Problems defining markup function to draw lines.
Our choir has developed some "in-house" markings which I'm trying to
replicate in LilyPond. One is the use of a double slash to visually
indicate the last section of a piece when the musical pattern changes
for that last part.
I can replicate that by using a markup like the following:
a2^\markup { \with-dimensions #'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0) \path #0.3 #'((moveto
5 -2) (lineto 7 2) (moveto 6 -2) (lineto 8 2)) }
However, when the note I'm using is above the staff, I need to move the
Y-coordinates down, and sometimes there's a need to shift the slashes
closer to or further away from the note. So I'm trying to set up a
markup function to handle this, so I can just annotate the note as:
a2^\markup \double-slash #5 #-2
But I can't seem to get the syntax correct. If I leave the arguments as
dummy args, this works:
#(define-markup-command (double-box layout props xoff yoff) (number?
number?)
(interpret-markup layout props
#{
\markup {
\with-dimensions #'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0)
\path #0.3 #'((moveto 5 -2) (lineto 7 2) (moveto 6 -2)
(lineto 8 2))
}
#}
))
But when I try to implement the numbers, I get errors no matter what I
do. This (while it doesn't work) shows what I'm trying to get to:
#(define-markup-command (double-box layout props xoff yoff) (number?
number?)
(interpret-markup layout props
#{
\markup {
\with-dimensions #'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0)
\path #0.3 #'((moveto xoff yoff) (lineto (+ xoff 2) (+ yoff
4)) (moveto (+ xoff 1) yoff) (lineto (+ xoff 3) (+ yoff 4)))
}
#}
))
Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?
- Mike
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tuplets in Metric Modulations
Notice that in my example I included spacer rests in the tuplet. This allow
room for the bracket.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:47 PM Ld2020 wrote:
> Thank you - this is extremely helpful.
>
> One issue I am still trying to solve: how to get tuplet brackets to
> appear as part of the metronome mark.
>
> I.E. triplet eighth = eighth (triplet under the tuplet bracket with the 3.)
>
> Right now I'm doing:
> \rhythmMark "" {\tuplet 3/2 {b'8}} {b'8}
>
> I get the tuplet number but no bracket.
>
> Any leads you can offer on this would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
> --
> 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: LilyPond can't engrave 16 pages of music
SoundsFromSound wrote > What are your system specs? I can compile the file on my Linux Mint x64 > laptop with 16GB of RAM, rockin' an 8th gen i7 but it took about 10 > minutes almost. That seems very very slow. > > Did you experience the same wait times? Not Harm obviously but here's my data: CPU: i5-5200u (2-core, 4-thread mobile processor) Ram: 8gb Ubuntu 18.10 64-bit LilyPond 2.19.80 Page count: 25 LP-reported compile time: 3'57" Second run: 3'13" -- 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: LilyPond can't engrave 16 pages of music
On 12/21/2018 7:46 PM, Thomas Morley wrote:
Am Sa., 22. Dez. 2018 um 00:48 Uhr schrieb Reggie :
I am trying to understand theoretically why this is failing. It's only 16
pages. I am a minimalist composer so as a test I tried this extreme
situation. But yet I don't quite agree rather that it's that extreme. It's
only 16 pages and LilyPond crashes.
\version "2.19.82"
{
\time 4/4
\repeat unfold 1000 { c4 d e f } % TEN PAGES of music
\repeat unfold 1000 { f1 } % + SIX MORE PAGES of music
\repeat unfold 1000 { c4 d e f } % BUT WHEN ADDING MORE PAGES, fail NOW
}
wHY?
Preprocessing graphical objects...terminate called after throwing an
instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
what(): std::bad_alloc
Exited with return code 6.
Works here, returning a 25-pages pdf.
I'm on Ubuntu-18.04 64-bit
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Harm,
What are your system specs? I can compile the file on my Linux Mint x64
laptop with 16GB of RAM, rockin' an 8th gen i7 but it took about 10
minutes almost. That seems very very slow.
Did you experience the same wait times?
On Windows 10 x64 it flat out crashed, with a different error code
number but the same family of crash I believe...
Preprocessing graphical objects...terminate called after throwing an
instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
what(): std::bad_alloc
Exited with return code 3.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: LilyPond can't engrave 16 pages of music
On 2018-12-21 4:53 pm, Aaron Hill wrote:
I tried the following approach to break up the piece into three scores:
\score {
{ \time 4/4 \repeat unfold 1000 { c4 d e f } }
}
\score {
{ \set Score.currentBarNumber = #1001 \bar ""
\time 4/4 \repeat unfold 1000 { f1 } }
\layout { indent = 0 }
}
\score {
{ \set Score.currentBarNumber = #2001 \bar ""
\time 4/4 \repeat unfold 1000 { c4 d e f } }
\layout { indent = 0 }
}
This only took 42 seconds to complete and I believe it peaked under
2GiB.
I reran my multi-score version using time -v:
Command being timed: "lilypond allocbug.ly"
User time (seconds): 32.29
System time (seconds): 9.48
Percent of CPU this job got: 99%
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:42.05
Average shared text size (kbytes): 0
Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0
Average stack size (kbytes): 0
Average total size (kbytes): 0
Maximum resident set size (kbytes): 1978288
Average resident set size (kbytes): 0
Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 0
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 1003509
Voluntary context switches: 0
Involuntary context switches: 0
Swaps: 0
File system inputs: 0
File system outputs: 0
Socket messages sent: 0
Socket messages received: 0
Signals delivered: 0
Page size (bytes): 4096
Exit status: 0
Providing this is accurate, I suspect this approach may still be too
much for a 32-bit process, given the overhead of the program executable,
DLLs and the like.
-- Aaron Hill
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re:Combine these segments for same score
-- Forwarded message --
> From: Reggie
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:08:32 -0700 (MST)
> Subject: Re: Re:Combine these segments for same score
> Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote
> > Yes, you can use tags for segmenting large works into smaller chunks.
> >
> > And it is possible to use them for other things as well. Besides
> > segmenting the work, I use them for MIDI vs PDF, as well as Score vs
> Parts
> > (vs Lead Sheet), and sometimes for instrument-specific differences (in
> > instrumental doubled or transposed parts), all at the same time.
> >
> > This is something I practice. I have a script that will create the
> > necessary files for the project that will compile a score and parts that
> > can be built into a blank project. It relies on some templates, plus a
> > list of instruments. It works fine enough that I haven't had to look for
> > another solution.
> > https://github.com/flaminghakama/lilypond-project-template
> >
> > Like any of the solutions discussed on the list, this is not a
> > one-size-fits-all bullet and requires wrangling with some decisions about
> > how you want to structure your content. You will likely have to
> > deconstruct some of what you already have to work in any templating
> > system. It is also somewhat of an iterative process, since you need to
> > start with a template of the global definitions and timings, before
> > setting
> > up the template used to generate the instrument-specific files of musical
> > content.
> >
> > In any case, your pain is felt. But it is possible. I generally do
> > scores
> > of 9-12 staves at 200-400 measures and it took me quite some time to
> > arrive
> > at a solution that works.
> >
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Elaine Alt
> > 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is
> > highly underrated*"
>
> > elaine@
>
> > Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
> >
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> > ___
> > lilypond-user mailing list
>
> > lilypond-user@
>
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> I am intrigued. How does one use the tag system for concatenating sections
> of the same piece for easy working and compiling speed during edit phase?
> Please, can you provide some code showing how to use tags like this I have
> only seen tags used for differences in music of the score for parts and so
> on.
>
> Tags for combining sections?!
>
So, here is the basic approach.
You need to divide up the entire piece in to secions, each enclosed in a
tag.
These tags need to be in a few places, basically any music or structural
things. In this example, this includes global info, and then two
instruments.
Besides the tagged sections, we'll have tags for PDF vs MIDI, and Score vs
Part.
\version "2.18.2"
global = {
\key d \major
\tempo "Allegro"
\tag SegmentA {
\time 3/4
\mark "A"
s2.*8
\bar "||"
% Here is something that will only be in the score, and not the
parts
\tag #'Score { \pageBreak }
}
\tag SegmentB {
\time 4/4
\mark "B"
s1*8
\bar "|."
}
}
violin = {
\tag SegmentA \relative c'' {
% Here we have different content for PDF vs MIDI
\tag #'PDF {
d2.\startTrillSpan d\stopTrillSpan
}
\tag #'MIDI {
d16 e d e d e d e d e d e
d2.
}
d2. d d d d d
}
\tag SegmentB \relative c'' {
e1 e e e e e e e
}
}
bassoon = {
\tag SegmentA {
R2.*8
}
\tag SegmentB {
c1 d e f
% Here we have content that is only for the part, not the score
\tag #'Part { \break }
g a b c
}
}
% The Visual Score
\book {
\bookOutputSuffix "Full-Score"
\score {
\header {
piece = "Full Score, with score-only page break"
}
\keepWithTag #'(PDF Score
SegmentA
SegmentB
) <<
\new Staff <<
\global
\violin
>>
\new Staff <<
\clef bass
\bassoon
>>
>>
\layout {}
}
}
% The Audio Score
\book {
\bookOutputSuffix "Full-Score"
\score {
\header {
piece = "MIDI score, with written-out trill"
}
\keepWithTag #'(MIDI Score
SegmentA
SegmentB
) <<
\new Staff <<
\global
\violin
>>
\new Staff \bassoon
>>
\midi {}
}
}
% The parts
\book {
\bookOutputSuffix "Violin"
\score {
\header {
piece = "Violin Part, with normal trill and no page break"
}
\keepWithTag #'(PDF Part
SegmentA
SegmentB
) \new Sta
Re: LilyPond can't engrave 16 pages of music
Am Sa., 22. Dez. 2018 um 00:48 Uhr schrieb Reggie :
>
> I am trying to understand theoretically why this is failing. It's only 16
> pages. I am a minimalist composer so as a test I tried this extreme
> situation. But yet I don't quite agree rather that it's that extreme. It's
> only 16 pages and LilyPond crashes.
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> {
> \time 4/4
> \repeat unfold 1000 { c4 d e f } % TEN PAGES of music
> \repeat unfold 1000 { f1 } % + SIX MORE PAGES of music
> \repeat unfold 1000 { c4 d e f } % BUT WHEN ADDING MORE PAGES, fail NOW
> }
>
> wHY?
>
> Preprocessing graphical objects...terminate called after throwing an
> instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
> what(): std::bad_alloc
> Exited with return code 6.
Works here, returning a 25-pages pdf.
I'm on Ubuntu-18.04 64-bit
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: LilyPond can't engrave 16 pages of music
Hi Reggie,
What OS are you on?
Andrew
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 10:48, Reggie wrote:
> I am trying to understand theoretically why this is failing. It's only 16
> pages. I am a minimalist composer so as a test I tried this extreme
> situation. But yet I don't quite agree rather that it's that extreme. It's
> only 16 pages and LilyPond crashes.
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> {
> \time 4/4
> \repeat unfold 1000 { c4 d e f } % TEN PAGES of music
> \repeat unfold 1000 { f1 } % + SIX MORE PAGES of music
> \repeat unfold 1000 { c4 d e f } % BUT WHEN ADDING MORE PAGES, fail NOW
> }
>
> wHY?
