Re: Dynamics offset suddenly changes
Sorry, Andrew. I've been buried in work for my choir. Allow me to try
to address the questions/comments in a single mail to catch up.
On 2019-03-25 5:04 pm, Andrew Bernard wrote:
The pink arrow lines - how does lilypond work out this distance? It
seems
to be that that is jumping around. Can you help me understand that?
The pink lines are hard-coded as part of my demonstration of using a
specific value for minimum-space. It was meant only to visually depict
the offset, as it can be hard to count staff spaces outside the staff
itself.
What I could have done was this:
%% Overlay reference lines.
\override Hairpin.stencil =
#(grob-transformer 'stencil (lambda (grob orig)
(let* ((p (ly:grob-object grob 'axis-group-parent-Y))
(y (ly:grob-property p 'minimum-space)))
(grob-interpret-markup grob #{
\markup \with-dimensions-from \stencil $orig \overlay {
\with-color #(rgb-color 0.4 0.7 1.0)
\path #0.2 #'((moveto -8 0) (lineto 8 0))
\with-color #(rgb-color 1.0 0.4 0.7)
\path #0.2 #`((moveto 0 0) (lineto 0 ,y)
(moveto -2 ,y) (lineto 2 ,y)
(moveto -1 ,(- y 1.5)) (lineto 0 ,y)
(lineto 1 ,(- y 1.5)))
\stencil $orig } #}
NOTE: I omitted the \once so this will draw on all Hairpins. As such, I
shortened the blue line.
Here this is only just for visualizing minimum-space, but it does not
account for all of the possible factors that affect vertical
positioning. Again note that in my other example, I zeroed out several
of the padding properties to make things work.
On 2019-03-25 4:42 pm, Andrew Bernard wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Thank you for looking into this. As mentioned in my original post, I am
not
using a Dynamics context as this New Complexity score is very, very
complex
rhythmically, and it would tale a month to go back and figure out all
the
spacer rests to use a dynamics context. I'd rather not do that, but I
can
see where this is going.
As I showed in my prior email, you do not technically need to do
anything a second time. You should be able to instanciate your music
twice: once for the \Staff and a second time for \Dynamics. It should
only then be a matter of \omitting any dynamics-related grobs from the
Staff. Of course, this tactic may not work depending on how "dirty"
your music variables are. If they are pretty clean and just represent
pitches and durations with dynamics attached, it should work as I
showed.
For cases when the music is muddled with things that the \Dynamics
context is not by default ignoring, it would fall to the task of using
map-some-music and a suitable procedure for extracting only the elements
you want. Basically, I agree that you should not have to do extra work.
You have already indicated the dynamics you want and when. The tactic
now is to leverage the power of the computer to split out the things you
want in \Dynamics apart from the things you want on the \Staff.
Unfortunately, I am running a bit out of time to dig into this further.
And it could very well have already come up before, so I'd encourage a
thorough search through the archives and the LSR.
This was all fine until the score reached a certain number of pages. I
suppose I can go chopping pages out to see what may be going on there.
I
tried 2.19.82 and 2.19.83, so I don't think there is an issue with the
version.
I mention again that this started happening as the score grew large,
making
me think there is some kind of memory management issue lurking around.
I am
completely unable to prove this.
I would expect memory bugs to result in crashes rather than simple and
consistent misalignment of elements. But stranger things have happened.
You may have another strategy here. You mention that problems happen at
scale, so would it make sense to break up the piece into smaller
sections that each independently render as expected? It is not elegant
for sure; but if the approach unblocks you, I would say elegance should
not matter.
-- Aaron Hill
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Dynamics offset suddenly changes
Hi Aaron,
The pink arrow lines - how does lilypond work out this distance? It seems
to be that that is jumping around. Can you help me understand that?
Andrew
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 08:18, Aaron Hill wrote:
>
>
> Consider the following:
>
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> \paper { indent = 0 line-width = 5\in ragged-right = ##f }
> \layout { \omit Staff.TimeSignature }
>
> test = {
>%% Overlay reference lines.
>\once \override Hairpin.stencil =
> #(grob-transformer 'stencil (lambda (grob orig)
>(grob-interpret-markup grob #{
> \markup \with-dimensions-from \stencil $orig \overlay {
>\with-color #(rgb-color 0.4 0.7 1.0)
>\path #0.2 #'((moveto -2 0) (lineto 66 0))
>\with-color #(rgb-color 1.0 0.4 0.7)
>\path #0.2 #'((moveto 0 0) (lineto 0 7) (moveto -2 7)
> (lineto 2 7) (moveto -1 5.5) (lineto 0 7) (lineto 1 5.5))
>\stencil $orig } #})))
>| g4\p\< g'2.\!
