Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Hi Klose,
Here's a possibility (v.2.19) :

%
\version "2.19"

%% Defs:
#(define-markup-command (gClef layout props thk mlt) (number? number?)
  (interpret-markup layout props
   (markup
(#:stencil
 (make-path-stencil
  '(M 1.117 -2.778
C 0.73 -2.782 0.363 -2.364 0.484 -1.981
C 0.566 -1.641 1.043 -1.54 1.285 -1.786
C 1.504 -1.997 1.418 -2.395 1.141 -2.513
C 0.996 -2.567 0.836 -2.583 1.09 -2.614
C 1.379 -2.673 1.703 -2.559 1.828 -2.278
C 1.969 -1.911 1.82 -1.395 1.766 -1.024
C 1.031 -1.169 0.277 -0.903 0.031 -0.196
C -0.129 0.323 -0.043 0.917 0.25 1.366
C 0.492 1.737 0.832 1.999 1.152 2.3
C 1.07 2.886 1 3.468 1.203 4.034
C 1.297 4.292 1.484 4.503 1.68 4.687
C 1.898 4.886 2.117 4.335 2.211 4.062
C 2.398 3.601 2.227 2.839 1.934 2.323
C 1.816 2.105 1.637 1.929 1.457 1.757
C 1.5 1.523 1.539 1.288 1.586 1.054
C 2.117 1.077 2.477 0.792 2.602 0.359
C 2.766 -0.134 2.516 -0.766 1.953 -0.977
C 2.004 -1.423 2.16 -1.927 2.004 -2.313
C 1.902 -2.567 1.656 -2.766 1.379 -2.778
C 1.293 -2.798 1.203 -2.79 1.117 -2.782
M 1.734 -0.919
C 1.621 -0.306 1.574 0.026 1.5 0.464
C 1.164 0.433 0.973 0.066 1.09 -0.22
C 1.141 -0.345 1.223 -0.407 1.359 -0.485
C 1.492 -0.563 1.387 -0.657 1.297 -0.618
C 1.031 -0.509 0.664 -0.188 0.758 0.269
C 0.816 0.569 1.059 0.917 1.398 1.023
C 1.359 1.261 1.332 1.378 1.297 1.612
C 0.887 1.234 0.332 0.753 0.348 0.155
C 0.363 -0.532 0.746 -1.071 1.734 -0.919
M 1.688 0.48
C 1.762 0.105 1.844 -0.509 1.926 -0.88
C 2.656 -0.462 2.438 0.534 1.688 0.48
M 2.016 3.776
C 1.984 4.378 1.691 4.058 1.5 3.706
C 1.313 3.366 1.273 2.894 1.352 2.468
C 1.945 3.066 2.031 3.409 2.016 3.776
Z)
   thk mlt mlt #t)

\layout {
  \context {
\Score
\override Clef.stencil =
  #(lambda (grob)
 (let* ((sz (ly:grob-property grob 'font-size 0.00))
(mlt (magstep sz))
(glyph (ly:grob-property grob 'glyph-name)))
   (cond
((equal? glyph "clefs.G")
 (grob-interpret-markup grob
  (markup #:scale(cons mlt mlt)#:gClef 0 1)))
((equal? glyph "clefs.G_change")
 (grob-interpret-markup grob
  (markup #:scale(cons mlt mlt)#:gClef .01 .8)))
(else (ly:clef::print grob)
 \override ClefModifier.extra-offset = #'(.3 . 0)
  }
}

%% Test:
{ c' }




Cheers,
Pierre

2018-02-08 8:48 GMT+01:00 Jacques Menu Muzhic :

>
>
> > Le 8 févr. 2018 à 07:39, klose  a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Thank you for your reply but it looks like the ink is dead?
>
> Intended pun, given the post subject?
>
> JM
>
>
> ___
> 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: Change the shape of treble clef

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

> Le 8 févr. 2018 à 07:39, klose  a écrit :
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Thank you for your reply but it looks like the ink is dead?

Intended pun, given the post subject?

JM


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

Re: The shape of treble clef

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Hi Klose,

See: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=900
Which shape are you looking for ?

Cheers,
Pierre

2018-02-08 0:46 GMT+01:00 klose :

> Hi, I am a long time Sibelius user and changed to Lilypond recently. The
> only
> thing I don't like so far is the shape of treble clef. Anyways to change
> it?
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
>
> ___
> 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: Change the shape of treble clef

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Klose,

How very peculiar. While replying to you that linked worked just fine (but
I did think it looked somewhat out of date re content). Now going back
there as a result of your email the link is dead. Perhaps some strange web
server caching kicked in a updated the dead link to a notification of that.
I don't think I have ever seen that before.

