dot notation
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/using-variables-for-layout-adjustments
Example:
\override Lyrics.LyricText.font-shape = #'italic


H, I figured it would be worth a shot to try a font size override in the
layout block
first I tried:
\layout { Lyrics.LyricText.fontsize = #-1 }
that gave an error, so I tried the other one:
\layout { Lyrics.LyricText.font-size = #-1 }
Bingo!

My question is:
Is there documentation of what number I should give to get a particular
decrease or increase in font size?

There is this page:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/internals/lyrictext

From the above page:
The font size, compared to the ‘normal’ size. 0 is style-sheet’s normal
size, -1 is smaller, +1 is bigger. Each step of 1 is approximately 12%
larger; 6 steps are exactly a factor 2 larger. Fractional values are
allowed. 


But that is not what I'm getting.
I tried this:
\layout { Lyrics.LyricText.font-size = #-1 }
That reduced the lyrics font size to less than half of the default size, by
the looks of it.

Next I tried this:
\layout { Lyrics.LyricText.font-size = #-0.2 }
I estimate that gave me about 3/4 of the default font size.


So I can sort of dial it in by trial and error, but of course it would be
great to know the exact formula.



Colin Tennyson



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Lyrics-LyricText-font-size-in-layout-block-tp192840.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

Simultaneous accidental breaks cross-staff stem

[Joel C. Salomon]

>From “Arrival of the Wolves”: an accidental in the upper Staff’s
voiceOne shifts a chord in its voiceTwo so it no longer aligns with the
corresponding note in the lower Staff, yielding the attached result.
Minimized example:

\version "2.19"
\language "english"

global = {
\key e \minor
\time 2/4
}

upper = \relative c'' {
\clef treble
\global

<< { \voiceOne
b8[ as  b   c]  |
} \new Voice { \voiceTwo
\autoBeamOff
\crossStaff {
  q   q   q   |
}
\autoBeamOn
} >> \oneVoice
}

lower = \relative c' {
\clef bass
\global

b8[ b   b   b]  |
}

\score {
\new PianoStaff
<<
\new Staff = "upper" \upper
\new Staff = "lower" \lower
>>
\layout {
\context {
\PianoStaff
\consists #Span_stem_engraver
}
}
}

—Joel
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slur over single note?

[Joel C. Salomon]

On 2016-07-19 2:37 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
> I'm 98% sure that's an engraving error of some kind that may
> be resolved by analogy. I'd have to see the full score ...
> 
> Mind sending that (privately if you want) or a download link?

The file is “39087011212125score.pdf” from
, the piece “The Flying Away”, pages
12–14 in the PDF file (displayed page numbers 10–12); alternatively you
can find the same file at
.

—Joel

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slur over single note?

[David Wright]

On Tue 19 Jul 2016 at 18:58:36 (+0200), Urs Liska wrote:
> Am 19. Juli 2016 18:11:14 MESZ, schrieb "Joel C. Salomon" 
> :
> >On 2016-07-19 2:45 AM, tisimst wrote:
> >> It could be a LaissezVibrer tie, but I'm wondering if there isn't a
> >> connection to the next bar. The tie extends so far and touches the
> >> BarLine at the end of that measure that makes me wonder, but it's
> >only
> >> speculation at this point. Given the ending tip's vertical position,
> >> too, it almost looks like it could be a slur. What does the next bar
> >> look like?
> >
> >The next bar doesn’t have any partial ties or slurs.  
> 
> But is there an a or any other note that could reasonably be tied or slurred 
> to in the next measure?
> 
> From my experience as editor this really looks like a broken tie or slur 
> where the engraver forgot to supply the second part. This happens extremely 
> often.
> 
> Best would be an image of the next system.

Attached. Every bar in the piece looks like the other three bars,
except for two cadences at which beat 4 is a crochet in the bass.
So IMHO it's to make sure the note is sustained right through the
bar, as this movement lacks any pedalling. A tie here wouldn't make
sense in the context.

As I said in the other subthread, not being a pianist, I don't know
which hand plays the quavers in the upper staff and whether that has
implications for sustaining the note.

Cheers,
David.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: 17th century English kbd ornaments

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Thanks, just downloaded, I'll take a close look.
Cheers,
Pierre

2016-07-19 19:31 GMT+02:00 Mark Stephen Mrotek :