>
> Preprocessing graphical objects...terminate called after throwing an
> instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
> what(): std::bad_alloc
> Exited with return code 6.
>
>
>
> --
> 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: LilyPond can't engrave 16 pages of music
On 12/21/2018 5:56 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: It's only 16 pages and LilyPond crashes. That looks like a [serious] bug to me. I’ve cc'ed the bug list. Reproduced crash on LilyPond 2.19.80, Windows 7 Pro 64-bit SP1, Intel Core i5-3450, 24GB RAM. At crash, lilypond-windows.exe in Task Manager as showing 1,080,744K of Memory (Private Working Set.) Perhaps this problem is similar to other large-memory-use crashes reported lately on Windows? -- Karlin High Missouri, USA ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: LilyPond can't engrave 16 pages of music
Hi Reggie, > I am trying to understand theoretically why this is failing. It's only 16 > pages. I am a minimalist composer so as a test I tried this extreme > situation. But yet I don't quite agree rather that it's that extreme. It's > only 16 pages and LilyPond crashes. That looks like a [serious] bug to me. I’ve cc'ed the bug list. Thanks! Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: synchronization of feathered beams
Am Fr., 21. Dez. 2018 um 23:18 Uhr schrieb Reggie :
>
> Is there a way in LilyPond to simply add a beam line without changing the
> time or anything else behind the elements? I mean, visually say I had a c16
> feather beam measure that had all the math and checks OK. But I wanted 3
> lines for my feather beams. Can you add a "extra" beam line without having
> it impact anyy other elements? In score music.
Well, yes, it's possible, you can always rewrite the stencil, but it
would mean far more work than scaling durations.
> That would help me because I
> am slower than you with math.
I don't see a problem here.
Say you have an 8th: { \time 1/8 c''8[] }
This code creates a single 8th note with a one beam-segments
Now we want an equal lasting note with two beam-segmants.
So write the half duration, i.e. c''16 and double the it's length: {
\time 1/8 c''16*2[] }
Or use \scaleDurations: { \time 1/8 \scaleDurations 2 c''16[] }
Same for three beam-segments: { \time 1/8 \scaleDurations 4 c''32[] }
etc
Note, if \scaleDurations should be applied to more than one note, {
and } are needed.
Other examples are in the NR
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
LilyPond can't engrave 16 pages of music
I am trying to understand theoretically why this is failing. It's only 16
pages. I am a minimalist composer so as a test I tried this extreme
situation. But yet I don't quite agree rather that it's that extreme. It's
only 16 pages and LilyPond crashes.
\version "2.19.82"
{
\time 4/4
\repeat unfold 1000 { c4 d e f } % TEN PAGES of music
\repeat unfold 1000 { f1 } % + SIX MORE PAGES of music
\repeat unfold 1000 { c4 d e f } % BUT WHEN ADDING MORE PAGES, fail NOW
}
wHY?
Preprocessing graphical objects...terminate called after throwing an
instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
what(): std::bad_alloc
Exited with return code 6.
--
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:feathered beam calculations
> -- Forwarded message --
From: Reggie
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:10:12 -0700 (MST)
> Subject: Re: feathered beam calculations
> Aaron Hill wrote
> > Given the current implementation, it would be necessary to use an
> > approximate rational like 50/63 as the moment in order to get 'f' to be
> > half of 'c'. Why that number? Well, it's a close approximation to the
> > irrational cube root of one half. We determine this exact value by
> > taking the desired ratio (1/2) and raising it to the reciprocal of the
> > number of scaling steps between the first and last notes (three, in this
> > case, which becomes the fraction 1/3). (1/2)^(1/3) is about 0.7937; and
> > 50/63 is roughly 0.79365.
> >
> > But before we get lost in the murky details of whether the implemented
> > behavior is right or the documentation is right, let us circle back
> > around to a key point that I feel has not been stressed enough.
> >
> > This means your score really should be bar check clean *before* you ever
> > use \featherDurations.
> >
> > I said earlier we would talk about bar checks *within* the feathered
> > sequence of notes. Consider the following addition to our example:
> >
> > << { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> > { c32*127/14[ d e f g a | b] } }
> > { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> > { c32*63/12[ d e f g a] } | b1 }
> > { r64 { c64 d32 e16 f8 g4 a2 } | b1 } >>
> >
> > You'll see that the 'b' is included within the beamed notes. Because we
> > now have seven notes covering the period of two measures less one 64th,
> > we had to adjust our scaling fraction to 127/14. However, what is most
> > important is that \featherDurations fixes the timing of the notes to
> > allow the inside bar check to pass. Omit it, and you'll see that the
> > bar check fails. But also try changing the 2/1 moment to anything else,
> > and the bar check will also fail.
> >
> > What we have here is a very fragile element in the score that can be
> > easily avoided by never requiring any note (apart from the first) within
> > a feathered sequence to align to anything else. The final 'b' above
> > should properly be outside the feathered sequence (or possibly start a
> > new sequence of its own). In this way, the math to ensure all of the
> > sequences have the right lengths can be done completely independent of
> > \featherDurations.
> >
> > Hopefully some of this will be helpful.
> >
> > -- Aaron Hill
> >
> > ___
> > lilypond-user mailing list
>
> > lilypond-user@
>
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> Aaron that makes sense but only if you have failed bar checks before
> feathering. Let's say you have a perfect score with no fails. And now you
> want to simply insert feather beamed notes only in one measure but have
> them
> spaced out according to the speed accelerando ritard as standard. How do
> you
> even begin to know what math * * * * you should be doing when there is no
> math to do in the first place??? NO bar check math because everything is
> already fine. Why can't you just spread out the notes according to how
> feathers are supposed to? Prove me please. Here look.
>
>
> \relative c'
> {
>
> \override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
> \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f] c4~c | c1 |
> }
>
>
> My CODE has no errors. And yet the 2/1 does NOT space out any notes at ALL
> it's just normal beamed notes with fancy feathers. What math do I need how
> does one even know what math to use since there are no bar bad checks? See?
> :))
>
\version "2.18.2"
%{
If you want the spacing to be proportionate to duration,
then you are responsible for calculating those durations.
It is basically high school level math, so grab a beer
and let's go.
Let's think this through from the beginning.
In terms of the literal feathered beaming, you have specified
eight notes, which scale in duration from a 32nd to an 8th.
What is the actual duration of this sequence?
Assuming a linear scale, on average, these would sum to 1.25
(For example, add first & last and multiply by N/2: (1/32 + 1/8) * 8 =
1.25)
So, in order for the written durations of the beams (1.25 measures)
to match the intended duration, based on what else is in the measure
(0.5 measures), the entire passage would need to be scaled by a factor
of 1.25/0.5 = 1/2.5
With that in mind, let's proceed towards an approach
of scaling durations.
The way to get a printed note to scale to a different
duration is like c32*2 (the equivalent of a 16th) or
c32*4 (the equivalent of an 8th).
But in addition to scaling the entire sequence, we need to
specify the relative durations of the notes.
How do you do the math? There is more than one way.
Note that our goal is to find a sequence that in 16 steps
scales to a value that is about 4x the intial
Re: Tuplets in Metric Modulations
Thank you - this is extremely helpful.
One issue I am still trying to solve: how to get tuplet brackets to
appear as part of the metronome mark.
I.E. triplet eighth = eighth (triplet under the tuplet bracket with the 3.)
Right now I'm doing:
\rhythmMark "" {\tuplet 3/2 {b'8}} {b'8}
I get the tuplet number but no bracket.
Any leads you can offer on this would be greatly appreciated.
--
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: Combine these segments for same score
Hi Reggie,
> I am intrigued. How does one use the tag system for concatenating sections
> of the same piece for easy working and compiling speed during edit phase?
> Please, can you provide some code showing how to use tags like this I have
> only seen tags used for differences in music of the score for parts and so
> on.
>
> Tags for combining sections?!
%%% SNIPPET BEGINS
\version "2.19.80"
tagged-stuff = {
\tag #'A \repeat unfold 64 { a'4 }
\tag #'B \repeat unfold 64 { b'4 }
\tag #'C \repeat unfold 64 { c''4 }
\tag #'D \repeat unfold 64 { d''4 }
}
\score {
\keepWithTag #'A \tagged-stuff
}
\score {
\keepWithTag #'B \tagged-stuff
}
\score {
\keepWithTag #'(A C) \tagged-stuff
}
%%% SNIPPET ENDS
As I suggested in another thread: in order to really use Lilypond to its full
potential, you will need to figure out how to take relatively simple concepts
(like \tag) and apply them in creative ways to your exact problem(s).
Hope this helps!
Kieren.
Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Compiling LilyPond on Linux Mint 19.1
On 20.12.18 12:21, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote: Folks, this is mostly to give a reference to those who might hit the same problems that I had: I decided to switch from my ancient Linux Mint 17.3 to Linux Mint 19.1 yesterday. In order to set up a working build environment, I had to provide a working Guile 1.8 which seems not to be in the repositories any more. Have a look at the build script attached to https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2017-08/msg00038.html Knut ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: synchronization of feathered beams
Thomas Morley-2 wrote >> Do you think it's even possible to write a function to automatically >> space >> according to the feather beam length and duration? > > As said, likely it's possible. > Speaking only for myself, I doubt I've the time to try. > > Cheers, > Harm > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@ > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Is there a way in LilyPond to simply add a beam line without changing the time or anything else behind the elements? I mean, visually say I had a c16 feather beam measure that had all the math and checks OK. But I wanted 3 lines for my feather beams. Can you add a "extra" beam line without having it impact anyy other elements? In score music. That would help me because I am slower than you with math. -- 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: Re:Combine these segments for same score
Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote > Yes, you can use tags for segmenting large works into smaller chunks. > > And it is possible to use them for other things as well. Besides > segmenting the work, I use them for MIDI vs PDF, as well as Score vs Parts > (vs Lead Sheet), and sometimes for instrument-specific differences (in > instrumental doubled or transposed parts), all at the same time. > > This is something I practice. I have a script that will create the > necessary files for the project that will compile a score and parts that > can be built into a blank project. It relies on some templates, plus a > list of instruments. It works fine enough that I haven't had to look for > another solution. > https://github.com/flaminghakama/lilypond-project-template > > Like any of the solutions discussed on the list, this is not a > one-size-fits-all bullet and requires wrangling with some decisions about > how you want to structure your content. You will likely have to > deconstruct some of what you already have to work in any templating > system. It is also somewhat of an iterative process, since you need to > start with a template of the global definitions and timings, before > setting > up the template used to generate the instrument-specific files of musical > content. > > In any case, your pain is felt. But it is possible. I generally do > scores > of 9-12 staves at 200-400 measures and it took me quite some time to > arrive > at a solution that works. > > > HTH, > > Elaine Alt > 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is > highly underrated*" > elaine@ > Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@ > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user I am intrigued. How does one use the tag system for concatenating sections of the same piece for easy working and compiling speed during edit phase? Please, can you provide some code showing how to use tags like this I have only seen tags used for differences in music of the score for parts and so on. Tags for combining sections?! -- 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: Re[2]: feathered beam calculations
Trevor Daniels wrote
> "Reggie" <
> reegistoop@
> > wrote 21/12/2018 19:10:12
>>\relative c'
>>{
>> \override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
>> \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
>> c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f] c4~c | c1 |
>>}
>>
>>My CODE has no errors. And yet the 2/1 does NOT space out any notes at ALL
>>it's just normal beamed notes with fancy feathers. What math do I need how
>>does one even know what math to use since there are no bar bad checks?