Meantime Urs has given the up to date link.

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

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[klose]

Thank you but they are not free. Any manuals explaining how to do it by
myself?



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Urs Liska]

Am 8. Februar 2018 07:39:43 MEZ schrieb klose :
>Hi Andrew,
>
>Thank you for your reply but it looks like the ink is dead?
>
>

look at musictypefoundry.com
>
>--
>Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
>
>___
>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: Change the shape of treble clef

[klose]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for your reply but it looks like the ink is dead?



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Shane,

I note very briefly that regarding the design of the Cadence font by
Abraham Leigh he gives this reason:

In Cadence, I took the liberty of adjusting a few of the glyphs to suit my
tastes better. For example, the Emmentaler treble clef is just a little too
stylized for me, almost like it was intended to be a "hand-written" glyph.
Nothing wrong with hand-written, but not very representative of hand-
*engraven*.

https://sites.google.com/site/tisimst/Home/cadence


The Cadence font is intended to reproduce more of an hand punched in metal
engraving look than Emmenmtaler, even though the latter is base don that
concept as well. Cadence extends the details.

Andrew



On 8 February 2018 at 15:40, Shane Brandes  wrote:

>
> What is it you don't like about that glyph? Your not the only person
> who has said as much and I have yet to hear a decent explanation.
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi klose,

Welcome to lilypond. You can change pretty much every single thing in
lilypond, one way or another. It admits of vast flexibility - unparalleled
in fact.

Our colleague here Abraham Lee (tismist) has made some very fine and
eminently usable engraving fonts. You may care to check them out. It used
to be difficult to adapt lilypond to use different fonts, but that is in
the past and it is simple to drop these fonts in.

https://sites.google.com/site/tisimst/lilypond-fonts

The point being, these fonts provide clefs and accidentals as well as
noteheads and so forth.

Apart from using supplied fonts, lilypond also allows custom definitions of
noteheads, which is what I use in my work. My noteheads have a very
specific shape and ellipticity that matches the handwriting of the composer
I work with, and this cannot be found in ready made fonts. I mention this
as an example of how customisable lilypond is in relation to visuals. As
has been mentioned, you can fashion your own clefs as you will, but that's
not entirely straight forward, as it requires internal knowledge of how
lilypond makes and uses fonts - but it can be learned and done.


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

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[klose]

Hi Shane,

You are right, I don't like the glyph of the treble clef. In my opinion, the
long line should be a straight one (like we see in Sibelius and Finale)
instead of a curved one.

Regards 



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Shane Brandes]

See section  in the documentation 3.4.4 Replacing the notation font

What is it you don't like about that glyph? Your not the only person
who has said as much and I have yet to hear a decent explanation.

It would also be possible to edit your own version, but it is sort of
a cumbersome undertaking. That would involve using a font editor and
installing the modified font.

regards,
Shane

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:02 PM, klose  wrote:
> As a long time Sibelius user, I recently changed into Lilypond. So far the
> only thing I don't like is the treble clef shape. Is there any way to change
> it?
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
>
> ___
> 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

Change the shape of treble clef

[klose]

As a long time Sibelius user, I recently changed into Lilypond. So far the
only thing I don't like is the treble clef shape. Is there any way to change
it?



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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

The shape of treble clef

[klose]

Hi, I am a long time Sibelius user and changed to Lilypond recently. The only
thing I don't like so far is the shape of treble clef. Anyways to change it?



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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

Change the shape of treble clef

[klose]

Hi, as a long time Sibelius user, I recently changed into Lilypond. The only
thing I don't like so far is the shape of treble clef. Any ways to change
it?



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Richard,

Good question, and lots of good answers. Modern practice is to follow the
order of the circle of fifths. But that was not always the case. So,
indeed, depends on your historical context. Bach was writing in G sharp for
the WTC, and it was most certainly not intended to be enharmonic with A
flat. But if you look at18C manuscripts and JS Bach in particular there is
wide variance in how key signatures were done, and Bach often repeated the
notes in the signature, say having two c sharps, for reasons of his own
(quite interesting to see). Obviously his music teacher would fail him
today. This was before the age of standardization of everything.