> Pierre,
>
>
>
> Arnold Dolmetsch in his *The Interpretation of the Music of the 17th and
> 18th Centuries*, provides a list of “signs” with examples of execution.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> *From:* lilypond-user [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=
> ca.rr@gnu.org] *On Behalf Of *Pierre Perol-Schneider
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:06 AM
> *To:* Andrew Bernard 
> *Cc:* Michael Rivers ; lilypond-user <
> lilypond-user@gnu.org>
> *Subject:* Re: 17th century English kbd ornaments
>
>
>
> BTW, I found this : http://home.insightbb.com/~cratonkiwi/music/orn3.jpg
>
> Are these glyphs and explanation accurate?
>
> (Actually, the example taken to draw my glyph was:
> http://imslp.nl/imglnks/usimg/c/c7/IMSLP351896-PMLP568401-Purcell_CorantZ644.pdf
> )
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pierre
>
>
>
> 2016-07-19 9:49 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider <
> pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com>:
>
> Or even:
>
> shake =
> -\tweak stencil #(lambda (grob)(grob-interpret-markup grob
> purcell-shake-glyph))
> \trill
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pierre
>
>
>
> 2016-07-19 9:44 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider <
> pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Interesting question.
>
> I'm not familiar with Purcell's work but what I found on IMSLP was that
> this shake is used as (e.g.) a trill.
>
> So how about :
>
> \version "2.19.45"
>
> purcell-shake-glyph =
> \markup\stencil
>   #(make-path-stencil
>  '(M -0.20  0.05 L  1.55  0.51 M -0.31  0.43 L  1.45  0.90)
>  0.17 1 1 #f)
>
> shake =
> #(define-event-function () ()
>#{
>  -\tweak stencil #(lambda (grob)(grob-interpret-markup grob
> purcell-shake-glyph))
>  \trill #})
>
> %% Test:
> {
>   a'\shake
> }
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pierre
>
>
>
> 2016-07-19 2:34 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard :
>
> Hi Pierre,
>
>
>
> Wouldn’t it be better to do these are actual ornaments instead of just
> markup? I say this because there is a page on the lilyond blog regarding
> this, but it is only partially complete. If we did them as ornaments the
> possibility would arise of being able to use them to set English Virginal
> Music which uses the slash and double slash, through the stem, extensively
> - although as folks have noted, nobody really knows what they mean.
>
>
>
> Since I am a harpsichord player I am one day going to do all the many
> varieties of the French keyboard ornaments, a rich and flowering garden, so
> I  have just now taken an interest in this thread.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slur over single note?

[Urs Liska]

Am 19. Juli 2016 20:02:10 MESZ, schrieb David Wright 
:
>On Tue 19 Jul 2016 at 18:58:36 (+0200), Urs Liska wrote:
>> Am 19. Juli 2016 18:11:14 MESZ, schrieb "Joel C. Salomon"
>:
>> >On 2016-07-19 2:45 AM, tisimst wrote:
>> >> It could be a LaissezVibrer tie, but I'm wondering if there isn't
>a
>> >> connection to the next bar. The tie extends so far and touches the
>> >> BarLine at the end of that measure that makes me wonder, but it's
>> >only
>> >> speculation at this point. Given the ending tip's vertical
>position,
>> >> too, it almost looks like it could be a slur. What does the next
>bar
>> >> look like?
>> >
>> >The next bar doesn’t have any partial ties or slurs.  
>> 
>> But is there an a or any other note that could reasonably be tied or
>slurred to in the next measure?
>> 
>> From my experience as editor this really looks like a broken tie or
>slur where the engraver forgot to supply the second part. This happens
>extremely often.
>> 
>> Best would be an image of the next system.
>
>Attached. Every bar in the piece looks like the other three bars,
>except for two cadences at which beat 4 is a crochet in the bass.
>So IMHO it's to make sure the note is sustained right through the
>bar, as this movement lacks any pedalling. A tie here wouldn't make
>sense in the context.

Interestingly senseless, indeed.
I'm 98% sure that's an engraving error of some kind that may be resolved by 
analogy. I'd have to see the full score ...

Mind sending that (privately if you want) or a download link?

Urs
>
>As I said in the other subthread, not being a pianist, I don't know
>which hand plays the quavers in the upper staff and whether that has
>implications for sustaining the note.
>
>Cheers,
>David.

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: 17th century English kbd ornaments

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

Pierre,

 

Arnold Dolmetsch in his The Interpretation of the Music of the 17th and 18th 
Centuries, provides a list of “signs” with examples of execution.

 

Mark

 

From: lilypond-user [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] 
On Behalf Of Pierre Perol-Schneider
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:06 AM
To: Andrew Bernard 
Cc: Michael Rivers ; lilypond-user 

Subject: Re: 17th century English kbd ornaments

 

BTW, I found this : http://home.insightbb.com/~cratonkiwi/music/orn3.jpg

Are these glyphs and explanation accurate?

(Actually, the example taken to draw my glyph was: 
http://imslp.nl/imglnks/usimg/c/c7/IMSLP351896-PMLP568401-Purcell_CorantZ644.pdf)

Cheers,

Pierre

 

2016-07-19 9:49 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider 
 >:

Or even:

shake = 
-\tweak stencil #(lambda (grob)(grob-interpret-markup grob purcell-shake-glyph))
\trill

Cheers,

Pierre

 

2016-07-19 9:44 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider 
 >:

Hi Andrew,

Interesting question.

I'm not familiar with Purcell's work but what I found on IMSLP was that this 
shake is used as (e.g.) a trill.