See?
>>:))
> I'm sure in an earlier note you were told to include brackets round the
> music
> because otherwise \featherDurations affects only the first note.
>
> Try this
>
> \relative c'
> {
>\override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
>\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1) {
> c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f]
>}
>c4~c | c1 |
> }
> Trevor
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
yes everyone thank you I realized after the posting I made an error. I see
that now.
--
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: synchronization of feathered beams
Am Fr., 21. Dez. 2018 um 19:26 Uhr schrieb Reggie :
>
> Thomas Morley-2 wrote
> > \featherDurations changes durations, nothing more!! It does not change
> > spacing on it's own.
> > The changed spacing is more a side-effect. Doing note-spacing is a
> > very involved process, durations are only one element of the
> > calculation.
> >
> > So I ensure you \featherDuarations will _always_ affect the
> > _durations_ of it's argument, though, whether the resulting spacing is
> > really what you desire? Probably/likely/sometimes not.
> >
> >> I wouldn't even know how to make this function besides. Sorry.
> >
> > Well, there are some good coders on the list ;)
> > Not sure, if I'll have the time to give it a try ...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Harm
> >
> > ___
> > lilypond-user mailing list
>
> > lilypond-user@
>
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> Harm this is very important you just solved the mystery :)) Sort of. It
> sounds like you just admitted that the spacing out of feather beamed
> duration notes is not always going to work correctly,
Nah, I tried to explain how featherDurations works, nothing else, (and
I may very well be corrected by others with deeper knowledge).
Durations are modified.
The spacing is tackled by the spacing engine, which needs to look at a
plethora of things, surely, among them are durations, but that's not
all...
As an example.
Say you have 4 16th.
Should they be spaced equally? I'd say, depends...
You can't do it equal here:
{
\set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
\set stringNumberOrientations = #'(left)
16 q q
}
And what's "correctly"?
Admittedly Gould is a strong argument. But in my experience every
other day a user shines up here wanting to do things _(s)he_ likes it
and not like any reference book.
> but the durations
> themselves WILL. Well, according to Gould, it's pretty obvious that feather
> beams need to be spaced out according to the tempo of the feathers, always.
> So, there's no way in LilyPond as of today function wise that simply put
> makes feather beams spaced out correctly according to standard engraving
> rules. Wow.
>
> I would hope beg love for someone to write a function that simply put spaced
> out notes according to the speed of the feathers. Finale Sibelius do this
> for years now. Hack yes but doable every time it works. What's LilyPond work
> around for this? Assume you want to engrave correctly and have your feather
> beams spaced out as they slow or speeden up, how can you do it? manually
> tweak space between notes it seems? Yikes :))
>
> Do you think it's even possible to write a function to automatically space
> according to the feather beam length and duration?
As said, likely it's possible.
Speaking only for myself, I doubt I've the time to try.
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: feathered beam calculations
Reggie wrote
> Aaron Hill wrote
>> Given the current implementation, it would be necessary to use an
>> approximate rational like 50/63 as the moment in order to get 'f' to be
>> half of 'c'. Why that number? Well, it's a close approximation to the
>> irrational cube root of one half. We determine this exact value by
>> taking the desired ratio (1/2) and raising it to the reciprocal of the
>> number of scaling steps between the first and last notes (three, in this
>> case, which becomes the fraction 1/3). (1/2)^(1/3) is about 0.7937; and
>> 50/63 is roughly 0.79365.
>>
>> But before we get lost in the murky details of whether the implemented
>> behavior is right or the documentation is right, let us circle back
>> around to a key point that I feel has not been stressed enough.
>>
>> This means your score really should be bar check clean *before* you ever
>> use \featherDurations.
>>
>> I said earlier we would talk about bar checks *within* the feathered
>> sequence of notes. Consider the following addition to our example:
>>
>> << { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
>> { c32*127/14[ d e f g a | b] } }
>> { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
>> { c32*63/12[ d e f g a] } | b1 }
>> { r64 { c64 d32 e16 f8 g4 a2 } | b1 } >>
>>
>> You'll see that the 'b' is included within the beamed notes. Because we
>> now have seven notes covering the period of two measures less one 64th,
>> we had to adjust our scaling fraction to 127/14. However, what is most
>> important is that \featherDurations fixes the timing of the notes to
>> allow the inside bar check to pass. Omit it, and you'll see that the
>> bar check fails. But also try changing the 2/1 moment to anything else,
>> and the bar check will also fail.
>>
>> What we have here is a very fragile element in the score that can be
>> easily avoided by never requiring any note (apart from the first) within
>> a feathered sequence to align to anything else. The final 'b' above
>> should properly be outside the feathered sequence (or possibly start a
>> new sequence of its own). In this way, the math to ensure all of the
>> sequences have the right lengths can be done completely independent of
>> \featherDurations.
>>
>> Hopefully some of this will be helpful.
>>
>> -- Aaron Hill
>>
>> ___
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>
>> lilypond-user@
>
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> Aaron that makes sense but only if you have failed bar checks before
> feathering. Let's say you have a perfect score with no fails. And now you
> want to simply insert feather beamed notes only in one measure but have
> them
> spaced out according to the speed accelerando ritard as standard. How do
> you
> even begin to know what math * * * * you should be doing when there is no
> math to do in the first place??? NO bar check math because everything is
> already fine. Why can't you just spread out the notes according to how
> feathers are supposed to? Prove me please. Here look.
>
>
> \relative c'
> {
>
> \override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
> \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f] c4~c | c1 |
> }
>
>
> My CODE has no errors. And yet the 2/1 does NOT space out any notes at ALL
> it's just normal beamed notes with fancy feathers. What math do I need how
> does one even know what math to use since there are no bar bad checks?
> See?
> :))
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
I gave a small example. Please provide help so I can be wrong :))
What math can I do to my example from up above to show the space out correct
from 2/1?
(in other words c32*127/14) but for my example. No clues for me.
--
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: feathered beam calculations
On 12/21/18, 12:10 PM, "Reggie" wrote:
\relative c'
{
\override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f] c4~c | c1 |
}
My CODE has no errors. And yet the 2/1 does NOT space out any notes at ALL
it's just normal beamed notes with fancy feathers. What math do I need how
does one even know what math to use since there are no bar bad checks? See?
:))
Did you even read Aaron's answer? Your CODE does have an error. You are
missing the braces around the music argument to \featherDurations!
\version "2.19"
\relative c'
{
\override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
{c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f] }c4~c | c1 |
}
This produces a ritardando, with the notes spaced steadily farther apart.
Carl
--
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[2]: feathered beam calculations
"Reggie" wrote 21/12/2018 19:10:12
\relative c'
{
\override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f] c4~c | c1 |
}
My CODE has no errors. And yet the 2/1 does NOT space out any notes at ALL
it's just normal beamed notes with fancy feathers. What math do I need how
does one even know what math to use since there are no bar bad checks? See?
:))
I'm sure in an earlier note you were told to include brackets round the
music
because otherwise \featherDurations affects only the first note.
Try this
\relative c'
{
\override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1) {
c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f]
}
c4~c | c1 |
}
Trevor___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: feathered beam calculations
On 2018-12-21 11:10 am, Reggie wrote:
\relative c'
{
\override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f] c4~c | c1 |
}
My CODE has no errors. And yet the 2/1 does NOT space out any notes at
ALL
it's just normal beamed notes with fancy feathers. What math do I need
how
does one even know what math to use since there are no bar bad checks?
See?
:))
You're missing curly braces.
\relative c'
{
\override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
{ c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f] } c4~c | c1 |
}
\featherDurations only operates on the argument you pass in. Without
the braces, you are only giving it a single note.
-- Aaron Hill
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: feathered beam calculations
Am Fr., 21. Dez. 2018 um 20:10 Uhr schrieb Reggie :
>
> Aaron Hill wrote
> > Given the current implementation, it would be necessary to use an
> > approximate rational like 50/63 as the moment in order to get 'f' to be
> > half of 'c'. Why that number? Well, it's a close approximation to the
> > irrational cube root of one half. We determine this exact value by
> > taking the desired ratio (1/2) and raising it to the reciprocal of the
> > number of scaling steps between the first and last notes (three, in this
> > case, which becomes the fraction 1/3). (1/2)^(1/3) is about 0.7937; and
> > 50/63 is roughly 0.79365.
> >
> > But before we get lost in the murky details of whether the implemented
> > behavior is right or the documentation is right, let us circle back
> > around to a key point that I feel has not been stressed enough.
> >
> > This means your score really should be bar check clean *before* you ever
> > use \featherDurations.
> >
> > I said earlier we would talk about bar checks *within* the feathered
> > sequence of notes. Consider the following addition to our example:
> >
> > << { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> > { c32*127/14[ d e f g a | b] } }
> > { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> > { c32*63/12[ d e f g a] } | b1 }
> > { r64 { c64 d32 e16 f8 g4 a2 } | b1 } >>
> >
> > You'll see that the 'b' is included within the beamed notes. Because we
> > now have seven notes covering the period of two measures less one 64th,
> > we had to adjust our scaling fraction to 127/14. However, what is most
> > important is that \featherDurations fixes the timing of the notes to
> > allow the inside bar check to pass. Omit it, and you'll see that the
> > bar check fails. But also try changing the 2/1 moment to anything else,
> > and the bar check will also fail.
> >
> > What we have here is a very fragile element in the score that can be
> > easily avoided by never requiring any note (apart from the first) within
> > a feathered sequence to align to anything else. The final 'b' above
> > should properly be outside the feathered sequence (or possibly start a
> > new sequence of its own). In this way, the math to ensure all of the
> > sequences have the right lengths can be done completely independent of
> > \featherDurations.
> >
> > Hopefully some of this will be helpful.
> >
> > -- Aaron Hill
> >
> > ___
> > lilypond-user mailing list
>
> > lilypond-user@
>
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> Aaron that makes sense but only if you have failed bar checks before
> feathering. Let's say you have a perfect score with no fails. And now you
> want to simply insert feather beamed notes only in one measure but have them
> spaced out according to the speed accelerando ritard as standard. How do you
> even begin to know what math * * * * you should be doing when there is no
> math to do in the first place??? NO bar check math because everything is
> already fine. Why can't you just spread out the notes according to how
> feathers are supposed to? Prove me please. Here look.
>
>
> \relative c'
> {
>
> \override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
> \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f] c4~c | c1 |
> }
>
>
> My CODE has no errors. And yet the 2/1 does NOT space out any notes at ALL
> it's just normal beamed notes with fancy feathers. What math do I need how
> does one even know what math to use since there are no bar bad checks? See?