So I would discard advice about rewriting in A flat. G sharp is perfectly
good, even though the textbooks call it a 'theoretical key' - what they
mean is that it is hard to read when an alternative is available in an
equal tempered context. As Urs has said, there are plenty of valid musical
contexts for a key such as G sharp.

Since lilypond gives you the ability to change the ordering in the key
signature, you ahve complete freedom in what you do.

Nothing new here, but I just wanted to chime in on this interesting topic.

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

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Urs Liska]

Am 07.02.2018 um 22:56 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:
If you use equally tempered scale f♭ major is really identical with e 
major. (That is not true in just tempered tuning.) May be with my 
limited knowledge of music I misunderstood something?


Maybe you should start sudying music as an artistic and historical 
matter instead of just an abstract or mathematical model.




Schwanengesang has 4 ♭s. Concerning to the circle of fifth that is f 
minor or a♭ major. That is not the same as f♭ major as mentioned in 
the original mail?


If you can't even tell if that song is in a flat major or f minor you 
shouldn't even start discussing this.
Apart from that I already explained that this song's main key is a flat 
major and that it moves on to reach f flat minor (as a sudominant to c 
flat major) at a certain moment.


My point was that this f flat minor seventh chord is really f flat minor 
and not e minor.




If one is doing functional harmony and stacking thirds, indeed f minor 
and a♭ major it is different, producing different chord progressions 
because starting with f or with a♭ major respectively. So the 
Schwanengaesang needs some investigation and harmonic analysis to make 
clear the used key, f minor and a♭ major. Skilled musicians (I am not) 
might do that.


To give some beginner-level hints: The song starts with an a flat major 
chord, ends with an a flat major chord, and has a key signature of four 
flats. So adventurous spirits might consider putting a bet on one out of 
the two candidates.




If one is only playing the notes of the sheet is this really important?



YES!
As I said, f flat and e are worlds apart.




Am 07.02.2018 22:18, schrieb Urs Liska:

Am 07.02.2018 um 21:13 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:

You mention f♭? Then you get a double ♭!
"
{\key fes \major c d e}

You go better with

{\key e \major c d e}

That double crosses and double ♭s happen frequently if you 
transcripe music. in this cases it's better to use the circle of 
fifth/fourth, however you might call it.




Wow, quite a bold statement, given that we have no clue about the
historical context of the original poster's question.
I'd always argue that depending on the style (actually most European
music from the 18th until far into the 20th century) E major is worlds
apart from Fes major (and with "worlds" I really mean heaven/earth,
life/death, dream/reality, whatever you want).

My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744
(http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) ).
The song is in a flat major, then turns to the darker mood of the
variant a flat minor and its parallel c flat major (both six flats)
and then reaches an absolute anticlimax on the word "auflösend"
(meaning: life is dissolving) on the minor subdominant: a fes minor
seventh chord (=>  in LilyPond language)!
There's no way this could ever make sense in e minor.
But what makes even *less* sense is the helpless rendering of the
original edition:  (the d even being "resolved" to des).

___
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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Urs Liska]

Am 07.02.2018 um 22:56 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:
If you use equally tempered scale f♭ major is really identical with e 
major. (That is not true in just tempered tuning.) May be with my 
limited knowledge of music I misunderstood something?


Maybe you should start sudying music as an artistic and historical 
matter instead of just an abstract or mathematical model.




Schwanengesang has 4 ♭s. Concerning to the circle of fifth that is f 
minor or a♭ major. That is not the same as f♭ major as mentioned in 
the original mail?


If you can't even tell if that song is in a flat major or f minor you 
shouldn't even start discussing this.
Apart from that I already explained that this song's main key is a flat 
major and that it moves on to reach f flat minor (as a sudominant to c 
flat major) at a certain moment.


My point was that this f flat minor seventh chord is really f flat minor 
and not e minor.




If one is doing functional harmony and stacking thirds, indeed f minor 
and a♭ major it is different, producing different chord progressions 
because starting with f or with a♭ major respectively. So the 
Schwanengaesang needs some investigation and harmonic analysis to make 
clear the used key, f minor and a♭ major. Skilled musicians (I am not) 
might do that.


To give some beginner-level hints: The song starts with an a flat major 
chord, ends with an a flat major chord, and has a key signature of four 
flats. So adventurous spirits might consider putting a bet on one out of 
the two candidates.




If one is only playing the notes of the sheet is this really important?



YES!




Am 07.02.2018 22:18, schrieb Urs Liska:

Am 07.02.2018 um 21:13 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:

You mention f♭? Then you get a double ♭!
"
{\key fes \major c d e}

You go better with

{\key e \major c d e}

That double crosses and double ♭s happen frequently if you 
transcripe music. in this cases it's better to use the circle of 
fifth/fourth, however you might call it.