So how about :

\version "2.19.45"

purcell-shake-glyph = 
\markup\stencil 
  #(make-path-stencil
 '(M -0.20  0.05 L  1.55  0.51 M -0.31  0.43 L  1.45  0.90)
 0.17 1 1 #f)
 
shake =
#(define-event-function () ()
   #{ 
 -\tweak stencil #(lambda (grob)(grob-interpret-markup grob 
purcell-shake-glyph))
 \trill #})

%% Test:
{
  a'\shake
}

Cheers,

Pierre

 

2016-07-19 2:34 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard  >:

Hi Pierre,

 

Wouldn’t it be better to do these are actual ornaments instead of just markup? 
I say this because there is a page on the lilyond blog regarding this, but it 
is only partially complete. If we did them as ornaments the possibility would 
arise of being able to use them to set English Virginal Music which uses the 
slash and double slash, through the stem, extensively - although as folks have 
noted, nobody really knows what they mean.

 

Since I am a harpsichord player I am one day going to do all the many varieties 
of the French keyboard ornaments, a rich and flowering garden, so I  have just 
now taken an interest in this thread.

 

Andrew

 

 

 

 

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slur over single note?

[Urs Liska]

Am 19. Juli 2016 18:11:14 MESZ, schrieb "Joel C. Salomon" 
:
>On 2016-07-19 2:45 AM, tisimst wrote:
>> It could be a LaissezVibrer tie, but I'm wondering if there isn't a
>> connection to the next bar. The tie extends so far and touches the
>> BarLine at the end of that measure that makes me wonder, but it's
>only
>> speculation at this point. Given the ending tip's vertical position,
>> too, it almost looks like it could be a slur. What does the next bar
>> look like?
>
>The next bar doesn’t have any partial ties or slurs.  

But is there an a or any other note that could reasonably be tied or slurred to 
in the next measure?

From my experience as editor this really looks like a broken tie or slur where 
the engraver forgot to supply the second part. This happens extremely often.

Best would be an image of the next system.

Urs 

>Other scores in
>the same book do have indications of ties continued across line-breaks,
>so I’m reasonable sure this was not accidentally omitted here.
>
>Experimenting with the `\extendLV` function verifies Robin Bannister’s
>original caveats:
>
>> You could however make it _look_ longer, but then
>> - you have to guess how much
>> - it may collide with something.
>
>so while `\laissezVibrer` is cleaner code, I think I’ll stick with my
>
>#(define afterGraceFraction (cons 1 1))
>\afterGrace a1( {s32)}
>
>hack.
>
>Thank you all,
>—Joel C. Salomon
>
>___
>lilypond-user mailing list
>lilypond-user@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slurs within & across \repeat tremolo

[Joel C. Salomon]

On 2016-07-19 6:21 AM, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> Here, it’s important that the slurs don’t need to be directly appended
> to the notes, they only have to be at the right timestep. Empty chords,
> parallel music expressions and once again the nice \after function can
> be used for the following neat version:
> ( { \after 4.. ) \music } means: After 4.. duration, insert a
> slur-closing event into \music.)

> %\unfoldRepeats
> { <>( \repeat tremolo 4 { f16 d }   \after 4.. ) \repeat tremolo 4 { f d } }

That’s really clever and works perfectly; thank you!

—Joel

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slur over single note?

[Joel C. Salomon]

On 2016-07-19 2:45 AM, tisimst wrote:
> It could be a LaissezVibrer tie, but I'm wondering if there isn't a
> connection to the next bar. The tie extends so far and touches the
> BarLine at the end of that measure that makes me wonder, but it's only
> speculation at this point. Given the ending tip's vertical position,
> too, it almost looks like it could be a slur. What does the next bar
> look like?

The next bar doesn’t have any partial ties or slurs.  Other scores in
the same book do have indications of ties continued across line-breaks,
so I’m reasonable sure this was not accidentally omitted here.

Experimenting with the `\extendLV` function verifies Robin Bannister’s
original caveats:

> You could however make it _look_ longer, but then
> - you have to guess how much
> - it may collide with something.

so while `\laissezVibrer` is cleaner code, I think I’ll stick with my

#(define afterGraceFraction (cons 1 1))
\afterGrace a1( {s32)}

hack.

Thank you all,
—Joel C. Salomon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slurs within & across \repeat tremolo

[David Wright]

On Tue 19 Jul 2016 at 12:21:39 (+0200), Simon Albrecht wrote:
> On 19.07.2016 06:07, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
[...]
> > a16( gs a gsa gsa gs\repeat tremolo 4 { a gs) } 
> > | \kluge |
> > \voiceOne
> > \repeat tremolo 4 { f( d }  \repeat tremolo 4 { f d) }  
> > | \kluge |
[...]

> As a side note: It’s considered bad practice to have tabs in
> LilyPond source code.

I'm afraid you're confusing two issues here. People can add any sort
of whitespace that LP will accept into their LP source code.
I think it ought to allow a greater selection too.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-05/msg00307.html

OTOH the developers may choose to enforce a programming style for
*program* code that's accepted into the official tree, and the same
for the various subsidiary projects. That's no different from the
Linux Kernel, GNU, Python, etc.

There is a thread involving the main developers which starts at
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-04/msg00076.html
but it's tedious to follow it to the bitter end, and there may be
more recent discussions/guidelines.