> :))
Well, try to reread Aaron's message (as he suggested), you may stumble across:
"
[Side note: Harm made a slight mistake in his example usage. If you
want to feather a sequence of notes, you must put those notes in curly
braces. Omitting the braces in the example above will result in no
feathering, as only the first note will be passed to the function.]
"
Aaron's correct ofcourse. And now you made the same mistake. ;)
The argument of featherDurations needs to be enclosed with { and }, at
least if you want featherDurations be applied to sequential music.
(and I can't imagine a case where one wouldn't want to do so)
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: synchronization of feathered beams
On 12/21/18, 11:25 AM, "Reggie" wrote: I would hope beg love for someone to write a function that simply put spaced out notes according to the speed of the feathers. Finale Sibelius do this for years now. Hack yes but doable every time it works. What's LilyPond work around for this? Assume you want to engrave correctly and have your feather beams spaced out as they slow or speeden up, how can you do it? manually tweak space between notes it seems? Yikes :)) You could do exactly the hack that you shared with us from Sibelius. Put the triplets in your source, but tweak the heads, stems, and beams of the first two notes in the triplet to be hidden (probably by setting the stencil to ##f) Do you think it's even possible to write a function to automatically space according to the feather beam length and duration? If you want to give up the beautiful optical spacing that LilyPond provides, I believe that featherDurations will work exactly the way you want it by using Proportional Notation (http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/proportional-notation) You might be able to keep both the standard spacing and the proportional spacing by using \newSpacingSection Try some examples, and if they don’t work the way you want them to, share them on the list along with the problems you are having. That's a much better way to get help. Sincerely, Carl -- 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: feathered beam calculations
Aaron Hill wrote
> Given the current implementation, it would be necessary to use an
> approximate rational like 50/63 as the moment in order to get 'f' to be
> half of 'c'. Why that number? Well, it's a close approximation to the
> irrational cube root of one half. We determine this exact value by
> taking the desired ratio (1/2) and raising it to the reciprocal of the
> number of scaling steps between the first and last notes (three, in this
> case, which becomes the fraction 1/3). (1/2)^(1/3) is about 0.7937; and
> 50/63 is roughly 0.79365.
>
> But before we get lost in the murky details of whether the implemented
> behavior is right or the documentation is right, let us circle back
> around to a key point that I feel has not been stressed enough.
>
> This means your score really should be bar check clean *before* you ever
> use \featherDurations.
>
> I said earlier we would talk about bar checks *within* the feathered
> sequence of notes. Consider the following addition to our example:
>
> << { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> { c32*127/14[ d e f g a | b] } }
> { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> { c32*63/12[ d e f g a] } | b1 }
> { r64 { c64 d32 e16 f8 g4 a2 } | b1 } >>
>
> You'll see that the 'b' is included within the beamed notes. Because we
> now have seven notes covering the period of two measures less one 64th,
> we had to adjust our scaling fraction to 127/14. However, what is most
> important is that \featherDurations fixes the timing of the notes to
> allow the inside bar check to pass. Omit it, and you'll see that the
> bar check fails. But also try changing the 2/1 moment to anything else,
> and the bar check will also fail.
>
> What we have here is a very fragile element in the score that can be
> easily avoided by never requiring any note (apart from the first) within
> a feathered sequence to align to anything else. The final 'b' above
> should properly be outside the feathered sequence (or possibly start a
> new sequence of its own). In this way, the math to ensure all of the
> sequences have the right lengths can be done completely independent of
> \featherDurations.
>
> Hopefully some of this will be helpful.
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Aaron that makes sense but only if you have failed bar checks before
feathering. Let's say you have a perfect score with no fails. And now you
want to simply insert feather beamed notes only in one measure but have them
spaced out according to the speed accelerando ritard as standard. How do you
even begin to know what math * * * * you should be doing when there is no
math to do in the first place??? NO bar check math because everything is
already fine. Why can't you just spread out the notes according to how
feathers are supposed to? Prove me please. Here look.
\relative c'
{
\override Beam.grow-direction = #LEFT
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
c32[ d e f g f e f d f g f d e d f] c4~c | c1 |
}
My CODE has no errors. And yet the 2/1 does NOT space out any notes at ALL
it's just normal beamed notes with fancy feathers. What math do I need how
does one even know what math to use since there are no bar bad checks? See?
:))
--
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: feathered beam calculations
Reggie, On 12/21/18, 11:30 AM, "Reggie" wrote: The fractions do NOT always accelerando, while fractions greater than one generate a ritardando as intended. That is why I began this mess in the first place :)) Please show us a specific example that does not work the way you want it to work. And then we can figure out what the specific problem is. At this point, as far as I can see, you have only complained that LilyPond does not work the way you want it to; you have not shown us a specific failure. Please learn to use tiny examples: http://lilypond.org/tiny-examples.html Also, many of your posts sound whiny to this native English speaker. I have assumed that part of that is due to the fact that you are not a native English speaker. But when possible solutions to your problem are suggested, you have simply dismissed them out of hand, telling us (not showing us) how they fail. If you really want help, you really need to show specific examples. I'm surprised you have received as much help as you have. Sincerely, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-book→latex
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 7:24 PM Urs Liska wrote: > > Why do you want this? Is there any specific reason not to use lualatex? I > know you already run lyluatex in the Kayser project. > Well, because in this case it's in a chapter in my dissertation, the whole of which is in Lyx. I'd rather avoid redoing the whole toolchain if I can. But as Lyx seems to work less and less well with all the custom nonsense I keep adding, I might have to take the plunge eventually. Cheers, A ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Compiling LilyPond on Linux Mint 19.1
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 07:06:43PM +0100, Urs Liska wrote: > > Am 21.12.18 um 09:06 schrieb Urs Liska: > > Hi Lukas, > > > > thanks for putting this together. Indeed since installing a distro > > that doesn't Guile 1.8 anymore I hadn't been able to compile > > LilyPond anymore. Once I managed to compile Guile 1.8 and do a build > > but for some reason I lost this option. I think the point was that > > after compiling Guile I had to actually change the way LilyPond's > > make was handled - which of course isn't sustainable. Some time ago I ran into the same problem with Guile 1.8 no longer being the default version of Guile in my distro (and in fact, not even installable anymore from the official repo), but Lilypond does not work with newer versions of Guile. Furthermore, Python 2.7 is also no longer the default in my distro, which is an added level of pain, though luckily I can still install Python 2.7, it's just not the default Python that would get invoked. Fortunately, I can compile my own version of Guile 1.8 as you did. Once that is done, I found that I actually don't need to change LilyPond's makefile; all I needed was to set $PATH and re-run LilyPond's autogen.sh with the appropriate customizations, like this: PATH=/usr/src/guile-1.8/bin:$PATH ./autogen.sh \ --with-python-include=/usr/include/python2.7/ \ CFLAGS="-Wno-sequence-point" \ LDFLAGS="-Wl,-rpath,/usr/src/guile-1.8/lib" Of course, replace /usr/src/guile-1.8 with the path to wherever you compiled Guile 1.8 (you don't actually need to install Guile 1.8 anywhere on your system; autogen.sh appeared smart enough to pick up the right files from Guile's source directory once that's built, and once you hacked $PATH to pick up Guile 1.8 before anything else); and replace /usr/include/python2.7 with wherever your distro installed Python 2.7's include files. After running this step, you should be able to just run make as usual, and it should be able to build Lilypond successfully. (I have put the above autogen.sh invocation in a script that I keep with my lilypond git clone, so that I don't have to type all of that every time! Though, truth be told, you really only need to re-run autogen.sh if you have a fresh git clone / source download, or you did a deep cleaning of the source tree. I found that I could still just run make after `git pull` without needing to run autogen.sh again.) Hope this info helps. T -- Leather is waterproof. Ever see a cow with an umbrella? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: feathered beam calculations
On 12/21/2018 11:54 AM, Aaron Hill wrote:
On 2018-12-21 5:14 am, Reggie wrote:
Hello. I see what you are saying thank you. I just feel that feather
beaming
is so confusing it all depends on so much, it's not simple like "select
these notes and change beam style to feather left or right". It's first,
math. Then, trial error. Then, settling. Then, Repeat. I now
understand how
to create the feather beams on paper, but the bar line check fails is
what
remains to be problemsome. [ . . .]
I apologize for the very long email following, although I would
appreciate you taking the time to read through it. You may need to
re-read it a few times, so find a good cup of coffee (or something
stronger if you are so-inclined).
==
Feathered beams, as far as the visual depiction goes, are as simple as
you describe. All you need to do is set Beam.grow-direction to #LEFT
or #RIGHT, and then any manually beamed notes delimited with [ and ]
will have the beams feathered. That's it. You're done. No math at all.
However, note that this is *only* the visual aspect of feathering.
Unless you use \featherDurations, all of the notes will keep their
straight timing; and MIDI output will not reflect the desired
ritardando or accelerando.
So when you do need to care about the timing of notes,
\featherDurations comes into play; and it does bring with it some
potentially confusing math. This math is somewhat complicated by the
fact that the documentation and implementation do not agree with one
another. Consider the following:
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1/2) { c8[ d e f] }
[Side note: Harm made a slight mistake in his example usage. If you
want to feather a sequence of notes, you must put those notes in curly
braces. Omitting the braces in the example above will result in no
feathering, as only the first note will be passed to the function.]
The documentation says that \featherDurations will use the specified
moment to scale the last note relative to the first; however, in
practice you will see that this scaling is done between each
subsequent note. In the example above, we would expect that the 'f'
should last half as long as the 'c'. But instead, we find that the
'f' is half of the 'e'; the 'e', half of the 'd'; and the 'd', half of
the 'c'. The result is that the 'f' is one eighth the duration of the
'c'.
Given the current implementation, it would be necessary to use an
approximate rational like 50/63 as the moment in order to get 'f' to
be half of 'c'. Why that number? Well, it's a close approximation to
the irrational cube root of one half. We determine this exact value
by taking the desired ratio (1/2) and raising it to the reciprocal of
the number of scaling steps between the first and last notes (three,
in this case, which becomes the fraction 1/3). (1/2)^(1/3) is about
0.7937; and 50/63 is roughly 0.79365.
But before we get lost in the murky details of whether the implemented
behavior is right or the documentation is right, let us circle back
around to a key point that I feel has not been stressed enough.
\featherDurations will change the individual durations and timing of
the notes in the sequence provided; however it will *not* change the
overall duration of the sequence. If bar checks outside the range of
feathered notes are failing, then the issue is completely unrelated to
\featherDurations. Your problem is with the note sequence itself.
(If you are using bar checks *within* the sequence of notes being
feathered, then you are asking for trouble. We'll talk about this in
a bit.)
This means your score really should be bar check clean *before* you
ever use \featherDurations. And that task may involve arithmetic of
its own. Consider the following sequence:
r64 { c64 d32 e16 f8 g4 a2 } | b1
We have a manually-written ritardando of notes. Note the rest is
there to ensure the whole note aligns to its own measure, but we are
mainly interested in the sequence delimited by the braces.