Wow, quite a bold statement, given that we have no clue about the
historical context of the original poster's question.
I'd always argue that depending on the style (actually most European
music from the 18th until far into the 20th century) E major is worlds
apart from Fes major (and with "worlds" I really mean heaven/earth,
life/death, dream/reality, whatever you want).

My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744
(http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) ).
The song is in a flat major, then turns to the darker mood of the
variant a flat minor and its parallel c flat major (both six flats)
and then reaches an absolute anticlimax on the word "auflösend"
(meaning: life is dissolving) on the minor subdominant: a fes minor
seventh chord (=>  in LilyPond language)!
There's no way this could ever make sense in e minor.
But what makes even *less* sense is the helpless rendering of the
original edition:  (the d even being "resolved" to des).

___
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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Urs Liska]

Am 07.02.2018 um 23:04 schrieb Thomas Morley:

Hi Urs,

2018-02-07 22:18 GMT+01:00 Urs Liska :


I'd always argue that depending on the style (actually most European music
from the 18th until far into the 20th century) E major is worlds apart from
Fes major (and with "worlds" I really mean heaven/earth, life/death,
dream/reality, whatever you want).

My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744
(http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) ).
The song is in a flat major, then turns to the darker mood of the variant a
flat minor and its parallel c flat major (both six flats)

sure about _six_ flats?


Oops, no, of course we're already at seven.
With fes minor reaching into the uncharted territory of eleven (!) flats.

and then reaches
an absolute anticlimax on the word "auflösend" (meaning: life is dissolving)
on the minor subdominant: a fes minor seventh chord (=>  in LilyPond language)! There's no way this could ever make sense in
e minor.

Always nice as reference for extreme notation issues:
http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/CMNExtremes.htm
here:
http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/CMNExtremesBody.htm#pitch
Though, I couldn't find an image for the mentioned pieces.


Maybe this is because it isn't as much a case of extreme notation but 
rather of extreme composition.




Cheers,
   Harm



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

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Karlin High]

On 2/7/2018 4:04 PM, Thomas Morley wrote:

Always nice as reference for extreme notation issues:
http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/CMNExtremes.htm


Interesting, thanks! My productivity is slowly recovering now.
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

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

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Blöchl Bernhard]

I had a look at the sheet music and found it's f minor. As I alredy 
mentioned f minor is different from fb major.


Am 07.02.2018 22:36, schrieb Urs Liska:

Am 07.02.2018 um 22:18 schrieb Urs Liska:


My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744
(http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) [1]
).
The song is in a flat major, then turns to the darker mood of the
variant a flat minor and its parallel c flat major (both six flats)
and then reaches an absolute anticlimax on the word "auflösend"
(meaning: life is dissolving) on the minor subdominant: a fes minor
seventh chord (=>  in LilyPond language)!
There's no way this could ever make sense in e minor.
But what makes even *LESS* sense is the helpless rendering of the
original edition:  (the d even being "resolved" to
des).


 As a further reference, showing the composer's original intention,
the manuscript:
http://schubert-online.at/activpage/manuskripte.php?top=1&werke_id=10149&herkunft=allewerke
[2]


Links:
--
[1] http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_%28Schubert,_Franz%29
[2]
http://schubert-online.at/activpage/manuskripte.php?top=1&werke_id=10149&herkunft=allewerke

___
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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Thomas Morley]

Hi Urs,

2018-02-07 22:18 GMT+01:00 Urs Liska :

> I'd always argue that depending on the style (actually most European music
> from the 18th until far into the 20th century) E major is worlds apart from
> Fes major (and with "worlds" I really mean heaven/earth, life/death,
> dream/reality, whatever you want).
>
> My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744
> (http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) ).
> The song is in a flat major, then turns to the darker mood of the variant a
> flat minor and its parallel c flat major (both six flats)

sure about _six_ flats?

> and then reaches
> an absolute anticlimax on the word "auflösend" (meaning: life is dissolving)
> on the minor subdominant: a fes minor seventh chord (=>  eses''> in LilyPond language)! There's no way this could ever make sense in
> e minor.

Always nice as reference for extreme notation issues:
http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/CMNExtremes.htm
here:
http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/CMNExtremesBody.htm#pitch
Though, I couldn't find an image for the mentioned pieces.