Personally, I avoid tabs myself except in human-only files, mainly
because of the side-effects in python code where indentation is
significant to the parser. But that's just me.

As a side-side note, maybe the slur is the equivalent of the
"Vaughan Williams quaver". RVW would tie to a quaver in the next
bar, but here there's a chord in the way (which also means that
here it's not a tie). It may just emphasise that the note must
be sustained. Not being a pianist, I don't know which hand plays
the quavers in the upper staff.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slur over single note?

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Abraham,

I don’t think it is actually a laissezvibrer tie, I am only suggesting that
because that is a way to do it in lilypond, which does not have single
sided slurs, as I call them, built in.

OP: here is the code to extend a laissezviber tie to ‘fake out’ a long
indication like this on a single note. I use it a lot in the music I work
with - not al all uncommon  in contemporary scores.

http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=715

Andrew



On 19 July 2016 at 4:46:11 PM, tisimst (tisimst.lilyp...@gmail.com) wrote:

It could be a LaissezVibrer tie, but I'm wondering if there isn't a
connection to the next bar.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Defining a function that passes contents between braces to a markup

[David Kastrup]

Mojca Miklavec  writes:

> Dear David,
>
> On 16 July 2016 at 09:31, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Mojca Miklavec writes:
>>>
>>> I've learnt some basics of scheme and managed to write some simple
>>> functions, but I'm unable to figure out how to write a function that
>>> would take all the contents between braces as an argument and return a
>>> markup.
>>>
>>> I would be grateful even if I get just the simplified version
>>> working, so that
>>>
>>> \A {}
>>>
>>> would be translated into
>>>
>>> \markup { \small \override #'(direction . 1) { \dir-column {  } } }
>>
>> Well, first thing to note is that scheme/music functions do not switch
>> modes for their arguments.  So you either need to write something like
>>
>> \A \markup 
>>
>> here to get something in markup mode, or be in lyrics mode (which
>> interprets  as lyrics), \A should be a markup command and are
>> already in markup mode, like \markup \A  .
>>
>>> I would use this markup as part of the lyrics as in
>>>
>>> \lyricsto "melody" {
>>> \A {foo bar}
>>> \A {three short lines}
>>> \A {one}
>>> }
>>
>> Ah, we are in lyrics mode already.  That simplifies things.  Your
>> arguments will then be of type ly:music? and you'll pick off the
>> respective markup from the 'text field of the lyrics.
>
> I'm no more confused than I was before :(

Well, let's put this in perspective.  I've been throwing stuff at you
without the slightest attempt of toning it down to beginners' level,
basically expecting you to ask back where required.  I cannot remember
any list newcomer ingest stuff at that rate and level and pump out new
iterations.  Either our documentation has improved a lot over time or
you are just good at picking stuff up and secondguessing system design.
Knowing your background, it's likely more of the latter.

So to come back to your question/confusion: a nice debugging tool is
preceding a music expression with \displayMusic.

> How could I simplify the input in attachment?
>
>>> In a slightly more advanced version it would be nice to be able to type
>>>
>>> \lyricsto "melody" {
>>>   % \command { array of values }
>>>   %each entry can have an optional "-"
>>>   \A {A1-1}
>>>   \A {A1-1 C2-2}
>>>   \A {A1-1 C2-2 E2-3}
>>>   \A {C2 E2-3}
>>>   \A {E2}
>>> }

Now let's just make \A equal to \displayMusic and see where this gets
us (also, let's call \displayMusic on the finished expression):

A = #displayMusic

\displayMusic
 \lyricsto "melody" {
   % \command { array of values }
   %each entry can have an optional "-"
   \A {A1-1}
   \A {A1-1 C2-2}
   \A {A1-1 C2-2 E2-3}
   \A {C2 E2-3}
   \A {E2}
 }

-*- mode: compilation; default-directory: "/tmp/" -*-
Compilation started at Tue Jul 19 14:17:07

lilypond /tmp/mo.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.19.44
Processing `/tmp/mo.ly'
Parsing...
(make-music
  'SequentialMusic
  'elements
  (list (make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "A"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 0))
(make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "-"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 0


(make-music
  'SequentialMusic
  'elements
  (list (make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "A"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 0))
(make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "-"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 0))
(make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "C"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 1))
(make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "-"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 1


/tmp/mo.ly:9:25: error: not a duration
   \A {A1-1 C2-2 E2-
3}

(make-music
  'SequentialMusic
  'elements
  (list (make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "A"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 0))
(make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "-"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 0))
(make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "C"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 1))
(make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "-"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 1))
(make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "E"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 1))
(make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "-"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 0

/tmp/mo.ly:10:18: error: not a duration
   \A {C2 E2-
 3}

(make-music
  'SequentialMusic
  'elements
  (list (make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "C"
  'duration
  (ly:make-duration 1))
(make-music
  'LyricEvent
  'text
  "E"
  'duration

Re: Defining a function that passes contents between braces to a markup

[Mojca Miklavec]

