Re: Section repeat

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Hans Åberg  wrote:

>
> > Comparing yesterday's version (2 and 4 separate) and A (2&4 together),
> > I'd maintain that A describes the music more faithfully, and is
> > actually easier to read: when you reach 15 on the 4th-time through,
> > you've not only played all the measures involved, but you only have
> > to vault over one volta bracket, not two.
>

The counterpoint to this insight is that with the combined ending, players
must read the same symbol (the end repeat barline) and interpret it
differently different times--the first time they encounter it (2nd ending),
take the repeat, and the second time they encounter it (4th ending), they
ignore it.

Especially since there are more than 2 repeats, and this occurrence is
separated by a 3rd ending, you can introduce more work to the musicians to
remember where they are and what to do when they get to that measure.

With the separate endings, there is less confusion about the roadmap.

So, I think there are benefits and drawbacks to each approach.



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: Section repeat

[Hans Åberg]

> On 3 Feb 2017, at 21:51, David Wright  wrote:
> 
> On Fri 03 Feb 2017 at 20:23:07 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
>> 
>> FYI, here are two versions with the repeat combined fro visual comarison. In 
>> the first, there is a terminating repeat sign, in the second none.
> 
> Well, the second version (B) is just plain wrong, isn't it.

Indeed. I tried that first, but immediately went for something better.

> Comparing yesterday's version (2 and 4 separate) and A (2&4 together),
> I'd maintain that A describes the music more faithfully, and is
> actually easier to read: when you reach 15 on the 4th-time through,
> you've not only played all the measures involved, but you only have
> to vault over one volta bracket, not two.

It is logically wrong, because the last note, even though the same, belongs to 
different sections. So I decided to keep them separate.





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

Re: Section repeat

[David Wright]

On Fri 03 Feb 2017 at 20:23:07 (+0100), Hans Åberg wrote:
> 
> > On 3 Feb 2017, at 19:02, Flaming Hakama by Elaine 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > in that 2 needs a repeat barline at the end of the measures,
> > > you need one alternative each.
> > 
> > Eh? Are you telling me that I can't write the first rendition
> > any more because, in the second, only 1 needs a repeat barline
> > at the end of the measure, and 2 *mustn't* have one?
> > 
> > 
> > I was suggesting what I thought was the clearest approach.
> > I didn't mean to imply that you could not combine them.
> >  
> > IOW what you seem to be saying is that writing ":|." at the
> > end of a measure means that under no circumstances should you
> > continue past that barline to the next measure—so my first
> > rendition generates an infinite loop.
> > 
> > I can see how you might infer that from my suggestion.
> > However, that it not my claim.
> > 
> > I agree that there is nothing musically wrong with combining 2 & 4 into one 
> > alternative. 
> > 
> > Mostly since this is not a super common repeat pattern, I expect that 
> > combining 2 & 4 into one alternative would raise some eyebrows and require 
> > some clarification in rehearsal, if this is a piece with multiple musicians.
> > 
> > Whereas separating them into two alternatives would make it obvious what 
> > the repeat structure is.
> 
> FYI, here are two versions with the repeat combined fro visual comarison. In 
> the first, there is a terminating repeat sign, in the second none.

Well, the second version (B) is just plain wrong, isn't it.

Comparing yesterday's version (2 and 4 separate) and A (2&4 together),
I'd maintain that A describes the music more faithfully, and is
actually easier to read: when you reach 15 on the 4th-time through,
you've not only played all the measures involved, but you only have
to vault over one volta bracket, not two.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Frescobaldi at GSoC? Call for support

[Jeffery Shivers]

>
> With regard to the org admins there is no room for
> placeholders/switching, I think. Registering as org admin is a
> "permanent" task, so one has to take over *some* responsibility from
> "now" to November. *If* the organization is actually accepted by Google,
> which in the case of Frescobaldi is more than questionable, given our
> small size.


Got it.

The most important point is to do the commitment to - if we're selected
> - stick with it over the year, most of the time having nothing to do but
> ensuring at least one admin is constantly available.


​That sounds just fine. I'm willing/able to take on that responsibility.
Let me know (off list now, I guess) what I need to do or know for now.