Cheers,
  Harm

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

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Hans Åberg]

> On 7 Feb 2018, at 22:18, Urs Liska  wrote:
> 
>> That double crosses and double ♭s happen frequently if you transcripe music. 
>> in this cases it's better to use the circle of fifth/fourth, however you 
>> might call it.
> 
> Wow, quite a bold statement, given that we have no clue about the historical 
> context of the original poster's question.
> I'd always argue that depending on the style (actually most European music 
> from the 18th until far into the 20th century) E major is worlds apart from 
> Fes major (and with "worlds" I really mean heaven/earth, life/death, 
> dream/reality, whatever you want).

The staff system refers to Pythagorean tuning, and orchestral instruments, 
mainly the strings, adapt the harmony into 5-limit Just Intonation. It makes 
distant keys (with many accidentals) harder to perform, and less harmonically 
focused, which the composer might exploit.

> My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744 
> (http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) ).
> The song is in a flat major, then turns to the darker mood of the variant a 
> flat minor and its parallel c flat major (both six flats) and then reaches an 
> absolute anticlimax on the word "auflösend" (meaning: life is dissolving) on 
> the minor subdominant: a fes minor seventh chord (=>  eses''> in LilyPond language)! There's no way this could ever make sense in e 
> minor.
> But what makes even *less* sense is the helpless rendering of the original 
> edition:  (the d even being "resolved" to des).

This probably happens on piano, too, before the development of effective E12 
tuning methods, which is early 1900s.



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

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Blöchl Bernhard]

If you use equally tempered scale f♭ major is really identical with e 
major. (That is not true in just tempered tuning.) May be with my 
limited knowledge of music I misunderstood something?


Schwanengesang has 4 ♭s. Concerning to the circle of fifth that is f 
minor or a♭ major. That is not the same as f♭ major as mentioned in the 
original mail?


If one is doing functional harmony and stacking thirds, indeed f minor 
and a♭ major it is different, producing different chord progressions 
because starting with f or with a♭ major respectively. So the 
Schwanengaesang needs some investigation and harmonic analysis to make 
clear the used key, f minor and a♭ major. Skilled musicians (I am not) 
might do that.


If one is only playing the notes of the sheet is this really important?



Am 07.02.2018 22:18, schrieb Urs Liska:

Am 07.02.2018 um 21:13 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:

You mention f♭? Then you get a double ♭!
"
{\key fes \major c d e}

You go better with

{\key e \major c d e}

That double crosses and double ♭s happen frequently if you transcripe 
music. in this cases it's better to use the circle of fifth/fourth, 
however you might call it.




Wow, quite a bold statement, given that we have no clue about the
historical context of the original poster's question.
I'd always argue that depending on the style (actually most European
music from the 18th until far into the 20th century) E major is worlds
apart from Fes major (and with "worlds" I really mean heaven/earth,
life/death, dream/reality, whatever you want).

My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744
(http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) ).
The song is in a flat major, then turns to the darker mood of the
variant a flat minor and its parallel c flat major (both six flats)
and then reaches an absolute anticlimax on the word "auflösend"
(meaning: life is dissolving) on the minor subdominant: a fes minor
seventh chord (=>  in LilyPond language)!
There's no way this could ever make sense in e minor.
But what makes even *less* sense is the helpless rendering of the
original edition:  (the d even being "resolved" to des).

___
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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Urs Liska]

Am 07.02.2018 um 22:18 schrieb Urs Liska:
My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744 
(http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) ).
The song is in a flat major, then turns to the darker mood of the 
variant a flat minor and its parallel c flat major (both six flats) 
and then reaches an absolute anticlimax on the word "auflösend" 
(meaning: life is dissolving) on the minor subdominant: a fes minor 
seventh chord (=>  in LilyPond language)! 
There's no way this could ever make sense in e minor.
But what makes even *less* sense is the helpless rendering of the 
original edition:  (the d even being "resolved" to des).


As a further reference, showing the composer's original intention, the 
manuscript: 
http://schubert-online.at/activpage/manuskripte.php?top=1&werke_id=10149&herkunft=allewerke
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Urs Liska]

Am 07.02.2018 um 21:13 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:

You mention f♭? Then you get a double ♭!
"
{\key fes \major c d e}

You go better with

{\key e \major c d e}

That double crosses and double ♭s happen frequently if you transcripe 
music. in this cases it's better to use the circle of fifth/fourth, 
however you might call it.