Dear David,

On 16 July 2016 at 09:31, David Kastrup wrote:
> Mojca Miklavec writes:
>>
>> I've learnt some basics of scheme and managed to write some simple
>> functions, but I'm unable to figure out how to write a function that
>> would take all the contents between braces as an argument and return a
>> markup.
>>
>> I would be grateful even if I get just the simplified version working, so 
>> that
>>
>> \A {}
>>
>> would be translated into
>>
>> \markup { \small \override #'(direction . 1) { \dir-column {  } } }
>
> Well, first thing to note is that scheme/music functions do not switch
> modes for their arguments.  So you either need to write something like
>
> \A \markup 
>
> here to get something in markup mode, or be in lyrics mode (which
> interprets  as lyrics), \A should be a markup command and are
> already in markup mode, like \markup \A  .
>
>> I would use this markup as part of the lyrics as in
>>
>> \lyricsto "melody" {
>> \A {foo bar}
>> \A {three short lines}
>> \A {one}
>> }
>
> Ah, we are in lyrics mode already.  That simplifies things.  Your
> arguments will then be of type ly:music? and you'll pick off the
> respective markup from the 'text field of the lyrics.

I'm no more confused than I was before :(

How could I simplify the input in attachment?

>> In a slightly more advanced version it would be nice to be able to type
>>
>> \lyricsto "melody" {
>>   % \command { array of values }
>>   %each entry can have an optional "-"
>>   \A {A1-1}
>>   \A {A1-1 C2-2}
>>   \A {A1-1 C2-2 E2-3}
>>   \A {C2 E2-3}
>>   \A {E2}
>> }
>
> Lyrics mode does not really take text scripts I think.  All of A1-1 will
> likely end up one lyrics syllable.
>
>> So far I came up with a function definition
>>
>> M = #(define-scheme-function (parser location aFinger aButton) (markup? 
>> markup?)
>>   #{ \markup{ \small \bold \with-color #(rgb-color 0.5 0 0) #aFinger
>> \small \with-color #(rgb-color 0 0 0.5) #aButton } #}
>> )
>> that can handle input like
>> \M "1" "A1"
>> and then I would enter multiple lines of lyrics, but this is tedious
>> to write, even more so when the number of lines varies from one pitch
>> to the other.
>
> Strings are the most simple form of markup, but I guess that pretty much
> everything else needs to be explicitly preceded by \markup.  You could
> work here with an optional finger argument as a number:
>
> M =
> #(define-scheme-function (parser location aFinger aButton) ((number?) markup?)
>(if afinger
>#{ \markup{ \small \bold \with-color #(rgb-color 0.5 0 0) #aFinger
>\small \with-color #(rgb-color 0 0 0.5) #aButton } #}
>;; #{ \markup whatever you want here when no finger is given #}
>))
>
> which can handle then both
> \M 1 "A1"
> as well as
> \M "A1"

This doesn't seem to work properly. The number is always treated as
the second argument (markup). See the attachment.

Thank you,
Mojca


function-to-type-multiline-markup-above-scores.ly
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: 17th century English kbd ornaments

[Richard Shann]

On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 12:08 +0200, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> On 19.07.2016 09:56, Richard Shann wrote:
> >> If we did them as
> >> ornaments the possibility would arise of being able to use them to set
> >> English Virginal Music which uses the slash and double slash,
> > those behave rather differently from ornaments, being as you say,
> > through the stem.
> >> through the stem, extensively - although as folks have noted, nobody
> >> really knows what they mean.
> 
> How would placing them on the stem make them substantially different 
> from other ornaments?

well, as I understand it, ornaments have a direction ^, _ and - in
LilyPond syntax, whereas the slashes don't.
> 
> > You may like to look at Denemo's output, as it has a claveciniste menu
> > for French ornaments - it also generates coulés which, again, do not
> > have the normal attributes of ornaments, so you could get an idea of the
> > syntax needed for those too.
> 
> Again, the only difference to other ornaments is the placement, so I 
> don’t quite understand what you mean. Surely (implementation aside) { 
> a\coule } would be perfectly sensible syntax?

A coulé is a pair of lines placed on the line/space between two notes a
third apart. I don't recall the details, but the implementation (which
someone posted here) treats them as notes.

Richard



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Vertical clash of contents

[Simon Albrecht]

On 19.07.2016 11:17, Mojca Miklavec wrote:

I would really like all the buttons / fingers to be aligned
vertically, otherwise it looks horrible (I can post the example
again). But if someone can show me how to tweak the fingerings
properly to satisfy my needs, I'll gladly use those instead.

I don't think this will work according to your desires, namely providing
a semi-independently readable rendering of the button sequences.
"\\-" = #(define-event-function (m) (markup?)
#{ \tweak text \markup \normal-text #m -1 #})
\relative c' {   }

Thank you very much for the snippet and for teaching me a new
technique. This is in fact exactly the kind of input I would prefer to
make (at least until I find a way to translate between buttons and
pitches automatically).

But from what I understand one would have to extend lilypond's
functionality to vertically align that text.


Namely one would have to create a FingeringLineSpanner in analogy to 
DynamicLineSpanner.


