Re: Understanding how \tag works in \relative pitched music

[David Wright]

On Sun 06 Aug 2017 at 22:51:57 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote:
> David Wright  writes:
> 
> > (\fixed could have been implemented differently, ie without
> > collapsing the meaning of c' through b' as its first argument.
> > This might make it more useful for parts having a limited range
> > centered close to c.)
> 
> How so?  The reason we collapsed the meaning is that we had several
> different opinions of what the natural behavior of \fixed f' should be
> "obviously", so we punted by choosing behavior that did not provide
> (possibly shortlived) usefulness for anything rather than c'''.

As an example, some hymn tunes have alto parts of very limited range,
barely a few notes. However, those notes frequently lie around middle C
which means that both \fixed c and \fixed c' will have many octavation
marks, either "'" or ",". However, were \fixed g { … } to mean that
unmarked notes lie in the absolute range g through f', the number of
marks required would be drastically reduced, which is how I was measuring
usefulness. (I have no idea whether this methodology was one of the
"obvious natural behaviours" that were considered and passed over.)

> > Anyway, would the people who like \absolute please be a little less
> > evangelical about it.
> 
> Uh, where is the point?  This is a discussion group.

Yes, but there seem to be occasional postings where the opinions
come across as attempts at conversion rather than mere discussion. I
didn't want to be specific, but perhaps it's necessary for you—eg,
"There are many, many other reasons I'm glad I switched to absolute
(and \fixed), but this was a main one. You might consider doing the same?"

> > Some of us are happy using \relative, and understand how it interacts
> > (or, more usually, doesn't) with other constructions in LP. It's odd
> > that one of your main reasons for abandoning \relative was merely a
> > misunderstanding of what it does, but I think that that could partly
> > be blamed on its documentation. \relative's treatment of accidentals
> > merits bold typeface in the LM; perhaps its existence as an immediate
> > _input_ method could be similarly emphasised where appropriate.
> 
> \relative is a tool for expressing input.  As such, it should offer
> significant clarity with regard to one aspect of input.

And it succeeds in at least two for me. I've already mentioned one,
the treatment of intervals across b-c. Another is preventing LP code
looking like fly-shit language (cf Leaning Toothpick Syndrome).

> It doesn't do
> that impressively when communicating with other programs, so its main
> incentive is communication with humans.  When humans are confused about
> what it does, it fails on one of the core tenets of its justification.

That argument fails because not all humans are the same. The humans
that are confused are those that don't seem to learn/understand/
retain your sentence "\relative is a tool for expressing input."

> So its advantages are not without drawbacks, and people weighing in on
> how those affect them respectively are making for a clearer picture.

I'd be interested to know whether you agree with "the unpredictability
of \relative with \tag". I don't see it (as I expressed earlier), but
would value your opinion as you've probably forgotten more about LP
than I ever knew.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Allow dynamic + span bar line collision

[Jay Anderson]

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Jay Anderson  wrote:

> I believe the default behavior in this case used to be for the dynamics to
> collide with the bar line. These days it is creating a bit more space for
> the dynamic. That's the right behavior in most cases, but not the one
> below. How do I allow the collision in this case and let the 'sempre' hang
> to the left over the bar line? I haven't figured out the right override to
> let this happen yet. Thanks.
>
> Example:
> =
> \version "2.19.63"
>
> sempreFF = #(let ((dynamic (make-dynamic-script #{ \markup { \whiteout {
> \normal-text \italic sempre \dynamic ff }} #})))
>  (ly:music-set-property! dynamic 'tweaks (acons 'X-offset -8.5
> (ly:music-property dynamic 'tweaks)))
>  (ly:music-set-property! dynamic 'tweaks (acons
> 'self-alignment-X LEFT (ly:music-property dynamic 'tweaks)))
>  dynamic)
>
> % Looks good
> \score {
>   \new Staff {
> c4 c c c |
> c\sempreFF c c c |
>   }
> }
>
> % creates empty space
> \score {
>   \new GrandStaff <<
> \new Staff {
>   c4 c c c |
>   c\sempreFF c c c |
> }
> \new Staff {
>   c4 c c c |
>   c\sempreFF c c c |
> }
>   >>
> }
> =
>
> -Jay
>


sempreFF = #(let ((dynamic (make-dynamic-script #{ \markup { \whiteout {
\normal-text \italic sempre \dynamic ff }} #})))
 (ly:music-set-property! dynamic 'tweaks (acons 'X-offset -8.5
(ly:music-property dynamic 'tweaks)))
 (ly:music-set-property! dynamic 'tweaks (acons
'self-alignment-X LEFT (ly:music-property dynamic 'tweaks)))
 (ly:music-set-property! dynamic 'tweaks (acons
'extra-spacing-width '(7.5 . 0) (ly:music-property dynamic 'tweaks)))
 dynamic)

extra-spacing-width with a carefully chosen value seems to be one way to
make it happen. This is good enough for what I'm doing right now. I'm still
interested in a more general solution.