Let us assume we would like to notate this as a simple group of six,
thirty-secondth notes with a feathered beam:
r64 { c32[ d e f g a] } | b1
This fails the bar check because our six notes are not long enough to
fill out the measure. We fix this by first noting the original
sequence is 63 * 64th notes long. We are using 6 * 32nd notes, which
is equivalent to 12 * 64th notes. Scaling by the fraction 63/12 will
get us to our desired goal. You can confirm this by noting the bar
check in the following passes:
r64 { c32*63/12[ d e f g a] } | b1
Now that we have the correct total duration, we can add in
feathering. Consider the following to confirm that we have indeed
achieved what we wanted:
<< { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
{ c32*63/12[ d e f g a] } | b1 }
{ r64 { c64 d32 e16 f8 g4 a2 } | b1 } >>
In this case, we used the moment of 2/1 because we wanted each note to
be twice
Re: feathered beam calculations
Aaron Hill wrote
> This means your score really should be bar check clean *before* you ever
> use \featherDurations.
>
> At the end of the day, there is no real need to use any math for the
> \featherDurations moment. Any positive rational less than one will
> produce an accelerando, while fractions greater than one generate a
> ritardando. The best thing to do is to listen to the MIDI output and
> determine if it sounds right to your ear.
>
> I said earlier we would talk about bar checks *within* the feathered
> sequence of notes. Consider the following addition to our example:
>
> << { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> { c32*127/14[ d e f g a | b] } }
> { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> { c32*63/12[ d e f g a] } | b1 }
> { r64 { c64 d32 e16 f8 g4 a2 } | b1 } >>
>
> You'll see that the 'b' is included within the beamed notes. Because we
> now have seven notes covering the period of two measures less one 64th,
> we had to adjust our scaling fraction to 127/14. However, what is most
> important is that \featherDurations fixes the timing of the notes to
> allow the inside bar check to pass. Omit it, and you'll see that the
> bar check fails. But also try changing the 2/1 moment to anything else,
> and the bar check will also fail.
>
> What we have here is a very fragile element in the score that can be
> easily avoided by never requiring any note (apart from the first) within
> a feathered sequence to align to anything else. The final 'b' above
> should properly be outside the feathered sequence (or possibly start a
> new sequence of its own). In this way, the math to ensure all of the
> sequences have the right lengths can be done completely independent of
> \featherDurations.
>
> Hopefully some of this will be helpful.
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
The fractions do NOT always accelerando, while fractions greater than one
generate a
ritardando as intended. That is why I began this mess in the first place :))
--
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: feathered beam calculations
Aaron Hill wrote
> At the end of the day, there is no real need to use any math for the
> \featherDurations moment. Any positive rational less than one will
> produce an accelerando, while fractions greater than one generate a
> ritardando. The best thing to do is to listen to the MIDI output and
> determine if it sounds right to your ear.
>
> I said earlier we would talk about bar checks *within* the feathered
> sequence of notes. Consider the following addition to our example:
>
> << { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> { c32*127/14[ d e f g a | b] } }
> { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
> { c32*63/12[ d e f g a] } | b1 }
> { r64 { c64 d32 e16 f8 g4 a2 } | b1 } >>
>
> You'll see that the 'b' is included within the beamed notes. Because we
> now have seven notes covering the period of two measures less one 64th,
> we had to adjust our scaling fraction to 127/14. However, what is most
> important is that \featherDurations fixes the timing of the notes to
> allow the inside bar check to pass. Omit it, and you'll see that the
> bar check fails. But also try changing the 2/1 moment to anything else,
> and the bar check will also fail.
>
> What we have here is a very fragile element in the score that can be
> easily avoided by never requiring any note (apart from the first) within
> a feathered sequence to align to anything else. The final 'b' above
> should properly be outside the feathered sequence (or possibly start a
> new sequence of its own). In this way, the math to ensure all of the
> sequences have the right lengths can be done completely independent of
> \featherDurations.
>
> Hopefully some of this will be helpful.
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
I read every word. Thank you huge for making that post. Bloody well done.
But it's sad now. Because according to Harm I believe he said it's not
always reliable if the spacing will be what you want, so to speak. But it
just counts the durations themselves. Spacing is a side effect of sorts.
Never 100% certain correct spacing.
So which can it be? This is so confusing. Sometimes spacing looks correct.
But sometimes I try every number combination I can and the notes don't
budge. Ratio not making a difference.
--
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: synchronization of feathered beams
Thomas Morley-2 wrote > \featherDurations changes durations, nothing more!! It does not change > spacing on it's own. > The changed spacing is more a side-effect. Doing note-spacing is a > very involved process, durations are only one element of the > calculation. > > So I ensure you \featherDuarations will _always_ affect the > _durations_ of it's argument, though, whether the resulting spacing is > really what you desire? Probably/likely/sometimes not. > >> I wouldn't even know how to make this function besides. Sorry. > > Well, there are some good coders on the list ;) > Not sure, if I'll have the time to give it a try ... > > Cheers, > Harm > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@ > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Harm this is very important you just solved the mystery :)) Sort of. It sounds like you just admitted that the spacing out of feather beamed duration notes is not always going to work correctly, but the durations themselves WILL. Well, according to Gould, it's pretty obvious that feather beams need to be spaced out according to the tempo of the feathers, always. So, there's no way in LilyPond as of today function wise that simply put makes feather beams spaced out correctly according to standard engraving rules. Wow. I would hope beg love for someone to write a function that simply put spaced out notes according to the speed of the feathers. Finale Sibelius do this for years now. Hack yes but doable every time it works. What's LilyPond work around for this? Assume you want to engrave correctly and have your feather beams spaced out as they slow or speeden up, how can you do it? manually tweak space between notes it seems? Yikes :)) Do you think it's even possible to write a function to automatically space according to the feather beam length and duration? -- 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: lilypond-book→latex
Am 21. Dezember 2018 19:19:21 MEZ schrieb "N. Andrew Walsh" : >Hi Federico, > >according to release notes, Lyx has had support for lilypond-book for >some >time now. See here: > >https://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX20#lb > >That's where it says it requires the "lilypond-book→(pdf)latex" >package, >which my Lyx says it can't find. > >Any advice? Are there any Lyx users who got this working? Why do you want this? Is there any specific reason not to use lualatex? I know you already run lyluatex in the Kayser project. If it is about existing documents: these *should* readily compile with lyluatex that provides a superset of lilypond-boom syntax. Urs > >Cheers, > >A > >On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 7:14 PM Federico Bruni >wrote: > >> >> >> Il giorno ven 21 dic 2018 alle 11:24, "N. Andrew Walsh" >> ha scritto: >> > Hi List, >> > >> > dumb question: I'm trying to integrate lilypond into my Lyx >document, >> > and while it has the lilypond-book module, it says it can't find >the >> > "lilypond-book→(pdf)latex" package. Where do I find this package? >> > >> > I have lilypond installed in its own subdirectory, as well as my >> > texlive installation in another one (so neither are the system >> > packages from my distribution's repo). I'm using gentoo Linux. >> > >> >> Hi Andrew >> >> lilypond-book is a preprocessor and I don't think you can use it in >Lyx >> (I have zero experience with Lyx though). >> >> Why don't you try lyluatex? >> https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/blob/master/README.en.md >> >> Then you can process your .tex file directly using lualatex and I >guess >> this will play well with Lyx. >> >> >> >> ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-book→latex
Hi Federico, according to release notes, Lyx has had support for lilypond-book for some time now. See here: https://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX20#lb That's where it says it requires the "lilypond-book→(pdf)latex" package, which my Lyx says it can't find. Any advice? Are there any Lyx users who got this working? Cheers, A On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 7:14 PM Federico Bruni wrote: > > > Il giorno ven 21 dic 2018 alle 11:24, "N. Andrew Walsh" > ha scritto: > > Hi List, > > > > dumb question: I'm trying to integrate lilypond into my Lyx document, > > and while it has the lilypond-book module, it says it can't find the > > "lilypond-book→(pdf)latex" package. Where do I find this package? > > > > I have lilypond installed in its own subdirectory, as well as my > > texlive installation in another one (so neither are the system > > packages from my distribution's repo). I'm using gentoo Linux. > > > > Hi Andrew > > lilypond-book is a preprocessor and I don't think you can use it in Lyx > (I have zero experience with Lyx though). > > Why don't you try lyluatex? > https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/blob/master/README.en.md > > Then you can process your .tex file directly using lualatex and I guess > this will play well with Lyx. > > > > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-book→latex
Il giorno ven 21 dic 2018 alle 11:24, "N. Andrew Walsh" ha scritto: Hi List, dumb question: I'm trying to integrate lilypond into my Lyx document, and while it has the lilypond-book module, it says it can't find the "lilypond-book→(pdf)latex" package. Where do I find this package? I have lilypond installed in its own subdirectory, as well as my texlive installation in another one (so neither are the system packages from my distribution's repo). I'm using gentoo Linux. Hi Andrew lilypond-book is a preprocessor and I don't think you can use it in Lyx (I have zero experience with Lyx though). Why don't you try lyluatex? https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/blob/master/README.en.md Then you can process your .tex file directly using lualatex and I guess this will play well with Lyx. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: synchronization of feathered beams
Am Fr., 21. Dez. 2018 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Reggie :
>
> Thomas Morley-2 wrote
> > Meanwhile I think you didn't understand that feathered beams, done with
> > \override Beam.grow-direction = #RIGHT
> > and
> > \featherDurations
> > are _independant_ from each other. See:
> >
> > \version "2.19.82"
> >
> > {
> > r2..
> > \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1 2)
> > { c''32[ 32 32 32 32 32 32 32] } r2..
> > }
> >
> > The old message you quoted previously, explains already that
> > \featherDurations changes the durations of the notes.
> > With those changed durations LilyPonds spacing engine may insert
> > different spacings between those notes.
> > Ofcourse things like barchecks fail if applied to the _unchanged_ notes.
> >
> > So it seems to me your problem has _nothing_ to do with feathered
> > Beams but with featherDurations and it's consequences.
> >
> > Probably don't use featherDurations at all, but use a custom function
> > to space the note-columns, only for the visible output, without
> > changing their durations (midi would not reflect any
> > accelerando/rallentando then ofcourse).
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Harm
> >
> > ___
> > lilypond-user mailing list
>
> > lilypond-user@
>
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> Harm I don't use MIDI so a custom function could work great yes for visual
> spacing. But please bear with me on this for a second. If the durations
> command already spaces them out then why doesn't this work *every* time? I
> understand both commands are independent yes thank you. But I presumed that
> I needed durations to space out the notes correctly like Gould and
> publishing houses all over do.
>
> Why would I need a custom function to do what featherdurations does if I'm
> misunderrstanding?
\featherDurations changes durations, nothing more!! It does not change
spacing on it's own.
The changed spacing is more a side-effect. Doing note-spacing is a
very involved process, durations are only one element of the
calculation.
So I ensure you \featherDuarations will _always_ affect the
_durations_ of it's argument, though, whether the resulting spacing is
really what you desire? Probably/likely/sometimes not.
> I wouldn't even know how to make this function besides. Sorry.
Well, there are some good coders on the list ;)
Not sure, if I'll have the time to give it a try ...