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slurs within & across \repeat tremolo

[Simon Albrecht]

On 19.07.2016 06:07, Joel C. Salomon wrote:

At

is my current effort toward recreating the original score, but I’m
having trouble with the opening bars (image attached).

I can imitate the _look_ of the score simply enough:

a16( gs a gsa gsa gs\repeat tremolo 4 { a gs) } | 
\kluge |
\voiceOne
\repeat tremolo 4 { f( d }  \repeat tremolo 4 { f d) }  | 
\kluge |

and so on (see the file for details on the `\kluge`; not related to this
question), but as `\unfoldRepeats` (e.g., for MIDI generation)
indicates, the slur is actually terminated the first time the
close-parenthesis is expanded; the effect is that of

 a( ba  ba  ba  bc  d)   c  dc  dc  d

when it “ought” to be

 a( ba  ba  ba  bc  dc  dc  dc  d)

instead.


Here, it’s important that the slurs don’t need to be directly appended 
to the notes, they only have to be at the right timestep. Empty chords, 
parallel music expressions and once again the nice \after function can 
be used for the following neat version:
( { \after 4.. ) \music } means: After 4.. duration, insert a 
slur-closing event into \music.)


%
\version "2.19.25" % and higher
% Thanks to David K. for the inspiration!
after =
#(define-music-function (t e m) (ly:duration? ly:music? ly:music?)
   #{
 \context Bottom <<
   #m
   { \skip $t <> -\tweak extra-spacing-width #empty-interval $e }
 >>
   #})

%\unfoldRepeats
{ <>( \repeat tremolo 4 { f16 d }   \after 4.. ) \repeat tremolo 4 { f d } }


As a side note: It’s considered bad practice to have tabs in LilyPond 
source code.


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: 17th century English kbd ornaments

[Simon Albrecht]

On 19.07.2016 09:56, Richard Shann wrote:

If we did them as
ornaments the possibility would arise of being able to use them to set
English Virginal Music which uses the slash and double slash,

those behave rather differently from ornaments, being as you say,
through the stem.

through the stem, extensively - although as folks have noted, nobody
really knows what they mean.


How would placing them on the stem make them substantially different 
from other ornaments?



You may like to look at Denemo's output, as it has a claveciniste menu
for French ornaments - it also generates coulés which, again, do not
have the normal attributes of ornaments, so you could get an idea of the
syntax needed for those too.


Again, the only difference to other ornaments is the placement, so I 
don’t quite understand what you mean. Surely (implementation aside) { 
a\coule } would be perfectly sensible syntax?


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Vertical clash of contents

[Mojca Miklavec]

On 18 July 2016 at 14:55, David Kastrup wrote:
> Mojca Miklavec writes:
>
>> I also totally agree that the fingerings are *the most sensible* place
>> where this information should be entered. (Placing the information
>> inside the lyrics is "kind-of horrible" idea, but I don't know how to
>> achieve the desired layout if I start from fingerings.)
>
> I thought that what made you go to lyrics etc was alignment: having
> everything appear at one height.

Indeed.

>> I would really like all the buttons / fingers to be aligned
>> vertically, otherwise it looks horrible (I can post the example
>> again). But if someone can show me how to tweak the fingerings
>> properly to satisfy my needs, I'll gladly use those instead.
>
> I don't think this will work according to your desires, namely providing
> a semi-independently readable rendering of the button sequences.

> "\\-" = #(define-event-function (m) (markup?)
> #{ \tweak text \markup \normal-text #m -1 #})
>
> \relative c' {   }

Thank you very much for the snippet and for teaching me a new
technique. This is in fact exactly the kind of input I would prefer to
make (at least until I find a way to translate between buttons and
pitches automatically).

But from what I understand one would have to extend lilypond's
functionality to vertically align that text.

Mojca

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Behaviour of \paper and \layout in ly:book-process

[Urs Liska]

Am 18.07.2016 um 19:19 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska  writes:
>
>> Am 18.07.2016 um 13:46 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>
>>> The defaultpaper argument of ly:book-process is only consulted when the
>>> book argument does not already have a paper block of its own, and every
>>> \book block takes the global \paper block when nothing else is given.
>> Thank you for the hint.
>>
>>> If you really want to pass the paper block in yourself during
>>> ly:book-process (rather than incorporating it in the \book explicitly),
>> No, I didn't do that intentionally but was misled by the fact that I
>> have to supply that default-paper and -layout arguments.
> Well, I wrote:
>
>>> If that sounds like I have any clue about how the hierarchy of books
>>> and bookparts is supposed to work, that would be misleading.  That's
>>> basically just a report on what some code does.  Why one would want
>>> it to do that, I have no idea.
> and indeed I did not have any clue about this difference until you
> popped the question and I looked into the code for the answer.  I don't
> think that there is any reasonable other way to discover that.

All the more thank you for looking into this.
Through that I also managed to make the \layout block work now.

As said I have a Scheme function producing the \score block. And when I
apply the \layout block directly within that function's \score block it
seems to be respected.