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

Allow dynamic + span bar line collision

[Jay Anderson]

I believe the default behavior in this case used to be for the dynamics to
collide with the bar line. These days it is creating a bit more space for
the dynamic. That's the right behavior in most cases, but not the one
below. How do I allow the collision in this case and let the 'sempre' hang
to the left over the bar line? I haven't figured out the right override to
let this happen yet. Thanks.

Example:
=
\version "2.19.63"

sempreFF = #(let ((dynamic (make-dynamic-script #{ \markup { \whiteout {
\normal-text \italic sempre \dynamic ff }} #})))
 (ly:music-set-property! dynamic 'tweaks (acons 'X-offset -8.5
(ly:music-property dynamic 'tweaks)))
 (ly:music-set-property! dynamic 'tweaks (acons
'self-alignment-X LEFT (ly:music-property dynamic 'tweaks)))
 dynamic)

% Looks good
\score {
  \new Staff {
c4 c c c |
c\sempreFF c c c |
  }
}

% creates empty space
\score {
  \new GrandStaff <<
\new Staff {
  c4 c c c |
  c\sempreFF c c c |
}
\new Staff {
  c4 c c c |
  c\sempreFF c c c |
}
  >>
}
=

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

Re: making parts : specific number of measures per line?

[Brian Barker]

At 19:00 06/08/2017 -0400, Molly Preston wrote:
Ok I've been messing with this and I realize that where I have s1*13 
at m.86 it seems to print out 15 measures instead and doesn't 
generate an error. It prints out 12 measures on one line at m.98. I 
don't understand how it's counting?


\version "2.18.2"
layoutContent = {
\repeat unfold 11 { s1*6 \break } %m1-66
s1*8 \break | %m67-74
s1*11 \break | %m75-85
s1*13 \break | %m86-97
s1*15 \break | %m98
}
fluteMusic = {
  g4 r r2 | %m86
  R1* 5 | %m87-91
  r2 r\fermata | %m92
  \bar "||"
  \key c\major
  \time 3/4
  R2.*4 ^"Presto" | %m93-96
  g,2.~ \ff | %m97
}
\score {
\new Staff <<
\new Voice {
\compressFullBarRests
\fluteMusic
}
\new Voice {
\layoutContent
}
>>
}


o 85+13 is 98, not 97.
o As provided, your fluteMusic starts at bar 1, not bar 86.
o s1 has the length of a semibreve ("whole note"), not a full bar 
("measure") - so after your time signature change to 3/4, each s1 
lasts longer than a bar. So s1*13 needs to be s1*7 | s2.*6 to account 
for the change to 3/4.


(Er, I suggested privately that your problem might be a change to the 
time signature, but you denied you had one!)


Brian Barker  



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

Re: making parts : specific number of measures per line?

[Molly Preston]

Ok I've been messing with this and I realize that where I have s1*13 at
m.86 it seems to print out 15 measures instead and doesn't generate an
error. It prints out 12 measures on one line at m.98.

I don't understand how it's counting?

\version "2.18.2"
layoutContent = {
\repeat unfold 11 { s1 *6 \break } %m1-66
s1* 8 \break| %m67-74
s1*11 \break | %m75-85
 s1*13 \break | %m86-97

s1* 15 \break | %m98

 }


fluteMusic = {
  g4 r r2 | %m86
R1* 5  | %m87-91

   r2 r\fermata  | %m92
\bar "||"

\key c\major
\time 3/4
R2. *4 ^"Presto" | %m93-96

g,2.~ \ff | %m97
}


\score {
\new Staff <<
\new Voice {
\compressFullBarRests
\fluteMusic
}

\new Voice {
\layoutContent
}
>>


}




On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Morley 
wrote:

> 2017-08-06 18:27 GMT+02:00 Molly Preston :
> > I don't get any barcheck problems in the flute part. I see it now... I
> think
> > it's the multimeasure rests.
> >
> > Is there another way to do this so I don't have to alter all my
> multimeasure
> > rests?
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 12:18 PM, David Wright  >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun 06 Aug 2017 at 11:36:50 (-0400), Molly Preston wrote:
> >> > Hi again everyone,
> >> > I am trying the following for making 6 measures per line in the flute
> >> > part.
> >> >
> >> > layoutContent = {
> >> >
> >> >  s1 *6 \break
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > \score {
> >> > \new Staff <<
> >> >\new Voice {
> >> > \fluteMusic
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > \new Voice  {
> >> > \repeat unfold 20 { \layoutContent }
> >> >}
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > If i use the repeat unfold command I get an error that states
> >> >
> >> > warning: forced break was overridden by some other event, should you
> be
> >> > using bar checks?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What events override a forced break?
> >>
> >> "Events, dear boy, events." … perhaps in \fluteMusic.
> >>
> >> Are you using bar checks? Do they give no errors?
> >> Does a note duration cross a barline?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> David.
>
> You should research the reason for the warning.
> Notes crossing a barline is only one possibility, non-breakable
> glissandi another one, probably more.
>
> \repeat unfold 20 {  s1 *6 \break }
> compiles fine at its own, so there _must_ be something in fluteMusic
> preventing the linebreak.
> Without knowing fluteMusic nobody can say more.
>
> Cheers,
>   Harm
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Understanding how \tag works in \relative pitched music