Jeffery

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Urs Liska  wrote:

> Hi Jeffery,
>
> Am 03.02.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Jeffery Shivers:
> > I don't feel (and objectively am not) qualified to mentor someone in any
> > capacity really, but if there is anything I can do to help (such as
> > administrative stuff, or otherwise), do let me know. Other than normal
> > job stuff, I don't have any big commitments from now through most of the
> > summer, so it would be a pleasure to assist in any way possible if even
> > just as a temporary placeholder for someone else more qualified to
> > takeover later.
>
> With regard to the org admins there is no room for
> placeholders/switching, I think. Registering as org admin is a
> "permanent" task, so one has to take over *some* responsibility from
> "now" to November. *If* the organization is actually accepted by Google,
> which in the case of Frescobaldi is more than questionable, given our
> small size.
>
> The primary duties of the two org admins (I'm the other one) is to be
> available for both (potential) mentors and Google. I think the org
> admins for large projects such as GNU, who have to shepard countless
> potential mentors, many organizations and eventually >40 active
> projects, have quite some work to do, but with Frescobaldi, where we
> won't have more than two projects in a first year, this should be really
> manageable.
>
> The most important point is to do the commitment to - if we're selected
> - stick with it over the year, most of the time having nothing to do but
> ensuring at least one admin is constantly available.
>
>
> >
> > I hope others out there will speak up as well, even if you're on the
> > fence for whatever reason. GSoC is a rare and generous opportunity to
> > fund awesome developments for a tool we all love so much; it would be
> > great to see more support for LilyPond's participation this year.
>
> Indeed it would be very good for us!
>
> Best
> Urs
>
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Urs Liska  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have to bump this as the deadline is somewhat approaching and I
> need
> > some feedback.
> >
> > We have by now a nice set of project proposals online, but there are
> > some projects without a mentor yet. Basically what is needed is at
> least
> > one more mentor who feels comfortable mentoring someone to work on
> the
> > underlying document representation stuff (the "music tree").
> >
> > But while this is *important* it is absolutely *required* that we
> will
> > have a second organization admin. Without that we can't even apply.
> > Really, this is an opportunity to support Frescobaldi development for
> > those who don't feel able to contribute any code, so please step up
> and
> > volunteer. I don't expect this to be overwhelming with workload,
> please
> > see below in my original post for some more details.
> >
> > Best
> > Urs
> >
> >
> > Am 31.01.2017 um 12:06 schrieb Urs Liska:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > we decided to apply for this year's Google Summer of Code program
> with
> > > Frescobaldi. We don't expect the chances to be accepted very high,
> but
> > > it's probably worth the effort. It would give the chance to get
> more
> > > GSoC slots for the wider LilyPond cause, so it's definitely a good
> > thing.
> > >
> > > In order to complete our application we need a few items *until
> Feb. 9
> > > (next Thursday)*, and I would be very happy to see concrete
> > support from
> > > this community:
> > >
> > > 1)
> > > It is an absolute requisite that we have a second "org admin".
> > > Org admins are responsible for communication between the project
> and
> > > Google. I think both Google and the project will hold them
> > "accountable"
> > > for that. In addition they promise to be available and reliably
> > > responsive over the whole project period (i.e. from now on until
> late
> > > October) (obviously that doesn't rule out any vacancies ...).
> > > Furthermore they'll have to do some paperwork and possibly channel
> > some
> > > money, for example for reimbursing 

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[John Roper]

There is a template system. You setup page templates and Blended inserts
the text from any file into that template.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Urs Liska  wrote:

>
>
> Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> > Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
> >  ha scritto:
> >> OK, I was asking because I have written a static command line HTML
> >> site generator that builds from HTML, Markdown, reStruturedText,
> >> Textile, Plain Text (.txt), and Microsoft Word (.docx).
> >> http://jmroper.com/blended Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
> >> how do you handle translations?
> >
> > Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
> > (as compared to other SSG)
> > I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
> > The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
> > {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
> >
>
> I can't comment on that right now.
>
> > ...
> >
> > Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
> > texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
> > and a simple template system would be wonderful.
> >
>
> +1
>
> Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
> be an option.
> Urs
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>



-- 
John Roper
Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
Boston, MA USA
http://jmroper.com/
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Frescobaldi at GSoC? Call for support

[Urs Liska]

Hi Jeffery,

Am 03.02.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Jeffery Shivers:
> I don't feel (and objectively am not) qualified to mentor someone in any
> capacity really, but if there is anything I can do to help (such as
> administrative stuff, or otherwise), do let me know. Other than normal
> job stuff, I don't have any big commitments from now through most of the
> summer, so it would be a pleasure to assist in any way possible if even
> just as a temporary placeholder for someone else more qualified to
> takeover later.

With regard to the org admins there is no room for
placeholders/switching, I think. Registering as org admin is a
"permanent" task, so one has to take over *some* responsibility from
"now" to November. *If* the organization is actually accepted by Google,
which in the case of Frescobaldi is more than questionable, given our
small size.