Somewhat strange though that I *need* to put these two empty expressions
in ly:process-book.

Best
Urs

>
> And I could not really write useful documentation for this since I fail
> to understand the underlying design.
>
> The commits are
>
> commit e9b10d6b0e1549a3d3d9ca81c63e1b2d9b431910
> Merge: 3dbfeb1 c45e558
> Author: Nicolas Sceaux 
> Date:   Sun Nov 16 23:32:33 2008 +0100
>
> Book parts: \bookpart implementation
> 
> Book parts aim at splitting a book into several parts, in order to be
> able to use eg. different page breaking functions, or to make the page
> breaking problem less difficult and more likely to finish.
> 
> - Book and Paper_book instances respectively are nestable: children
>   book or paper_book are added to the bookparts_ slot;
> 
> - the paper_ slot of a child Book (or Book_paper) is created empty,
>   and has its parent set to the paper object of the parent Book (or
>   Paper_book), so that default paper properties are got from the
>   higher level paper object, and child objects only store part-wide
>   overrides. This way, we ensure that fonts are loaded in the higher
>   level paper object, so that the output framework can get all the
>   loaded fonts from the top level book;
> 
> - a Paper_book::top_paper() method is added to access the higher level
>   paper object, to access properties that are book-wide, for instance
>   the table used to store labels and page numbers;
> 
> - in the parser, \bookpart blocks are introduced, which can be used at
>   toplevel, or inside a \book block. It can contain the same things as
>   \book blocks (except \bookpart blocks, though that would be
>   possible). The associated handlers are added.
> 
> - in header and footer markups, the following predicates can be used
>   to determine if a page is the first or the last one in a book part:
>   part-first-page, part-last-page.
>
> commit dbefd4b8d0249c6a739d09118f3e0a71001c1c52
> Author: Nicolas Sceaux 
> Date:   Sat Aug 23 18:34:30 2008 +0200
>
> Book parts: nestable book parts
> 
> - Book and Paper_book instances respectively are nestable: children
>   book or paper_book are added to the bookparts_ slot;
> 
> - the paper_ slot of a child Book (or Book_paper) is created empty,
>   and has its parent set to the paper object of the parent Book (or
>   Paper_book), so that default paper properties are got from the
>   higher level paper object, and child objects only store part-wide
>   overrides. This way, we ensure that fonts are loaded in the higher
>   level paper object, so that the output framework can get all the
>   loaded fonts from the top level book;
> 
> - a Paper_book::top_paper() method is added to access the higher level
>   paper object, to access properties that are book-wide, for instance
>   the table used to store labels and page numbers;
> 
> - in the parser, \bookpart blocks are introduced, which can be used at
>   toplevel, or inside a \book block. It can contain the same things as
>   \book blocks (except \bookpart blocks, though that would be
>   possible). The associated handlers are added.
>
>


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: 17th century English kbd ornaments

[Richard Shann]

On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 05:34 +0500, Andrew Bernard wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be better to do these are actual ornaments instead of just
> markup? I say this because there is a page on the lilyond blog
> regarding this, but it is only partially complete. If we did them as
> ornaments the possibility would arise of being able to use them to set
> English Virginal Music which uses the slash and double slash,

those behave rather differently from ornaments, being as you say,
through the stem.

>  through the stem, extensively - although as folks have noted, nobody
> really knows what they mean.
> 
> 
> Since I am a harpsichord player I am one day going to do all the many
> varieties of the French keyboard ornaments, a rich and flowering
> garden, so I  have just now taken an interest in this thread.

You may like to look at Denemo's output, as it has a claveciniste menu
for French ornaments - it also generates coulès which, again, do not
have the normal attributes of ornaments, so you could get an idea of the
syntax needed for those too.

Richard
> 
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> ___
> 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: 17th century English kbd ornaments

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

BTW, I found this : http://home.insightbb.com/~cratonkiwi/music/orn3.jpg
Are these glyphs and explanation accurate?
(Actually, the example taken to draw my glyph was:
http://imslp.nl/imglnks/usimg/c/c7/IMSLP351896-PMLP568401-Purcell_CorantZ644.pdf
)

Cheers,
Pierre

2016-07-19 9:49 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider <
pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com>:

> Or even:
>
> shake =
> -\tweak stencil #(lambda (grob)(grob-interpret-markup grob
> purcell-shake-glyph))
> \trill
>
> Cheers,
> Pierre
>
> 2016-07-19 9:44 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider <
> pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Interesting question.
>> I'm not familiar with Purcell's work but what I found on IMSLP was that
>> this shake is used as (e.g.) a trill.
>> So how about :
>>
>> \version "2.19.45"
>>
>> purcell-shake-glyph =
>> \markup\stencil
>>   #(make-path-stencil
>>  '(M -0.20  0.05 L  1.55  0.51 M -0.31  0.43 L  1.45  0.90)
>>  0.17 1 1 #f)
>>
>> shake =
>> #(define-event-function () ()
>>#{
>>  -\tweak stencil #(lambda (grob)(grob-interpret-markup grob
>> purcell-shake-glyph))
>>  \trill #})
>>
>> %% Test:
>> {
>>   a'\shake
>> }
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>> 2016-07-19 2:34 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard :
>>
>>> Hi Pierre,
>>>
>>> Wouldn’t it be better to do these are actual ornaments instead of just
>>> markup? I say this because there is a page on the lilyond blog regarding
>>> this, but it is only partially complete. If we did them as ornaments the
>>> possibility would arise of being able to use them to set English Virginal
>>> Music which uses the slash and double slash, through the stem, extensively
>>> - although as folks have noted, nobody really knows what they mean.
>>>
>>> Since I am a harpsichord player I am one day going to do all the many
>>> varieties of the French keyboard ornaments, a rich and flowering garden, so
>>> I  have just now taken an interest in this thread.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: 17th century English kbd ornaments