[David Kastrup]

David Wright  writes:

> (\fixed could have been implemented differently, ie without
> collapsing the meaning of c' through b' as its first argument.
> This might make it more useful for parts having a limited range
> centered close to c.)

How so?  The reason we collapsed the meaning is that we had several
different opinions of what the natural behavior of \fixed f' should be
"obviously", so we punted by choosing behavior that did not provide
(possibly shortlived) usefulness for anything rather than c'''.

> Anyway, would the people who like \absolute please be a little less
> evangelical about it.

Uh, where is the point?  This is a discussion group.

> Some of us are happy using \relative, and understand how it interacts
> (or, more usually, doesn't) with other constructions in LP. It's odd
> that one of your main reasons for abandoning \relative was merely a
> misunderstanding of what it does, but I think that that could partly
> be blamed on its documentation. \relative's treatment of accidentals
> merits bold typeface in the LM; perhaps its existence as an immediate
> _input_ method could be similarly emphasised where appropriate.

\relative is a tool for expressing input.  As such, it should offer
significant clarity with regard to one aspect of input.  It doesn't do
that impressively when communicating with other programs, so its main
incentive is communication with humans.  When humans are confused about
what it does, it fails on one of the core tenets of its justification.

So its advantages are not without drawbacks, and people weighing in on
how those affect them respectively are making for a clearer picture.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: making parts : specific number of measures per line?

[Thomas Morley]

2017-08-06 18:27 GMT+02:00 Molly Preston :
> I don't get any barcheck problems in the flute part. I see it now... I think
> it's the multimeasure rests.
>
> Is there another way to do this so I don't have to alter all my multimeasure
> rests?
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 12:18 PM, David Wright 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun 06 Aug 2017 at 11:36:50 (-0400), Molly Preston wrote:
>> > Hi again everyone,
>> > I am trying the following for making 6 measures per line in the flute
>> > part.
>> >
>> > layoutContent = {
>> >
>> >  s1 *6 \break
>> > }
>> >
>> > \score {
>> > \new Staff <<
>> >\new Voice {
>> > \fluteMusic
>> > }
>> >
>> > \new Voice  {
>> > \repeat unfold 20 { \layoutContent }
>> >}
>> > >>
>> >
>> > }
>> >
>> > If i use the repeat unfold command I get an error that states
>> >
>> > warning: forced break was overridden by some other event, should you be
>> > using bar checks?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > What events override a forced break?
>>
>> "Events, dear boy, events." … perhaps in \fluteMusic.
>>
>> Are you using bar checks? Do they give no errors?
>> Does a note duration cross a barline?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David.

You should research the reason for the warning.
Notes crossing a barline is only one possibility, non-breakable
glissandi another one, probably more.

\repeat unfold 20 {  s1 *6 \break }
compiles fine at its own, so there _must_ be something in fluteMusic
preventing the linebreak.
Without knowing fluteMusic nobody can say more.

Cheers,
  Harm

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

Re: making parts : specific number of measures per line?

[Molly Preston]

I don't get any barcheck problems in the flute part. I see it now... I
think it's the multimeasure rests.

Is there another way to do this so I don't have to alter all my
multimeasure rests?

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 12:18 PM, David Wright 
wrote:

> On Sun 06 Aug 2017 at 11:36:50 (-0400), Molly Preston wrote:
> > Hi again everyone,
> > I am trying the following for making 6 measures per line in the flute
> part.
> >
> > layoutContent = {
> >
> >  s1 *6 \break
> > }
> >
> > \score {
> > \new Staff <<
> >\new Voice {
> > \fluteMusic
> > }
> >
> > \new Voice  {
> > \repeat unfold 20 { \layoutContent }
> >}
> > >>
> >
> > }
> >
> > If i use the repeat unfold command I get an error that states
> >
> > warning: forced break was overridden by some other event, should you be
> > using bar checks?
> >
> >
> >
> > What events override a forced break?
>
> "Events, dear boy, events." … perhaps in \fluteMusic.
>
> Are you using bar checks? Do they give no errors?
> Does a note duration cross a barline?
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: making parts : specific number of measures per line?