The primary duties of the two org admins (I'm the other one) is to be
available for both (potential) mentors and Google. I think the org
admins for large projects such as GNU, who have to shepard countless
potential mentors, many organizations and eventually >40 active
projects, have quite some work to do, but with Frescobaldi, where we
won't have more than two projects in a first year, this should be really
manageable.

The most important point is to do the commitment to - if we're selected
- stick with it over the year, most of the time having nothing to do but
ensuring at least one admin is constantly available.


> 
> I hope others out there will speak up as well, even if you're on the
> fence for whatever reason. GSoC is a rare and generous opportunity to
> fund awesome developments for a tool we all love so much; it would be
> great to see more support for LilyPond's participation this year.

Indeed it would be very good for us!

Best
Urs

> 
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Urs Liska  > wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I have to bump this as the deadline is somewhat approaching and I need
> some feedback.
> 
> We have by now a nice set of project proposals online, but there are
> some projects without a mentor yet. Basically what is needed is at least
> one more mentor who feels comfortable mentoring someone to work on the
> underlying document representation stuff (the "music tree").
> 
> But while this is *important* it is absolutely *required* that we will
> have a second organization admin. Without that we can't even apply.
> Really, this is an opportunity to support Frescobaldi development for
> those who don't feel able to contribute any code, so please step up and
> volunteer. I don't expect this to be overwhelming with workload, please
> see below in my original post for some more details.
> 
> Best
> Urs
> 
> 
> Am 31.01.2017 um 12:06 schrieb Urs Liska:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > we decided to apply for this year's Google Summer of Code program with
> > Frescobaldi. We don't expect the chances to be accepted very high, but
> > it's probably worth the effort. It would give the chance to get more
> > GSoC slots for the wider LilyPond cause, so it's definitely a good
> thing.
> >
> > In order to complete our application we need a few items *until Feb. 9
> > (next Thursday)*, and I would be very happy to see concrete
> support from
> > this community:
> >
> > 1)
> > It is an absolute requisite that we have a second "org admin".
> > Org admins are responsible for communication between the project and
> > Google. I think both Google and the project will hold them
> "accountable"
> > for that. In addition they promise to be available and reliably
> > responsive over the whole project period (i.e. from now on until late
> > October) (obviously that doesn't rule out any vacancies ...).
> > Furthermore they'll have to do some paperwork and possibly channel
> some
> > money, for example for reimbursing mentors going to the mentors'
> summit.
> >
> > This would be an ideal task for someone interested in actively
> > supporting Frescobaldi/LilyPond development who doesn't feel
> capable of
> > doing actual programming. This is a completely administrative task.
> >
> > I can't say how much work it will be, but given the (lack of) size of
> > the organization I can't imagine it's a lot.
> >
> > 2)
> > As part of the application we have to submit a number of potential
> > project mentors who have volunteered. Therefore it is crucial to
> gather
> > that information right now.
> >
> > On
> https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/wiki/Google-Summer-of-Code
>  I've
> > drafted a project idea's list similar to the one on lilypond.org
> . This
> > is very much open for discussion and extension.
> >
>

Re: tocItem as \mark

[Jan-Peter Voigt]

... well, you can remove the mark engraver from the score context and 
place it in voice or staff:


\layout {
  \context {
\Score
\remove "Mark_engraver"
  }
}

\new Staff <<
  \new Voice \with {
\consists "Mark_engraver"
  } \relative { \voiceOne c' d e f \mark \default g a b c }
  \new Voice \new Voice \with {
\consists "Mark_engraver"
  } \relative { \voiceTwo c' d e f \mark "Hello" g a b c }
>>


But then you have to take care, where to place which RehearsalMark.

HTH
Jan-Peter

Am 03.02.2017 um 19:47 schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:

Hi David,

once I created a score with fermata marks and rehearsalmarks at the same
time, but I have to look it up. Now I usually use SimultaneousMusic and
place the TitleMark a very short moment before or behind the barline.

But I will have a look, how I did it and if it still works.

Jan-Peter

Am 03.02.2017 um 19:21 schrieb David Sumbler:

Thanks, that's brilliant, and it will be a very useful template for me
for creating functions in the future.

Since my original post, I had experimented some more and thought I had
succeeded in getting the result I wanted, basically doing what your
function does, but as 2 separate calls.  My solution, of course, was
not nearly so neat as wrapping it all together.

Unfortunately, there is a problem with a couple of the TOC items.
 There is already a fermata Mark over the preceding barline, so I get a
"Two simultaneous mark events, junking this one" warning.  The same
problem, of course, arises with your function which combines the Mark
and the tocItem.  I tried using

allowSimultaneousMarks = { \cadenzaOn \once \omit Score.TimeSignature
\time 1/16 s16 \bar "" \cadenzaOff \once \omit Score.TimeSignature }

which I have found useful in the past, but for some reason it messed up
the vertical alignment of notes in the following bar.