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Hi Andrew,

Interesting question.
I'm not familiar with Purcell's work but what I found on IMSLP was that
this shake is used as (e.g.) a trill.
So how about :

\version "2.19.45"

purcell-shake-glyph =
\markup\stencil
  #(make-path-stencil
 '(M -0.20  0.05 L  1.55  0.51 M -0.31  0.43 L  1.45  0.90)
 0.17 1 1 #f)

shake =
#(define-event-function () ()
   #{
 -\tweak stencil #(lambda (grob)(grob-interpret-markup grob
purcell-shake-glyph))
 \trill #})

%% Test:
{
  a'\shake
}

Cheers,
Pierre


2016-07-19 2:34 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard :

> Hi Pierre,
>
> Wouldn’t it be better to do these are actual ornaments instead of just
> markup? I say this because there is a page on the lilyond blog regarding
> this, but it is only partially complete. If we did them as ornaments the
> possibility would arise of being able to use them to set English Virginal
> Music which uses the slash and double slash, through the stem, extensively
> - although as folks have noted, nobody really knows what they mean.
>
> Since I am a harpsichord player I am one day going to do all the many
> varieties of the French keyboard ornaments, a rich and flowering garden, so
> I  have just now taken an interest in this thread.
>
> Andrew
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: 17th century English kbd ornaments

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Or even:

shake =
-\tweak stencil #(lambda (grob)(grob-interpret-markup grob
purcell-shake-glyph))
\trill

Cheers,
Pierre

2016-07-19 9:44 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider <
pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> Interesting question.
> I'm not familiar with Purcell's work but what I found on IMSLP was that
> this shake is used as (e.g.) a trill.
> So how about :
>
> \version "2.19.45"
>
> purcell-shake-glyph =
> \markup\stencil
>   #(make-path-stencil
>  '(M -0.20  0.05 L  1.55  0.51 M -0.31  0.43 L  1.45  0.90)
>  0.17 1 1 #f)
>
> shake =
> #(define-event-function () ()
>#{
>  -\tweak stencil #(lambda (grob)(grob-interpret-markup grob
> purcell-shake-glyph))
>  \trill #})
>
> %% Test:
> {
>   a'\shake
> }
>
> Cheers,
> Pierre
>
>
> 2016-07-19 2:34 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard :
>
>> Hi Pierre,
>>
>> Wouldn’t it be better to do these are actual ornaments instead of just
>> markup? I say this because there is a page on the lilyond blog regarding
>> this, but it is only partially complete. If we did them as ornaments the
>> possibility would arise of being able to use them to set English Virginal
>> Music which uses the slash and double slash, through the stem, extensively
>> - although as folks have noted, nobody really knows what they mean.
>>
>> Since I am a harpsichord player I am one day going to do all the many
>> varieties of the French keyboard ornaments, a rich and flowering garden, so
>> I  have just now taken an interest in this thread.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Slur over single note?

[tisimst]

On Monday, July 18, 2016, Andrew Bernard [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n192810...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> Hi Joel
>
> Use a laissezvibrer tie. I have a function to extend them, Away from the
> computer right now. Will send later. Can't remember if it is on LSR.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Tuesday, 19 July 2016, Joel C. Salomon <[hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
>> Still from the John Crook’s Peter Pan score project, but a different
>> piece (“The Flying Away”, page 12 in the score at
>> ):
>>
>> As show in the attached image, there seems to be a slur drawn over a
>> single whole-note.  It’s very clearly over that note, not over the other
>> voice in that measure—which doesn’t seem reasonable to me.
>>
>> Can someone explain to me what’s going on there, and how to achieve this
>> in LilyPond?  I was thinking to use something like
>>
>> \graceAfter a1(  { s32) }
>>
>> but if this is a semi-standard musical construction I’m unfamiliar with,
>> there might be a better way to code this.
>>
>> —Joel C. Salomon
>
> It could be a LaissezVibrer tie, but I'm wondering if there isn't a
connection to the next bar. The tie extends so far and touches the BarLine
at the end of that measure that makes me wonder, but it's only speculation
at this point. Given the ending tip's vertical position, too, it almost
looks like it could be a slur. What does the next bar look like?

--
Abraham Lee




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Slurs-within-across-repeat-tremolo-tp192808p192811.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