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Compiling LilyPond on Linux Mint 19.1
Am 21.12.18 um 09:06 schrieb Urs Liska: Hi Lukas, thanks for putting this together. Indeed since installing a distro that doesn't Guile 1.8 anymore I hadn't been able to compile LilyPond anymore. Once I managed to compile Guile 1.8 and do a build but for some reason I lost this option. I think the point was that after compiling Guile I had to actually change the way LilyPond's make was handled - which of course isn't sustainable. I'm also running Linux Mint 19.1, and followed your command list (and the previous instructions from the CG). Except that I already had some of the dependencies installed everything worked flawlessly, and I could run a make to compile LilyPond, register that in Frescobaldi and compile a .ly file with it. A warning about missing URW fonts was the only issue I encountered. make doc took the expected ages but worked without errors too! So I can confirm that the steps work on Linux Mint 19. Janek Wachoł has written a few scripts to help managing multiple LilyPond builds, which I really appreciated when I had them working. Basically they provide a configuration layer around the compilation, then create a local clone of the main code repository and build from that copy. That makes it possible to have multiple different builds from different branches (or even states of a branch) in parallel. I will see if I can integrate that with compiling through a self-compiled Guile and report back. Maybe these scripts are of use for others as well. I have looked again into these scripts and found that they (still) work well. The script that I suggest looking into is located at https://github.com/jan-warchol/cli-tools/blob/master/lilypond/build-lily.sh However, when it is considered of general use I'll ask Janek to extract the script from his scripts collection. In order to use the script two environment variables have to be exported (presumably from .bashrc): LILYPOND_GIT=/path/to/lilypond/source/repository LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR=/path/to/root/of/lilypond-builds When invoked without arguments the script will clone the source repository in its current state to the "current" subdirectory of LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR and build it from there. Settings to build other branches (or combinations of branches) to other target directories are described at the beginning of the script. Does this look interesting to anybody? Urs Best Urs Am 20.12.18 um 12:21 schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser: Folks, this is mostly to give a reference to those who might hit the same problems that I had: I decided to switch from my ancient Linux Mint 17.3 to Linux Mint 19.1 yesterday. In order to set up a working build environment, I had to provide a working Guile 1.8 which seems not to be in the repositories any more. So in addition to following the instructions given in http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/requirements-for-compiling-lilypond#linux-mint I also followed the most recent one of the various variations of steps for compiling Guile 1.8 that Federico Bruni gave in October 2017 (http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compiling-lilypond-in-debian-stretch-with-self-compiled-guile-1-8-td206683.html) git clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git cd guile git checkout branch_release-1-8 ./autogen.sh ./configure --disable-error-on-warning --prefix=/usr/local make sudo make install sudo ldconfig echo "GUILE_CONFIG=/usr/local/bin/guile-config" >> ~/.bashrc Then, after restarting Bash, I could proceed to http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/configuring-make and successfully compile current Master. (On my system, the echo [...] >> ~/.bashrc command added the given line without any new-line or whitespace, so I had to insert a newline in an editor.) Probably these instructions would need some more testing/polishing/adjusting to other distributions before they could reasonably be added to the Contributor's Guide, so I just thought it might be helpful to collect them once more here. (In fact I did run into a bit of trouble tonight, but this seems to have been because I wanted to re-use my old lilypond git directory which had been used for compiling on my old system, so it wasn't really a clean start. This might also mean my procedure can't be guaranteed to work on a really fresh Lilypond git folder, but I think they should - I removed the old build/ folder before the first succesful compile, so there shouldn't have been any remnants of earlier successful compilations.) Or would there have been a much easier way to success? (The upside for me: Now I have the necessary Python/Qt/Lilypond bindings to also run current Frescobaldi from the git repository following Urs's excellent instructions on https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/wiki/Run-Frescobaldi-3-on-Linux.) Best Lukas ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypon
Re: feathered beam calculations
On 2018-12-21 5:14 am, Reggie wrote:
Hello. I see what you are saying thank you. I just feel that feather
beaming
is so confusing it all depends on so much, it's not simple like "select
these notes and change beam style to feather left or right". It's
first,
math. Then, trial error. Then, settling. Then, Repeat. I now understand
how
to create the feather beams on paper, but the bar line check fails is
what
remains to be problemsome. [ . . .]
I apologize for the very long email following, although I would
appreciate you taking the time to read through it. You may need to
re-read it a few times, so find a good cup of coffee (or something
stronger if you are so-inclined).
==
Feathered beams, as far as the visual depiction goes, are as simple as
you describe. All you need to do is set Beam.grow-direction to #LEFT or
#RIGHT, and then any manually beamed notes delimited with [ and ] will
have the beams feathered. That's it. You're done. No math at all.
However, note that this is *only* the visual aspect of feathering.
Unless you use \featherDurations, all of the notes will keep their
straight timing; and MIDI output will not reflect the desired ritardando
or accelerando.
So when you do need to care about the timing of notes, \featherDurations
comes into play; and it does bring with it some potentially confusing
math. This math is somewhat complicated by the fact that the
documentation and implementation do not agree with one another.
Consider the following:
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1/2) { c8[ d e f] }
[Side note: Harm made a slight mistake in his example usage. If you
want to feather a sequence of notes, you must put those notes in curly
braces. Omitting the braces in the example above will result in no
feathering, as only the first note will be passed to the function.]
The documentation says that \featherDurations will use the specified
moment to scale the last note relative to the first; however, in
practice you will see that this scaling is done between each subsequent
note. In the example above, we would expect that the 'f' should last
half as long as the 'c'. But instead, we find that the 'f' is half of
the 'e'; the 'e', half of the 'd'; and the 'd', half of the 'c'. The
result is that the 'f' is one eighth the duration of the 'c'.
Given the current implementation, it would be necessary to use an
approximate rational like 50/63 as the moment in order to get 'f' to be
half of 'c'. Why that number? Well, it's a close approximation to the
irrational cube root of one half. We determine this exact value by
taking the desired ratio (1/2) and raising it to the reciprocal of the
number of scaling steps between the first and last notes (three, in this
case, which becomes the fraction 1/3). (1/2)^(1/3) is about 0.7937; and
50/63 is roughly 0.79365.
But before we get lost in the murky details of whether the implemented
behavior is right or the documentation is right, let us circle back
around to a key point that I feel has not been stressed enough.
\featherDurations will change the individual durations and timing of the
notes in the sequence provided; however it will *not* change the overall
duration of the sequence. If bar checks outside the range of feathered
notes are failing, then the issue is completely unrelated to
\featherDurations. Your problem is with the note sequence itself. (If
you are using bar checks *within* the sequence of notes being feathered,
then you are asking for trouble. We'll talk about this in a bit.)
This means your score really should be bar check clean *before* you ever
use \featherDurations. And that task may involve arithmetic of its own.
Consider the following sequence:
r64 { c64 d32 e16 f8 g4 a2 } | b1
We have a manually-written ritardando of notes. Note the rest is there
to ensure the whole note aligns to its own measure, but we are mainly
interested in the sequence delimited by the braces.
Let us assume we would like to notate this as a simple group of six,
thirty-secondth notes with a feathered beam:
r64 { c32[ d e f g a] } | b1
This fails the bar check because our six notes are not long enough to
fill out the measure. We fix this by first noting the original sequence
is 63 * 64th notes long. We are using 6 * 32nd notes, which is
equivalent to 12 * 64th notes. Scaling by the fraction 63/12 will get
us to our desired goal. You can confirm this by noting the bar check in
the following passes:
r64 { c32*63/12[ d e f g a] } | b1
Now that we have the correct total duration, we can add in feathering.
Consider the following to confirm that we have indeed achieved what we
wanted:
<< { r64 \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1)
{ c32*63/12[ d e f g a] } | b1 }
{ r64 { c64 d32 e16 f8 g4 a2 } | b1 } >>
In this case, we used the moment of 2/1 because we wanted each note to
be twice the length of its preceding note, which is w
Engraving chord names in Linux
Hi list,
I use lilypond 2.18 on OpenSuse Tumbleweed (the rolling distro from
Suse). On that combination, displaying chord names in .pdf-form gives
error messages grom ghostscript (gs) in the transition from a .ps-file
to a .pdf-file. When for example the snippet from
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/notes-and-chords.nl.html
is fed to lilypond, with logging set to its maximum,, the last messages
are:
Opmaakuitvoer naar `Akkoorden.ps'...
[/usr/share/fonts/truetype/CenturySchL-Roma.otf]
[/usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-Regular.ttf]
[/usr/share/lilypond/2.18.2/ps/music-drawing-routines.ps]
[/usr/share/lilypond/2.18.2/ps/lilyponddefs.ps]
Converting to `./Akkoorden.pdf'...
Aanroepen van 'gs -dSAFER -dDEVICEWIDTHPOINTS=595.28
-dDEVICEHEIGHTPOINTS=841.89 -dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -dNOPAUSE
-dBATCH -r1200 -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -sOutputFile=./Akkoorden.pdf
-c.setpdfwrite -fAkkoorden.ps'...
GPL Ghostscript 9.26 (2018-11-20)
Copyright (C) 2018 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved.
This software comes with NO WARRANTY: see the file PUBLIC for details.
Error: /invalidfont in --glyphshow--
Operand stack:
1.7072 43.7677 -7.0809 D
Execution stack:
%interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval--
--nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval--
--nostringval-- --nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 2029
1 3 %oparray_pop 2028 1 3 %oparray_pop 2009 1 3
%oparray_pop 1868 1 3 %oparray_pop --nostringval--
%errorexec_pop .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval--
--nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- 0
--nostringval-- %repeat_continue --nostringval--
Dictionary stack:
--dict:960/1684(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:114/200(L)--
Current allocation mode is local
Current file position is 946206
GPL Ghostscript 9.26: Warning: 'loca' length 13 is greater than
numGlyphs 1 in the font Roboto-Regular.
GPL Ghostscript 9.26: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1
Generating the .ps-file goes withjout warning, but if one opens that .ps
in a viewer, one does ee the triangle above the fist bar (between the
last 2 quarter notes), but no chord names.
The .pdf-file is not generated by gs.
The snippet reads as follows:
\version "2.18.2"
melody = \relative c' {
\clef treble
\key c \major
\time 4/4
f4 e8[ c] d4 g
a2 ~ a
}
harmonies = \chordmode {
c4:m f:min7 g:maj c:aug
d2:dim b:sus
}
\score {
<<
\new ChordNames {
\set chordChanges = ##t
\harmonies
}
\new Staff \melody
>>
\layout{ }
\midi { }
}
When I comment out the two lines in the chormode section, everything is OK.
What can be/can I do to display chord names?
regards, Jogchum Reitsma
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: synchronization of feathered beams
Thomas Morley-2 wrote
> Meanwhile I think you didn't understand that feathered beams, done with
> \override Beam.grow-direction = #RIGHT
> and
> \featherDurations
> are _independant_ from each other. See:
>
> \version "2.19.82"
>
> {
> r2..
> \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1 2)
> { c''32[ 32 32 32 32 32 32 32] } r2..
> }
>
> The old message you quoted previously, explains already that
> \featherDurations changes the durations of the notes.
> With those changed durations LilyPonds spacing engine may insert
> different spacings between those notes.