I ended up by doing a rather make-shift thing of putting the titles in
the score as markups using

s1*0^\tweak X-offset #-9 \tweak Y-offset #10 -\markup {
  \fontsize #2 \bold "Title" }

before the first note of the top line of the score, and also in other
parts with a tag so that it only prints in the parts, not the score.

This is rather unsatisfactory, because the offsets need adjusting for
each song and probably also for each part.  Fortunately in this
particular case there is only one other instrument that needs a
separate part.

Can you see a way of combining the titles as a RehearsalMark with a
fermata over the barline?

David

On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 11:32 +0100, Jan-Peter Voigt wrote:

Hi David,

to combine those two commands, you should wrap them in one music-
function:

%
tocMark =
#(define-music-function (mup)(markup?)
#{
  \tocItem $mup
  \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
  \mark $mup
#})

%%% test

\markup \left-column \table-of-contents

\relative {
   bes'4 a c b \tocMark "Part 1"
   bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 2"
   bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 3"
   bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 4"
   bes4 a c b
}
%

That way you can change the appearance of the toc-items and the
rehearsalmarks in one place.

HTH
Jan-Peter


Am 01.02.2017 um 22:03 schrieb David Sumbler:


I want to have a table of contents with the titles of sections of a
piece and the relevant page numbers.

In pieces I have set previously, the title of each movement was
placed
centrally over the first line of the score/part for that
movement.  I
set the variable "piece" in the header for each movement, and
defined
scoreTitleMarkup to get the result I wanted.

The piece I am currently working on is a single score, but with 6
songs
which follow each other more or less continuously.  I want the
title of
each song to appear above the top line of the score at the start of
each song; in most cases this will probably not be at the start of
a
line.

I thought that I could do this by inserting the title as a text
mark,
e.g. \mark \markup { \fontsize #2 \bold "Title of song" }, with an
override to left-align the title.

This works as intended, but if I then put \tocItem before \mark
Lilypond complains that \tocItem has to be followed by markup; if I
put
\tocItem after \mark Lilypond complains that \mark has to be
followed
by markup.

Is there a way this can be made to work?  Or how else might I get
the
desired result?

David


___
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



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

Re: tocItem as \mark

[Jan-Peter Voigt]

Hi David,

once I created a score with fermata marks and rehearsalmarks at the same 
time, but I have to look it up. Now I usually use SimultaneousMusic and 
place the TitleMark a very short moment before or behind the barline.


But I will have a look, how I did it and if it still works.

Jan-Peter

Am 03.02.2017 um 19:21 schrieb David Sumbler:

Thanks, that's brilliant, and it will be a very useful template for me
for creating functions in the future.

Since my original post, I had experimented some more and thought I had
succeeded in getting the result I wanted, basically doing what your
function does, but as 2 separate calls.  My solution, of course, was
not nearly so neat as wrapping it all together.

Unfortunately, there is a problem with a couple of the TOC items.
 There is already a fermata Mark over the preceding barline, so I get a
"Two simultaneous mark events, junking this one" warning.  The same
problem, of course, arises with your function which combines the Mark
and the tocItem.  I tried using

allowSimultaneousMarks = { \cadenzaOn \once \omit Score.TimeSignature
\time 1/16 s16 \bar "" \cadenzaOff \once \omit Score.TimeSignature }

which I have found useful in the past, but for some reason it messed up
the vertical alignment of notes in the following bar.

I ended up by doing a rather make-shift thing of putting the titles in
the score as markups using

s1*0^\tweak X-offset #-9 \tweak Y-offset #10 -\markup {
  \fontsize #2 \bold "Title" }

before the first note of the top line of the score, and also in other
parts with a tag so that it only prints in the parts, not the score.

This is rather unsatisfactory, because the offsets need adjusting for
each song and probably also for each part.  Fortunately in this
particular case there is only one other instrument that needs a
separate part.

Can you see a way of combining the titles as a RehearsalMark with a
fermata over the barline?

David

On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 11:32 +0100, Jan-Peter Voigt wrote:

Hi David,

to combine those two commands, you should wrap them in one music-
function:

%
tocMark =
#(define-music-function (mup)(markup?)
#{
  \tocItem $mup
  \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
  \mark $mup
#})

%%% test

\markup \left-column \table-of-contents

\relative {
   bes'4 a c b \tocMark "Part 1"
   bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 2"
   bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 3"
   bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 4"
   bes4 a c b
}
%

That way you can change the appearance of the toc-items and the
rehearsalmarks in one place.