Wow, quite a bold statement, given that we have no clue about the 
historical context of the original poster's question.
I'd always argue that depending on the style (actually most European 
music from the 18th until far into the 20th century) E major is worlds 
apart from Fes major (and with "worlds" I really mean heaven/earth, 
life/death, dream/reality, whatever you want).


My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744 
(http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) ).
The song is in a flat major, then turns to the darker mood of the 
variant a flat minor and its parallel c flat major (both six flats) and 
then reaches an absolute anticlimax on the word "auflösend" (meaning: 
life is dissolving) on the minor subdominant: a fes minor seventh chord 
(=>  in LilyPond language)! There's no way this 
could ever make sense in e minor.
But what makes even *less* sense is the helpless rendering of the 
original edition:  (the d even being "resolved" to des).


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

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[David Kastrup]

Torsten Hämmerle  writes:

> As to the "official" order of accidentals, Elaine Gould writes: "The order
> of accidentals follows the 'cycle of fifths'."

I think that's pretty unambiguous.

> This, unfortunately, is not very clear for the "theoretical keys" containing
> double flats or double sharps.
>
> *1st interpretation* (LilyPond's behaviour)
> As the F## in G# major is the last accidental in the circle of fifths, so
> it's printed last.
>
> *2nd interpretation*
> While the F## may be the last accidental, it's nevertheless replacing the F#
> (the first sharp) and therefore should be printed first.

I find the 2nd interpretation untenable given her words.  F𝄪 follows B♯
in the circle of fifths.  The only possible interpretation is that F♯ is
also present, but I think she would have mentioned an overriden
accidental.  It's similar to changing from F♮ to F𝄪 in a score: you
don't indicate an intermediate step.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Hi Richard,

That's an interesting question, indeed...



Richard M wrote
> Why does LilyPond notate it one way, [...]

LilyPond uses a list keyAlterationOrder containing the order of alterations
printed.

It is defined as follows in engraver-init.ly:

  keyAlterationOrder = #`(
(6 . ,FLAT) (2  . ,FLAT) (5 . ,FLAT ) (1  . ,FLAT) (4  . ,FLAT) (0  .
,FLAT) (3  . ,FLAT)
(3 . ,SHARP) (0 . ,SHARP) (4 . ,SHARP) (1 . ,SHARP) (5 . ,SHARP) (2 .
,SHARP) (6 . ,SHARP)
(6 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT) (2 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT) (5 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT ) (1 .
,DOUBLE-FLAT) (4 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT) (0 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT) (3 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT)
(3  . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) (0 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) (4 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) (1 .
,DOUBLE-SHARP) (5 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) (2 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) (6 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP)
  )

(sorry for the bad formatting).

the numbers range from 0 to 6 with 0 = C ... 6 = B

translated into pitches, that will be
   Bb Eb Ab Db Gb Cb Fb
   F# C# G# D# A# E# B#
   Bbb Ebb Abb Dbb Gbb Cbb Fbb
   F## C## G## D## A## E## B##


That's why F## will be printed last.



Richard M wrote
> [...] and I'm wondering if there's an official source that determines how
> they are to be notated.

As to the "official" order of accidentals, Elaine Gould writes: "The order
of accidentals follows the 'cycle of fifths'."

This, unfortunately, is not very clear for the "theoretical keys" containing
double flats or double sharps.

*1st interpretation* (LilyPond's behaviour)
As the F## in G# major is the last accidental in the circle of fifths, so
it's printed last.

*2nd interpretation*
While the F## may be the last accidental, it's nevertheless replacing the F#
(the first sharp) and therefore should be printed first.

By the way, switching languages in Wikipedia, simple English or Polish will
show LilyPond's order. ;)

All the best,
Torsten




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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

Fwd: Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Blöchl Bernhard]

Add on: I remember, that the brass and reed instruments always wanted 
keys with minor signs. They have flaps to lower the tone a half step but 
not to raise it  I argue that might be the reason for such "strange" 
keys from the perspective of other instrumentalists?


 Originalnachricht 
Betreff: Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
Datum: 07.02.2018 21:13
Von: Blöchl Bernhard 
An: lilypond-user@gnu.org

You mention f♭? Then you get a double ♭!
"
{\key fes \major c d e}

You go better with

{\key e \major c d e}

That double crosses and double ♭s happen frequently if you transcripe 
music. in this cases it's better to use the circle of fifth/fourth, 
however you might call it.



Am 07.02.2018 20:31, schrieb Richard M:

This discrepancy is actually what led to my question. Why does
LilyPond notate it one way, while this image shows another? (My
research has shown at the image you provided was custom made in
MuseScore.)