[David Wright]

On Sun 06 Aug 2017 at 11:36:50 (-0400), Molly Preston wrote:
> Hi again everyone,
> I am trying the following for making 6 measures per line in the flute part.
> 
> layoutContent = {
> 
>  s1 *6 \break
> }
> 
> \score {
> \new Staff <<
>\new Voice {
> \fluteMusic
> }
> 
> \new Voice  {
> \repeat unfold 20 { \layoutContent }
>}
> >>
> 
> }
> 
> If i use the repeat unfold command I get an error that states
> 
> warning: forced break was overridden by some other event, should you be
> using bar checks?
> 
> 
> 
> What events override a forced break?

"Events, dear boy, events." … perhaps in \fluteMusic.

Are you using bar checks? Do they give no errors?
Does a note duration cross a barline?

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Understanding how \tag works in \relative pitched music

[David Wright]

On Sat 05 Aug 2017 at 09:07:48 (-0400), Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > Huh, can't say I've heard of \fixed.
> 
> It may have been a relatively [ha!] recent addition…?
> See 
>  

AFAICT \fixed is not in 2.18.2 but is in 2.19 versions and their NMs.
However, its only appearance in Changes (New Features) seems to be its
use without introduction on the first page.

> > And yeah, absolute mode is a lot easier than relative. If I want to 
> > duplicate a measure, I prefer just duplicating it instead of having to 
> > adjust the octave.
> 
> Agreed. And including variables in multiple scores is immediate, etc.

Well, it doesn't surprise me that you, as a composer, are happier
using \absolute. The situation is quite different for transcribers
of melodic music. The only places where \absolute is useful to me
is with fragmentary parts, generally in the odd keyboard transriptions
or reductions forced on me. (I didn't quite understand your use
of "immediate" above.)

\fixed makes me realise why, as a singer, both \fixed and \absolute
don't fit with my way of thinking about pitch: they are both
"octave-centric". IOW they treat the pitch change from b to c' (in
all octaves) as special, whereas to me they're just two notes that
happen to be next to each other, like e and f. Whether this is also
influenced by possession of perfect pitch (which I don't have), I
don't know.

(\fixed could have been implemented differently, ie without
collapsing the meaning of c' through b' as its first argument.
This might make it more useful for parts having a limited range
centered close to c.)

Anyway, would the people who like \absolute please be a little less
evangelical about it. Some of us are happy using \relative, and
understand how it interacts (or, more usually, doesn't) with other
constructions in LP. It's odd that one of your main reasons for
abandoning \relative was merely a misunderstanding of what it
does, but I think that that could partly be blamed on its
documentation. \relative's treatment of accidentals merits bold
typeface in the LM; perhaps its existence as an immediate _input_
method could be similarly emphasised where appropriate.

Cheers,
David.

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

making parts : specific number of measures per line?

[Molly Preston]

Hi again everyone,
I am trying the following for making 6 measures per line in the flute part.

layoutContent = {

 s1 *6 \break
}

\score {
\new Staff <<
   \new Voice {
\fluteMusic
}

\new Voice  {
\repeat unfold 20 { \layoutContent }
   }
>>

}

If i use the repeat unfold command I get an error that states

warning: forced break was overridden by some other event, should you be
using bar checks?



What events override a forced break?


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

Re: Understanding how \tag works in \relative pitched music

[David Kastrup]

caag...@gmail.com writes:

> Huh, can't say I've heard of \fixed. I always use \transpose c c'',
> which seems to have the same effect. It looks stupid in the code,
> though.

The effect is not the same.

\transpose c c'' \absolute ...

is the same as

\transpose c c'' ...

while

\fixed c'' \absolute ...

is the same as

\transpose c c ...

since \fixed, like \relative and \absolute, does not affect music that
has already been turned into absolute in some manner.

This may be quite relevant when working with music variables.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: \RemoveEmptyStaves for drums?

[Abraham Lee]

Hi, Molly!

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Kieren MacMillan <
kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>
> > However I can't seem to get it to \RemoveEmptyStaves for the \DrumStaff.
> This is what I tried.
> >
> > \layout {
> > \context {
> > \Staff
> > \RemoveEmptyStaves
> > \DrumStaff
> > \RemoveEmptyStaves
> >   }
>
> To be honest, I'm not even sure *what* that would do…   =\
>
> Here's what I just tried, and it seems to work:
>
>   SNIPPET BEGINS
> \version "2.19"
>
> \layout {
>   \context {
> \DrumStaff
> \RemoveAllEmptyStaves
>   }
> }
>

The problem you ran into is that you were combining things that shouldn't
have been. In other words, \Staff and \DrumStaff need to be in their own
\context block, as Kieren hinted at. More fully, this should work for you:

\layout {
  \context {
\Staff
\RemoveEmptyStaves
  }
  \context {
\DrumStaff
\RemoveEmptyStaves
  }
}

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