HTH
Jan-Peter


Am 01.02.2017 um 22:03 schrieb David Sumbler:


I want to have a table of contents with the titles of sections of a
piece and the relevant page numbers.

In pieces I have set previously, the title of each movement was
placed
centrally over the first line of the score/part for that
movement.  I
set the variable "piece" in the header for each movement, and
defined
scoreTitleMarkup to get the result I wanted.

The piece I am currently working on is a single score, but with 6
songs
which follow each other more or less continuously.  I want the
title of
each song to appear above the top line of the score at the start of
each song; in most cases this will probably not be at the start of
a
line.

I thought that I could do this by inserting the title as a text
mark,
e.g. \mark \markup { \fontsize #2 \bold "Title of song" }, with an
override to left-align the title.

This works as intended, but if I then put \tocItem before \mark
Lilypond complains that \tocItem has to be followed by markup; if I
put
\tocItem after \mark Lilypond complains that \mark has to be
followed
by markup.

Is there a way this can be made to work?  Or how else might I get
the
desired result?

David


___
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: tocItem as \mark

[David Sumbler]

Thanks, that's brilliant, and it will be a very useful template for me
for creating functions in the future.

Since my original post, I had experimented some more and thought I had
succeeded in getting the result I wanted, basically doing what your
function does, but as 2 separate calls.  My solution, of course, was
not nearly so neat as wrapping it all together.

Unfortunately, there is a problem with a couple of the TOC items.
 There is already a fermata Mark over the preceding barline, so I get a
"Two simultaneous mark events, junking this one" warning.  The same
problem, of course, arises with your function which combines the Mark
and the tocItem.  I tried using

allowSimultaneousMarks = { \cadenzaOn \once \omit Score.TimeSignature
\time 1/16 s16 \bar "" \cadenzaOff \once \omit Score.TimeSignature }

which I have found useful in the past, but for some reason it messed up
the vertical alignment of notes in the following bar.

I ended up by doing a rather make-shift thing of putting the titles in
the score as markups using

s1*0^\tweak X-offset #-9 \tweak Y-offset #10 -\markup {                
  \fontsize #2 \bold "Title" }

before the first note of the top line of the score, and also in other
parts with a tag so that it only prints in the parts, not the score.

This is rather unsatisfactory, because the offsets need adjusting for
each song and probably also for each part.  Fortunately in this
particular case there is only one other instrument that needs a
separate part.

Can you see a way of combining the titles as a RehearsalMark with a
fermata over the barline?

David

On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 11:32 +0100, Jan-Peter Voigt wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> to combine those two commands, you should wrap them in one music-
> function:
> 
> %
> tocMark =
> #(define-music-function (mup)(markup?)
> #{
>   \tocItem $mup
>   \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
>   \mark $mup
> #})
> 
> %%% test
> 
> \markup \left-column \table-of-contents
> 
> \relative {
>    bes'4 a c b \tocMark "Part 1"
>    bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 2"
>    bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 3"
>    bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 4"
>    bes4 a c b
> }
> %
> 
> That way you can change the appearance of the toc-items and the 
> rehearsalmarks in one place.
> 
> HTH
> Jan-Peter
> 
> 
> Am 01.02.2017 um 22:03 schrieb David Sumbler:
> > 
> > I want to have a table of contents with the titles of sections of a
> > piece and the relevant page numbers.
> > 
> > In pieces I have set previously, the title of each movement was
> > placed
> > centrally over the first line of the score/part for that
> > movement.  I
> > set the variable "piece" in the header for each movement, and
> > defined
> > scoreTitleMarkup to get the result I wanted.
> > 
> > The piece I am currently working on is a single score, but with 6
> > songs
> > which follow each other more or less continuously.  I want the
> > title of
> > each song to appear above the top line of the score at the start of
> > each song; in most cases this will probably not be at the start of
> > a
> > line.
> > 
> > I thought that I could do this by inserting the title as a text
> > mark,
> > e.g. \mark \markup { \fontsize #2 \bold "Title of song" }, with an
> > override to left-align the title.
> > 
> > This works as intended, but if I then put \tocItem before \mark
> > Lilypond complains that \tocItem has to be followed by markup; if I
> > put
> > \tocItem after \mark Lilypond complains that \mark has to be
> > followed
> > by markup.
> > 
> > Is there a way this can be made to work?  Or how else might I get
> > the
> > desired result?
> > 
> > David
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > 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: Section repeat

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

> > in that 2 needs a repeat barline at the end of the measures,
> > you need one alternative each.
>
> Eh? Are you telling me that I can't write the first rendition
> any more because, in the second, only 1 needs a repeat barline
> at the end of the measure, and 2 *mustn't* have one?
>
>
I was suggesting what I thought was the clearest approach.
I didn't mean to imply that you could not combine them.