> Ofcourse things like barchecks fail if applied to the _unchanged_ notes.
>
> So it seems to me your problem has _nothing_ to do with feathered
> Beams but with featherDurations and it's consequences.
>
> Probably don't use featherDurations at all, but use a custom function
> to space the note-columns, only for the visible output, without
> changing their durations (midi would not reflect any
> accelerando/rallentando then ofcourse).
>
>
> Cheers,
> Harm
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Harm I don't use MIDI so a custom function could work great yes for visual
spacing. But please bear with me on this for a second. If the durations
command already spaces them out then why doesn't this work *every* time? I
understand both commands are independent yes thank you. But I presumed that
I needed durations to space out the notes correctly like Gould and
publishing houses all over do.
Why would I need a custom function to do what featherdurations does if I'm
misunderrstanding?
I wouldn't even know how to make this function besides. Sorry.
--
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: synchronization of feathered beams
Hi Reggie,
It's impossible to have feather
beams cross barlines and look correect why is this?
I’m confused… How, exactly, does this not output the kind of thing you want?
%%% SNIPPET BEGINS
\version "2.19.80"
{
r2..
\override Beam.grow-direction = #RIGHT
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1 2)
{ c''32[ 32 32 32 32 32 32 32] } r2..
}
%%% SNIPPET ENDS
Cheers,
Kieren.
Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: synchronization of feathered beams
Am Fr., 21. Dez. 2018 um 17:18 Uhr schrieb Reggie :
>
> Thomas Morley-2 wrote
> > Am Fr., 21. Dez. 2018 um 15:21 Uhr schrieb Reggie <
>
> > reegistoop@
>
> > >:
> >
> >> It's impossible to have feather
> >> beams cross barlines and look correect why is this?
> >
> > ??
> >
> > What's wrong with:
> >
> > \version "2.19.82"
> >
> > {
> > r2..
> > \override Beam.grow-direction = #RIGHT
> > c'32[ \repeat unfold 6 c'' c'] r2..
> > }
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Harm
> >
> > ___
> > lilypond-user mailing list
>
> > lilypond-user@
>
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> Also, as I earlier mentioned over and over, the bar lines fail. Your example
> does not work unless you ignore bar checks. Why needing to be this way is
> silly to me :)
Well, repeating the same over and over again, although several people
declared not to know exactly what you're, after is not likely
increasing the chance to be understood.
Meanwhile I think you didn't understand that feathered beams, done with
\override Beam.grow-direction = #RIGHT
and
\featherDurations
are _independant_ from each other. See:
\version "2.19.82"
{
r2..
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1 2)
{ c''32[ 32 32 32 32 32 32 32] } r2..
}
The old message you quoted previously, explains already that
\featherDurations changes the durations of the notes.
With those changed durations LilyPonds spacing engine may insert
different spacings between those notes.
Ofcourse things like barchecks fail if applied to the _unchanged_ notes.
So it seems to me your problem has _nothing_ to do with feathered
Beams but with featherDurations and it's consequences.
Probably don't use featherDurations at all, but use a custom function
to space the note-columns, only for the visible output, without
changing their durations (midi would not reflect any
accelerando/rallentando then ofcourse).
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: synchronization of feathered beams
Kieren MacMillan wrote > Hi Reggie, > >> the notes are not spaced out according to the feathered tempo. […] >> They should be spaced out to show slow fast change > > Why is that necessary? I mean, you obviously *want* that… but I’m not sure > they "should" be spaced out like that, necessarily. > >> How do you do that? > > There are dozens of ways, each with advantages and disadvantages. > Have you tried anything? If so, show us a minimum example, and we’ll help > you fine-tune it. > > Cheers, > Kieren. > > > Kieren MacMillan, composer > ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info > ‣ email: > info@ > > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@ > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Gould even says space by speed, if anyone cares :) like me Make durations never seems to space them correctly unless I am missing it. Bar checks never not failing if you do get the spacing eventually. It's just confusing and I feel stupid. Sorry :(( thank you!! -- 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: synchronization of feathered beams
Kieren MacMillan wrote > Hi Reggie, > >> the notes are not spaced out according to the feathered tempo. […] >> They should be spaced out to show slow fast change > > Why is that necessary? I mean, you obviously *want* that… but I’m not sure > they "should" be spaced out like that, necessarily. > >> How do you do that? > > There are dozens of ways, each with advantages and disadvantages. > Have you tried anything? If so, show us a minimum example, and we’ll help > you fine-tune it. > > Cheers, > Kieren. > > > Kieren MacMillan, composer > ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info > ‣ email: > info@ > > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@ > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Respect, but because it's the correct way to do it. Widely accepted. https://www.scoringnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/behind-bars-beams-2-300x81.png You show speed by clumping notes and then more space between as needed depends on speed. Very accepted. I have seen this in many Lily scores but never saw a clear answer how to always get this behavior? https://www.scoringnotes.com/tutorials/feathered-beams-that-look-and-play-back-correctly-in-sibelius/ Maybe someone can show clearly how Lily handles this correct behavior and not just default spacing. -- 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: Compiling LilyPond on Linux Mint 19.1
Hi Federico and Lukas, Am 21.12.18 um 09:59 schrieb Federico Bruni: Il giorno ven 21 dic 2018 alle 9:06, Urs Liska ha scritto: [...] A warning about missing URW fonts was the only issue I encountered. make doc took the expected ages but worked without errors too! So I can confirm that the steps work on Linux Mint 19. Hi Urs this was discussed before but you might have missed it. You can use part of this script: https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDevOS/blob/master/mkosi/debian/mkosi.extra/etc/skel/setup.sh#L39 to download the needed .otf files. AFAIK, only Fedora (?) includes .otf files in its URW fonts package, because I asked for it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466#c18 Thanks, this seems to have worked. Fedora packager wrote that OTF files are not too big and decided that they can be distributed along with .t1 and .afm files. If somebody asked Debian to do the same for fonts-urw-base35 package, above script would be not necessary anymore - for Debian nor its derivatives (Ubuntu, Mint, etc.). But until that happens this information should be added to any CG. Although if I'm not mistaken this is not related to the "Linux Mint" part of the section, isn't it? Best Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: synchronization of feathered beams
Hi Reggie, > the notes are not spaced out according to the feathered tempo. […] > They should be spaced out to show slow fast change Why is that necessary? I mean, you obviously *want* that… but I’m not sure they "should" be spaced out like that, necessarily. > How do you do that? There are dozens of ways, each with advantages and disadvantages. Have you tried anything? If so, show us a minimum example, and we’ll help you fine-tune it. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: synchronization of feathered beams
Hi Reggie, > Thomas Morley wrote >> What's wrong with: > as I earlier mentioned over and over, the bar lines fail. > Your example does not work unless you ignore bar checks. Harm’s example works fine for me; no bar line "failure". What’s the log output when you try it? Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: synchronization of feathered beams
Thomas Morley-2 wrote
> Am Fr., 21. Dez. 2018 um 15:21 Uhr schrieb Reggie <
> reegistoop@
> >:
>
>> It's impossible to have feather
>> beams cross barlines and look correect why is this?
>
> ??
>
> What's wrong with:
>
> \version "2.19.82"
>
> {
> r2..
> \override Beam.grow-direction = #RIGHT
> c'32[ \repeat unfold 6 c'' c'] r2..
> }
>
> Cheers,
> Harm
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Finally your version is also wrong because the notes are not spaced out
according to the feathered tempo. They just look like default beams
placement with 3 beams. They should be spaced out to show slow fast change
not just like you made it. How do you do that?
--
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: synchronization of feathered beams
Thomas Morley-2 wrote
> Am Fr., 21. Dez. 2018 um 15:21 Uhr schrieb Reggie <
> reegistoop@
> >:
>
>> It's impossible to have feather
>> beams cross barlines and look correect why is this?
>
> ??
>
> What's wrong with:
>
> \version "2.19.82"
>
> {
> r2..
> \override Beam.grow-direction = #RIGHT
> c'32[ \repeat unfold 6 c'' c'] r2..
> }
>
> Cheers,
> Harm
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Also, as I earlier mentioned over and over, the bar lines fail. Your example
does not work unless you ignore bar checks. Why needing to be this way is
silly to me :)
--
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: synchronization of feathered beams
Thomas Morley-2 wrote
> Am Fr., 21. Dez. 2018 um 15:21 Uhr schrieb Reggie <
> reegistoop@
> >:
>
>> It's impossible to have feather
>> beams cross barlines and look correect why is this?
>
> ??
>
> What's wrong with:
>
> \version "2.19.82"
>
> {
> r2..
> \override Beam.grow-direction = #RIGHT
> c'32[ \repeat unfold 6 c'' c'] r2..
> }
>
> Cheers,
> Harm
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Nothing. It works. It's simple. Not the question really sorry my. The
example the other person made was what I mentioned.
\version "2.12.3"
upper = {
\override Beam #'grow-direction = #RIGHT
\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1 2)
{ \time 7/16 des''16 -. [\p\< es''16 -. e''16 -. f''16 -. ges''16 -. as''16
-. c'''16 -> -. \f \time 3/16 cis''' d''' dis'''] }
}
\score {
\new Staff \upper
}
--
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: synchronization of feathered beams
Am Fr., 21. Dez. 2018 um 15:21 Uhr schrieb Reggie :
> It's impossible to have feather
> beams cross barlines and look correect why is this?
??
What's wrong with:
\version "2.19.82"
{
r2..
\override Beam.grow-direction = #RIGHT
c'32[ \repeat unfold 6 c'' c'] r2..
}
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: synchronization of feathered beams
kontrapunktstefan wrote
> Dear Phil,
> thanks for Your explanations.
> I do have now another problem.
> What can I do, when I want to have feathered beams across barlines, like
> e.g.:
>
> \version "2.12.3"
> upper = {
> \override Beam #'grow-direction = #RIGHT
>
> \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1 2)
> { \time 7/16 des''16 -. [\p\< es''16 -. e''16 -. f''16 -. ges''16 -.
> as''16
> -. c'''16 -> -. \f \time 3/16 cis''' d''' dis'''] }
> }
> \score {
>\new Staff \upper
> }
>
>
>
> 2010/9/30 Phil Holmes <
> mail@
> >
>
>> Top posting because of HTML original.
>>
>> Stefan,
>>
>> featherDurations changes the tempo of the notes. Thus the notes at the
>> start of the bar have a longer duration than those at the end, and I
>> presume
>> LilyPond is having a problem applying this to the longer rests. This may
>> not give the appearance you want, but shows that this will work with
>> short
>> duration rests. (I've replaced all your eighth notes with sixteenth, to
>> show the beam feathering).
>>
>> \version "2.12.3"
>> global = { \time 7/16 }
>> upper = { \global
>> \override Beam #'grow-direction = #RIGHT
>>
>> \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1 2)
>> { des''16 -. [\p\< es''16 -. e''16 -. f''16 -. ges''16 -. as''16 -.