Although G♯ major is enharmonic to A♭, there are still pieces that
use these "theoretical" key signatures (one brass quintet piece is
actually in F♭), and I'm wondering if there's an official source
that determines how they are to be notated.

On 02/07/2018 02:19 PM, Ben wrote:


On 2/7/2018 1:47 PM, Richard M wrote:


Hello, list,

how does LilyPond create the key signature for Gis major?

I've attached a file to compile the key signature, which results
in: C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, and Fx. It is interesting to me that
the key signature begins with C#, and the Fx is placed at the end.


I'm wondering if there's a resource the developers used (perhaps
a notation manual) that gave a rule for how key signatures with
double accidentals should be formatted.


Hi,

What about this Wikipedia image showing the key signature order of
sharps + double?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png

[2]

...it looks like the double sharp is in the right spot, but even
still, could you just use the more common - enharmonic key of A♭
MAJOR instead?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user [1]



Links:
--
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png

___
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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Blöchl Bernhard]

You mention f♭? Then you get a double ♭!
"
{\key fes \major c d e}

You go better with

{\key e \major c d e}

That double crosses and double ♭s happen frequently if you transcripe 
music. in this cases it's better to use the circle of fifth/fourth, 
however you might call it.



Am 07.02.2018 20:31, schrieb Richard M:

This discrepancy is actually what led to my question. Why does
LilyPond notate it one way, while this image shows another? (My
research has shown at the image you provided was custom made in
MuseScore.)

Although G♯ major is enharmonic to A♭, there are still pieces that
use these "theoretical" key signatures (one brass quintet piece is
actually in F♭), and I'm wondering if there's an official source
that determines how they are to be notated.

On 02/07/2018 02:19 PM, Ben wrote:


On 2/7/2018 1:47 PM, Richard M wrote:


Hello, list,

how does LilyPond create the key signature for Gis major?

I've attached a file to compile the key signature, which results
in: C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, and Fx. It is interesting to me that
the key signature begins with C#, and the Fx is placed at the end.


I'm wondering if there's a resource the developers used (perhaps
a notation manual) that gave a rule for how key signatures with
double accidentals should be formatted.


Hi,

What about this Wikipedia image showing the key signature order of
sharps + double?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png

[2]

...it looks like the double sharp is in the right spot, but even
still, could you just use the more common - enharmonic key of A♭
MAJOR instead?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user [1]



Links:
--
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png

___
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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Richard M]

This discrepancy is actually what led to my question. Why does LilyPond 
notate it one way, while this image shows another? (My research has 
shown at the image you provided was custom made in MuseScore.)


Although G♯ major is enharmonic to A♭, there are still pieces that use 
these "theoretical" key signatures (one brass quintet piece is actually 
in F♭), and I'm wondering if there's an official source that determines 
how they are to be notated.



On 02/07/2018 02:19 PM, Ben wrote:

On 2/7/2018 1:47 PM, Richard M wrote:

Hello, list,

how does LilyPond create the key signature for Gis major?

I've attached a file to compile the key signature, which results in: 
C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, and Fx. It is interesting to me that the key 
signature begins with C#, and the Fx is placed at the end.


I'm wondering if there's a resource the developers used (perhaps a 
notation manual) that gave a rule for how key signatures with double 
accidentals should be formatted.


Hi,

What about this Wikipedia image showing the key signature order of 
sharps + double?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png

...it looks like the double sharp is in the right spot, but even 
still, could you just use the more common - enharmonic key of *A♭ 
major* instead?




___
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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Ben]

On 2/7/2018 1:47 PM, Richard M wrote:

Hello, list,

how does LilyPond create the key signature for Gis major?

I've attached a file to compile the key signature, which results in: 
C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, and Fx. It is interesting to me that the key 
signature begins with C#, and the Fx is placed at the end.


I'm wondering if there's a resource the developers used (perhaps a 
notation manual) that gave a rule for how key signatures with double 
accidentals should be formatted.


Hi,

What about this Wikipedia image showing the key signature order of 
sharps + double?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png

...it looks like the double sharp is in the right spot, but even still, 
could you just use the more common - enharmonic key of *A♭ major* instead?


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

Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Richard M]

Hello, list,

how does LilyPond create the key signature for Gis major?

I've attached a file to compile the key signature, which results in: C#, 
G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, and Fx. It is interesting to me that the key 
signature begins with C#, and the Fx is placed at the end.