> IOW what you seem to be saying is that writing ":|." at the
> end of a measure means that under no circumstances should you
> continue past that barline to the next measure—so my first
> rendition generates an infinite loop.
>

I can see how you might infer that from my suggestion.
However, that it not my claim.

I agree that there is nothing musically wrong with combining 2 & 4 into one
alternative.

Mostly since this is not a super common repeat pattern, I expect that
combining 2 & 4 into one alternative would raise some eyebrows and require
some clarification in rehearsal, if this is a piece with multiple musicians.

Whereas separating them into two alternatives would make it obvious what
the repeat structure is.

To me, the time and attention of the musicians reading the music is the
most important resource, and so we should optimize scores for clarity.  If
adding the extra alternative doesn't bust your page turns, etc.  then I
think it is worth the extra measure.


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: Frescobaldi at GSoC? Call for support

[Jeffery Shivers]

I don't feel (and objectively am not) qualified to mentor someone in any
capacity really, but if there is anything I can do to help (such as
administrative stuff, or otherwise), do let me know. Other than normal job
stuff, I don't have any big commitments from now through most of the
summer, so it would be a pleasure to assist in any way possible if even
just as a temporary placeholder for someone else more qualified to takeover
later.

I hope others out there will speak up as well, even if you're on the fence
for whatever reason. GSoC is a rare and generous opportunity to fund
awesome developments for a tool we all love so much; it would be great to
see more support for LilyPond's participation this year.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Urs Liska  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have to bump this as the deadline is somewhat approaching and I need
> some feedback.
>
> We have by now a nice set of project proposals online, but there are
> some projects without a mentor yet. Basically what is needed is at least
> one more mentor who feels comfortable mentoring someone to work on the
> underlying document representation stuff (the "music tree").
>
> But while this is *important* it is absolutely *required* that we will
> have a second organization admin. Without that we can't even apply.
> Really, this is an opportunity to support Frescobaldi development for
> those who don't feel able to contribute any code, so please step up and
> volunteer. I don't expect this to be overwhelming with workload, please
> see below in my original post for some more details.
>
> Best
> Urs
>
>
> Am 31.01.2017 um 12:06 schrieb Urs Liska:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > we decided to apply for this year's Google Summer of Code program with
> > Frescobaldi. We don't expect the chances to be accepted very high, but
> > it's probably worth the effort. It would give the chance to get more
> > GSoC slots for the wider LilyPond cause, so it's definitely a good thing.
> >
> > In order to complete our application we need a few items *until Feb. 9
> > (next Thursday)*, and I would be very happy to see concrete support from
> > this community:
> >
> > 1)
> > It is an absolute requisite that we have a second "org admin".
> > Org admins are responsible for communication between the project and
> > Google. I think both Google and the project will hold them "accountable"
> > for that. In addition they promise to be available and reliably
> > responsive over the whole project period (i.e. from now on until late
> > October) (obviously that doesn't rule out any vacancies ...).
> > Furthermore they'll have to do some paperwork and possibly channel some
> > money, for example for reimbursing mentors going to the mentors' summit.
> >
> > This would be an ideal task for someone interested in actively
> > supporting Frescobaldi/LilyPond development who doesn't feel capable of
> > doing actual programming. This is a completely administrative task.
> >
> > I can't say how much work it will be, but given the (lack of) size of
> > the organization I can't imagine it's a lot.
> >
> > 2)
> > As part of the application we have to submit a number of potential
> > project mentors who have volunteered. Therefore it is crucial to gather
> > that information right now.
> >
> > On https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/wiki/Google-Summer-of-Code I've
> > drafted a project idea's list similar to the one on lilypond.org. This
> > is very much open for discussion and extension.
> >
> > So I ask anyone who can imagine mentoring a student for a Frescobaldi
> > project to have a look at that list, consider the options with the
> > proposed projects, feel free to suggest other projects you may prefer
> > mentoring.
> >
> > From last year's experience I know that it is difficult to get together
> > a team of potential mentors, so *please* take this call seriously and
> > consider joining the effort. Also from last year's experience I can say
> > that mentoring *does* take its time but it's definitely a worthwile
> > thing to do.
> >
> > Best
> > Urs
> >
> >
>
> --
> u...@openlilylib.org
> https://openlilylib.org
> http://lilypondblog.org
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>



-- 

Jeffery Shivers
 jefferyshivers.com
 soundcloud.com/jefferyshivers
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Frescobaldi at GSoC? Call for support

[Urs Liska]

Hi all,

I have to bump this as the deadline is somewhat approaching and I need
some feedback.