>> c'''16
>> -> -. \f] }
>> }
>> lower = { \global
>>\override Beam #'grow-direction = #RIGHT
>>
>>\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1 2)
>> { r16 r r r r r16 -> -. \sfz }
>>
>> }
>> \score {
>> << \new Staff \upper
>> \new Staff \lower >>
>> }
>>
>> --
>> Phil Holmes
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Stefan Thomas <
> kontrapunktstefan@
> >
>> *To:* lilypond-user <
> lilypond-user@
> >
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:42 AM
>> *Subject:* synchronization of feathered beams
>>
>> Dear community,
>> I have a problem with the synchronisation in the below quoted snippet.
>> I expect to have the notes on the end of the bar on the same vertical
>> height.
>> How can I achieve it?
>> Thanks for help,
>> Stefan
>>
>> \version "2.12.3"
>> global = { \time 7/8 }
>> upper = { \global
>>\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1 2)
>> { des''8 -. [\p\< es''8 -. e''8 -. f''8 -. ges''8 -. as''8 -. c'''8 ->
>> -.
>> \f] }
>> }
>> lower = { \global
>>\featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1 2)
>> { r2 r4 8 -> -. \sfz }
>> }
>> \score {
>> << \new Staff \upper
>> \new Staff \lower >>
>> }
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ___
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>>
> lilypond-user@
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Another feather beaming problem for me. It's impossible to have feather
beams cross barlines and look correect why is this? How can you do this? 8
years ago. What now?
--
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: feathered beam calculations
Michael Gerdau wrote > First thing you have to answer for yourself is: > What do I need feathered beams for? > The answer should be something along the line "to visually notate an > accellerando or rallentando". > Assuming that's your answer then you should have a rough idea as to how > strongly you wish to change the timing, as in double/halve the speed, > adding 50% to it etc. pp. > Doubling the speed would mean you'd have to issue > \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 1/2) > Halving the speed would mean > \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/1) > Adding 50% to it > \featherDurations #(ly:make-moment 2/3) > and so on. > You come to these numbers by dividing the metronom marks at the beginning > of your section through the metronom mark at the end of it. > > Basically that's it. No magic. You as the composer have to know what you > want and you should be able to write it down simply by giving metronom > marks along the way. Once you can do that you could use feathered beams to > visually show it. Hello. I see what you are saying thank you. I just feel that feather beaming is so confusing it all depends on so much, it's not simple like "select these notes and change beam style to feather left or right". It's first, math. Then, trial error. Then, settling. Then, Repeat. I now understand how to create the feather beams on paper, but the bar line check fails is what remains to be problemsome. Is there not a way that you can for me please make it so you can use cadenzaOn for one instrument without effecting the other instruments? I could use that as needed for feather beam so it would ignore the barline check fails in those feather measures. But I tried it and cadenzaon/off always affects other instruments of system staff. Can you help? Maybe that's a better choice? Just to erase the idea of time fails. Can Lily not allow to use cadenza on certain staffs but not all, occuring at the same time that is in a system. -- 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-book→latex
Hi List, dumb question: I'm trying to integrate lilypond into my Lyx document, and while it has the lilypond-book module, it says it can't find the "lilypond-book→(pdf)latex" package. Where do I find this package? I have lilypond installed in its own subdirectory, as well as my texlive installation in another one (so neither are the system packages from my distribution's repo). I'm using gentoo Linux. Thanks for the help, A ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: two markups
Gianmaria Lari writes:
> This works perfectly and print ciccio:
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> test = #(define-scheme-function () () #{ \markup "ciccio" #} )
> \test
>
>
> but if i specify two markups instead of one like here
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> test = #(define-scheme-function () () #{ \markup "ciccio" \markup "ciccio"
> #} )
> \test
>
>
> then it stop to works.
>
> Why?
What is the type of the Scheme expression #{ \markup "ciccio" \markup
"ciccio" #} supposed to be? It cannot be a markup, because there are
two.
And how should I do if I need to specify two markups?
You can create a markup list from two markups. You can also combine two
markups in various ways (sometimes by first putting both in a markup
list) into a single markup (\combine, \line, \concat, \column and so
on).
It's your choice. But just waving your hands and telling the computer
"well, do _something_" is not
likely to make a programming language like Scheme happy.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: two markups
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 09:51, Gianmaria Lari
wrote:
> This works perfectly and print ciccio:
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> test = #(define-scheme-function () () #{ \markup "ciccio" #} )
> \test
>
>
> but if i specify two markups instead of one like here
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> test = #(define-scheme-function () () #{ \markup "ciccio" \markup "ciccio"
> #} )
> \test
>
>
> then it stop to works.
> Why? And how should I do if I need to specify two markups?
> Thank you, g.
>
I found a solution to the second question <>
I can specify the markup arguments inside a curly bracket. So instead of
\markup \a \markup \b % doesn't work
it is possible to do
\markup {\a \b}.
That's mean that the previous code become:
\version "2.19.82"
test = #(define-scheme-function () () #{ \markup {"ciccio" "ciccio"} #} )
\test
(This was just an example it makes sense if you use variables instead
of "ciccio")
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Compiling LilyPond on Linux Mint 19.1
Il giorno ven 21 dic 2018 alle 9:06, Urs Liska ha scritto: [...] A warning about missing URW fonts was the only issue I encountered. make doc took the expected ages but worked without errors too! So I can confirm that the steps work on Linux Mint 19. Hi Urs this was discussed before but you might have missed it. You can use part of this script: https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDevOS/blob/master/mkosi/debian/mkosi.extra/etc/skel/setup.sh#L39 to download the needed .otf files. AFAIK, only Fedora (?) includes .otf files in its URW fonts package, because I asked for it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466#c18 Fedora packager wrote that OTF files are not too big and decided that they can be distributed along with .t1 and .afm files. If somebody asked Debian to do the same for fonts-urw-base35 package, above script would be not necessary anymore - for Debian nor its derivatives (Ubuntu, Mint, etc.). ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Frescobaldi with LilyPond in WSL
Am 21. Dezember 2018 09:37:42 MEZ schrieb Michael Gerdau : > >>> I'm on a 64bit Windows 10, the copy commands needs to be: >>> cp /c/Program\ Files\ \(x86\)/Frescobaldi/... >> >> Do you think it would be sufficient to state something like "adjust >paths to your actual installation"? > >Given that 64Bit is likely to be the rule I’d suggest to have that as >default and have a note stating „On 32bit Systems use...“ > >Once the GUP toolchain is able to create 64Bit binaries it could be >changed back. > >> The first milestone is having Frescobaldi run from Git at all (which >you can see from the "Git" menu appearing between "Session" and >"Help"). > >That milestone has been reached 😊 > > >[time constraint] >That’s fine. I’m happy to do some hacking myself. While my python could >use some enhancement I’m fluent in Perl and a few other languages so I >think I’m fine with some basic experiments. Great. > >If you already know which files I should look at that would give me a >headstart. Otherwise I’ll find that myself. > If you tell me how the command line should look I'll create something to start with. Urs >Kind regards, >Michael ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
two markups
This works perfectly and print ciccio:
\version "2.19.82"
test = #(define-scheme-function () () #{ \markup "ciccio" #} )
\test
but if i specify two markups instead of one like here
\version "2.19.82"
test = #(define-scheme-function () () #{ \markup "ciccio" \markup "ciccio"
#} )
\test
then it stop to works.
Why? And how should I do if I need to specify two markups?
Thank you, g.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Frescobaldi with LilyPond in WSL
>> I'm on a 64bit Windows 10, the copy commands needs to be: >> cp /c/Program\ Files\ \(x86\)/Frescobaldi/... > > Do you think it would be sufficient to state something like "adjust paths to > your actual installation"? Given that 64Bit is likely to be the rule I’d suggest to have that as default and have a note stating „On 32bit Systems use...“ Once the GUP toolchain is able to create 64Bit binaries it could be changed back. > The first milestone is having Frescobaldi run from Git at all (which you can > see from the "Git" menu appearing between "Session" and "Help"). That milestone has been reached 😊 [time constraint] That’s fine. I’m happy to do some hacking myself. While my python could use some enhancement I’m fluent in Perl and a few other languages so I think I’m fine with some basic experiments. If you already know which files I should look at that would give me a headstart. Otherwise I’ll find that myself. Kind regards, Michael ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Compiling LilyPond on Linux Mint 19.1
Hi Lukas, thanks for putting this together. Indeed since installing a distro that doesn't Guile 1.8 anymore I hadn't been able to compile LilyPond anymore. Once I managed to compile Guile 1.8 and do a build but for some reason I lost this option. I think the point was that after compiling Guile I had to actually change the way LilyPond's make was handled - which of course isn't sustainable. I'm also running Linux Mint 19.1, and followed your command list (and the previous instructions from the CG). Except that I already had some of the dependencies installed everything worked flawlessly, and I could run a make to compile LilyPond, register that in Frescobaldi and compile a .ly file with it. A warning about missing URW fonts was the only issue I encountered. make doc took the expected ages but worked without errors too! So I can confirm that the steps work on Linux Mint 19. Janek Wachoł has written a few scripts to help managing multiple LilyPond builds, which I really appreciated when I had them working. Basically they provide a configuration layer around the compilation, then create a local clone of the main code repository and build from that copy. That makes it possible to have multiple different builds from different branches (or even states of a branch) in parallel. I will see if I can integrate that with compiling through a self-compiled Guile and report back. Maybe these scripts are of use for others as well. Best Urs Am 20.12.18 um 12:21 schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser: Folks, this is mostly to give a reference to those who might hit the same problems that I had: I decided to switch from my ancient Linux Mint 17.3 to Linux Mint 19.1 yesterday. In order to set up a working build environment, I had to provide a working Guile 1.8 which seems not to be in the repositories any more. So in addition to following the instructions given in http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/requirements-for-compiling-lilypond#linux-mint I also followed the most recent one of the various variations of steps for compiling Guile 1.8 that Federico Bruni gave in October 2017 (http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/compiling-lilypond-in-debian-stretch-with-self-compiled-guile-1-8-td206683.html) git clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git cd guile git checkout branch_release-1-8 ./autogen.sh ./configure --disable-error-on-warning --prefix=/usr/local make sudo make install sudo ldconfig echo "GUILE_CONFIG=/usr/local/bin/guile-config" >> ~/.bashrc Then, after restarting Bash, I could proceed to http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/configuring-make and successfully compile current Master. (On my system, the echo [...] >> ~/.bashrc command added the given line without any new-line or whitespace, so I had to insert a newline in an editor.) Probably these instructions would need some more testing/polishing/adjusting to other distributions before they could reasonably be added to the Contributor's Guide, so I just thought it might be helpful to collect them once more here. (In fact I did run into a bit of trouble tonight, but this seems to have been because I wanted to re-use my old lilypond git directory which had been used for compiling on my old system, so it wasn't really a clean start. This might also mean my procedure can't be guaranteed to work on a really fresh Lilypond git folder, but I think they should - I removed the old build/ folder before the first succesful compile, so there shouldn't have been any remnants of earlier successful compilations.) Or would there have been a much easier way to success? (The upside for me: Now I have the necessary Python/Qt/Lilypond bindings to also run current Frescobaldi from the git repository following Urs's excellent instructions on https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/wiki/Run-Frescobaldi-3-on-Linux.) Best Lukas ___ 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