I'm wondering if there's a resource the developers used (perhaps a 
notation manual) that gave a rule for how key signatures with double 
accidentals should be formatted. We all know how 'normal' key signatures 
are formed, but I can not find a resource that mentions key signatures 
with double accidentals. It seems more likely that LilyPond uses an 
algorithm to create the key signature (especially since, for example, 
inputting `\key fisis \major` gives an output).


Regarding Gis major, other possibilities are: Fx, C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, 
and B# (with Fx at the beginning). Or even: F#, C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, 
and Fx (with F# at the beginning and Fx at the end). There may be others.


So I'm looking for how LilyPond forms these key signatures, and why Gis 
major results in one particular key signature and not one of the other 
two. There must be a rule somewhere that makes that determination.


Thank you,

Richard

\version "2.19.80"

violin = \relative c'' {
  \key gis \major
  gis1 |
}

\score {
  \new Staff \violin
  \layout { }
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond Downloads broken?

[Maarten van der Peet]

Thank you very much.

I subscribed to the list just for this question, after I entered an empty IRC 
channel.
Spooky. Didn't know IRC still existed.
:-)

Maarten


On 7 Feb 2018, at 16:22, Phil Holmes 
mailto:m...@philholmes.net>> wrote:

Available from http://lilypond.org/downloads/binaries/ currently.

--
Phil Holmes


- Original Message -
From: Maarten van der Peet
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 9:42 AM
Subject: LilyPond Downloads broken?

Dear all,

there's something wrong with the dowloads.

>From http://lilypond.org/unix.html

I wanted to download the 64-bit version.

http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/binaries/linux-64/lilypond-2.18.2-1.linux-64.sh

Not Found
The requested URL /lilypond/binaries/linux-64/lilypond-2.18.2-1.linux-64.sh was 
not found on this server.

Apache/2.4.25 (Debian) Server at 
download.linuxaudio.org Port 80


The other links are also dead..

Regards,
Maarten van der Peet




___
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: 2.19.81 not quoting text

[David Kastrup]

Paul Scott  writes:

> When I use \quoteDuring or \cueDuring I set Score.quotedCueEventTypes to
> include all the choices in NR 1.6.3.
>
>   \set Score.quotedCueEventTypes = #'(note-event rest-event tie-event
>   beam-event tuplet-span-event
>   dynamic-event slur-event)
>
> I am getting markup quoted which I rarely want.  Which one of the above 
> parameters includes markup?  Or is not quoting markup a choice?

Per-note post-events inside of chords aren't optional.  Maybe this can
be considered an oversight.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

2.19.81 not quoting text

[Paul Scott]

When I use \quoteDuring or \cueDuring I set Score.quotedCueEventTypes to
include all the choices in NR 1.6.3.

  \set Score.quotedCueEventTypes = #'(note-event rest-event tie-event
  beam-event tuplet-span-event
  dynamic-event slur-event)

I am getting markup quoted which I rarely want.  Which one of the above 
parameters includes markup?  Or is not quoting markup a choice?

TIA,

Paul



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

Re: LilyPond Downloads broken?

[Phil Holmes]

Available from http://lilypond.org/downloads/binaries/ currently.

--
Phil Holmes


  - Original Message - 
  From: Maarten van der Peet 
  To: lilypond-user@gnu.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 9:42 AM
  Subject: LilyPond Downloads broken?


  Dear all,


  there's something wrong with the dowloads.


  From http://lilypond.org/unix.html


  I wanted to download the 64-bit version.


  
http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/binaries/linux-64/lilypond-2.18.2-1.linux-64.sh
 


  Not Found
  The requested URL /lilypond/binaries/linux-64/lilypond-2.18.2-1.linux-64.sh 
was not found on this server.


--

  Apache/2.4.25 (Debian) Server at download.linuxaudio.org Port 80




  The other links are also dead..


  Regards,
  Maarten van der Peet




--


  ___
  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 Downloads broken?

[Maarten van der Peet]

Dear all,

there's something wrong with the dowloads.

>From http://lilypond.org/unix.html

I wanted to download the 64-bit version.

http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/binaries/linux-64/lilypond-2.18.2-1.linux-64.sh

Not Found

The requested URL /lilypond/binaries/linux-64/lilypond-2.18.2-1.linux-64.sh was 
not found on this server.


Apache/2.4.25 (Debian) Server at download.linuxaudio.org Port 80


The other links are also dead..

Regards,
Maarten van der Peet

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