We have by now a nice set of project proposals online, but there are
some projects without a mentor yet. Basically what is needed is at least
one more mentor who feels comfortable mentoring someone to work on the
underlying document representation stuff (the "music tree").

But while this is *important* it is absolutely *required* that we will
have a second organization admin. Without that we can't even apply.
Really, this is an opportunity to support Frescobaldi development for
those who don't feel able to contribute any code, so please step up and
volunteer. I don't expect this to be overwhelming with workload, please
see below in my original post for some more details.

Best
Urs


Am 31.01.2017 um 12:06 schrieb Urs Liska:
> Hi all,
>
> we decided to apply for this year's Google Summer of Code program with
> Frescobaldi. We don't expect the chances to be accepted very high, but
> it's probably worth the effort. It would give the chance to get more
> GSoC slots for the wider LilyPond cause, so it's definitely a good thing.
>
> In order to complete our application we need a few items *until Feb. 9
> (next Thursday)*, and I would be very happy to see concrete support from
> this community:
>
> 1)
> It is an absolute requisite that we have a second "org admin".
> Org admins are responsible for communication between the project and
> Google. I think both Google and the project will hold them "accountable"
> for that. In addition they promise to be available and reliably
> responsive over the whole project period (i.e. from now on until late
> October) (obviously that doesn't rule out any vacancies ...).
> Furthermore they'll have to do some paperwork and possibly channel some
> money, for example for reimbursing mentors going to the mentors' summit.
>
> This would be an ideal task for someone interested in actively
> supporting Frescobaldi/LilyPond development who doesn't feel capable of
> doing actual programming. This is a completely administrative task.
>
> I can't say how much work it will be, but given the (lack of) size of
> the organization I can't imagine it's a lot.
>
> 2)
> As part of the application we have to submit a number of potential
> project mentors who have volunteered. Therefore it is crucial to gather
> that information right now.
>
> On https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/wiki/Google-Summer-of-Code I've
> drafted a project idea's list similar to the one on lilypond.org. This
> is very much open for discussion and extension.
>
> So I ask anyone who can imagine mentoring a student for a Frescobaldi
> project to have a look at that list, consider the options with the
> proposed projects, feel free to suggest other projects you may prefer
> mentoring.
>
> From last year's experience I know that it is difficult to get together
> a team of potential mentors, so *please* take this call seriously and
> consider joining the effort. Also from last year's experience I can say
> that mentoring *does* take its time but it's definitely a worthwile
> thing to do.
>
> Best
> Urs
>
>

-- 
u...@openlilylib.org
https://openlilylib.org
http://lilypondblog.org


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

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[Urs Liska]

Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
>  ha scritto:
>> OK, I was asking because I have written a static command line HTML
>> site generator that builds from HTML, Markdown, reStruturedText,
>> Textile, Plain Text (.txt), and Microsoft Word (.docx).
>> http://jmroper.com/blended Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
>> how do you handle translations?
>
> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
> (as compared to other SSG)
> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
>

I can't comment on that right now.

> ...
>
> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
>

+1

Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
be an option.
Urs

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

Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper 
 ha scritto:
OK, I was asking because I have written a static command line HTML 
site generator that builds from HTML, Markdown, reStruturedText, 
Textile, Plain Text (.txt), and Microsoft Word (.docx). 
http://jmroper.com/blended Is that versatile enough for you? Also, 
how do you handle translations?


Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity? (as 
compared to other SSG)

I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using 
{{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?


Website, like the documentation manuals, is translated just by copying 
the original english file in the proper language directory (and of 
course translate it). Then a script (check-translation.py) compares the 
committish in the translated file, written by the translator, with the 
latest committish of the original english file; and shows the 
differences between the two versions, if any. This is explained here:

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/documentation-translation-maintenance

and here:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/translating-the-website

An alternative approach is using gettext and PO files, which is 
probably better because you no longer need a script to keep track of 
changes. And translators active in open source projects already know 
well how it works.


Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from texinfo 
to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files and a 
simple template system would be wonderful.





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

Re: Section repeat

[David Wright]

On Thu 02 Feb 2017 at 13:41:52 (-0800), Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote:
> > When the whole section is repeated when it has alternatives, how is that
> > normally engraved? Specifically, the section has two alternatives, but is
> > repeated in full. One way is to use Score.repeatCommands for alternatives
> > markup "1. 3" resp "2. 4", but then the "2." does not have a repeat. One
> > can of course write four alternatives, but I was looking for something more
> > compact.
> >
> 
> I'd say, in general, you need as many alternatives as there is unique
> material.
> 
> Only 1 & 3 are the same, so you can combine those.
> 2 and 4 differ

In what way? In the OP it said that the music was "repeated in full".
Indeed, in the example, the same notes are present in 2 and 4, just
as the OP promised.

> in that 2 needs a repeat barline at the end of the measures,
> you need one alternative each.

Eh? Are you telling me that I can't write the first rendition
any more because, in the second, only 1 needs a repeat barline
at the end of the measure, and 2 *mustn't* have one?

IOW what you seem to be saying is that writing ":|." at the
end of a measure means that under no circumstances should you
continue past that barline to the next measure—so my first
rendition generates an infinite loop.

> This means three alternatives:
> 1 & 3
> 2
> 4
> 
> Which is to say, I agree with how you did it in the second half of your
> example.

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

Re: New LilyPond website

[John Roper]

OK, I was asking because I have written a static command line HTML site 
generator that builds from HTML, Markdown, reStruturedText, Textile, Plain Text 
(.txt), and Microsoft Word (.docx).

http://jmroper.com/blended

Is that versatile enough for you? Also, how do you handle translations?

On February 3, 2017, at 2:43 AM, Graham Percival  
wrote:

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:31:39PM -0500, John Roper wrote:
>Ok, so what are the major things you would like from a new web redesign
>(not including the docs)?
>I know of:
>Not reliant on JavaScript
>Can be translated
>Can be updated with each new build

There's a few non-negotiable points:
- no server-side processing, no "dynamic" website.  We're using
  a donated shared server.  Anything which increases our resource
  load or opens a security risk is a non-starter.
- can be created automatically from source.  (This is probably
  implied by your "can be updated with each new build" point, but
  better to be clear up-front.)

A few points which are highly encouraged, but which I suppose
could be negotated:
- should be relatively easy for newcomers to update.  Texinfo
  qualifies; I guess that HTML could qualify as long as there's
  a clear separation of content and styling.  Markdown would
  certainly satisfy this point, but I'm not confident that it can
  do everything we'd want.
- work within the existing system.  We have a lot of developers,
  and a lot of history.  There are certainly many ways that our
  processes can be improved, but we generally have reasons why
  things are the way they are.
- last December, I prepared a github repository specifically to
  address the case of somebody wanting to modify the website:
https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-web-css
  One person started working on this, and her first change has
  already been accepted to the LilyPond git repository.
  Unfortunately her progress has stalled a bit due to my health
  and various deadlines on Feb 4, but I hope to pick things up
  next week.

I strongly recommend that you take a look at that repository and
follow the steps outlined there.  As Werner and Urs recommended,
start with one small change -- "evolution, not revolution".  See
what kind of reaction that gets, let it go through the development
process, then repeat.

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

Re: tocItem as \mark

[Jan-Peter Voigt]

Hi David,

to combine those two commands, you should wrap them in one music-function:

%
tocMark =
#(define-music-function (mup)(markup?)
   #{
 \tocItem $mup
 \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
 \mark $mup
   #})

%%% test

\markup \left-column \table-of-contents

\relative {
  bes'4 a c b \tocMark "Part 1"
  bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 2"
  bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 3"
  bes4 a c b \tocMark "Part 4"
  bes4 a c b
}
%

That way you can change the appearance of the toc-items and the 
rehearsalmarks in one place.


HTH
Jan-Peter


Am 01.02.2017 um 22:03 schrieb David Sumbler:

I want to have a table of contents with the titles of sections of a
piece and the relevant page numbers.

In pieces I have set previously, the title of each movement was placed
centrally over the first line of the score/part for that movement.  I
set the variable "piece" in the header for each movement, and defined
scoreTitleMarkup to get the result I wanted.

The piece I am currently working on is a single score, but with 6 songs
which follow each other more or less continuously.  I want the title of
each song to appear above the top line of the score at the start of
each song; in most cases this will probably not be at the start of a
line.

I thought that I could do this by inserting the title as a text mark,
e.g. \mark \markup { \fontsize #2 \bold "Title of song" }, with an
override to left-align the title.

This works as intended, but if I then put \tocItem before \mark
Lilypond complains that \tocItem has to be followed by markup; if I put
\tocItem after \mark Lilypond complains that \mark has to be followed
by markup.

Is there a way this can be made to work?  Or how else might I get the
desired result?

David


___
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