>| g4\p g4\< g'2\!
>| g4\p g'4\< g'2\!
>| g'2.\< g4\!\f
>| g'2\< g4\! g4\f
>| g'2\< g'4\! g4\f \break
> }
> {
>\test
>\override DynamicLineSpanner.minimum-space = #7
>\override DynamicLineSpanner.padding = #0
>\override DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding = #0
>\test
> }
>
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Dynamics offset suddenly changes
Hello Aaron, Your hairpin marker code is astounding. Does this attached image from my score indicate anything awry? Andrew ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Dynamics offset suddenly changes
Hi Harm, My issue can't be related to stopping and starting staves, as that does not occur in my score. But it has a hint of being somehow related. Andrew On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 07:20, Thomas Morley wrote: > > A minimal triggering the problem (\break\stopStaff \startStaff needed) > and showing not aligning dynamics (\new Voice needed): > > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Dynamics offset suddenly changes
Hi Aaron, Thank you for looking into this. As mentioned in my original post, I am not using a Dynamics context as this New Complexity score is very, very complex rhythmically, and it would tale a month to go back and figure out all the spacer rests to use a dynamics context. I'd rather not do that, but I can see where this is going. This was all fine until the score reached a certain number of pages. I suppose I can go chopping pages out to see what may be going on there. I tried 2.19.82 and 2.19.83, so I don't think there is an issue with the version. I mention again that this started happening as the score grew large, making me think there is some kind of memory management issue lurking around. I am completely unable to prove this. Andrew On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 08:18, Aaron Hill wrote: > > At the end of the day, if you absolutely need perfect alignment, the > \Dynamics context really is the way to go. Consider this usage: > > > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Dynamics offset suddenly changes
Hi Harm, I am critically aware of the need to provide MWE's. I spent all yesterday trying to write one, and all works fine. It's only in the context of my large score that it shows up. What's more, it only just started happening, and all used to be fine. I raised the post to see if anybody has has encountered the same issue, more than anything. Andrew On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 07:20, Thomas Morley wrote: > > without an example to reproduce the problem it's close to impossible > to say anything reasonable... > > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Dynamics offset suddenly changes
Hi Aaron, Thanks you. But the hairpins in question in my code all end on dynamics such as p or f, and were working fine up until a couple of days ago. I can't see what has changed, except the quartey score is now 110 pages. I am very sorry I cannot stimulate this in a small MWE. I am using 2.19.83. Now I wonder if that's the issue. I will revert to 2.19.82 to try. Andrew On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 08:18, Aaron Hill wrote: > On 2019-03-25 2:42 am, Andrew Bernard wrote: > > Anybody? > > > > I have tried experimenting with large values of \override > > DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding to no avail. I am stumped. Is it a > > bug? > > While it may not be ideal, to me this is not a bug. DynamicLineSpanners > behave differently when not started or terminated on the same note as a > corresponding DynamicText. Because otherwise, the two dynamic items > have no knowledge of each other and ultimately have to fend for > themselves amongst the rest of the "outside-staff" items. > > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Dynamics offset suddenly changes
On 2019-03-25 2:15 pm, Aaron Hill wrote: On 2019-03-25 2:42 am, Andrew Bernard wrote: Anybody? I have tried experimenting with large values of \override DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding to no avail. I am stumped. Is it a bug? While it may not be ideal, to me this is not a bug. **DynamicLineSpanners** behave differently when not started or terminated on the same note as a corresponding DynamicText. Sorry, I meant to type Hairpins there instead of DynamicLineSpanners. -- Aaron Hill ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Dynamics offset suddenly changes
On 2019-03-25 2:42 am, Andrew Bernard wrote:
Anybody?
I have tried experimenting with large values of \override
DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding to no avail. I am stumped. Is it a
bug?
While it may not be ideal, to me this is not a bug. DynamicLineSpanners
behave differently when not started or terminated on the same note as a
corresponding DynamicText. Because otherwise, the two dynamic items
have no knowledge of each other and ultimately have to fend for
themselves amongst the rest of the "outside-staff" items.
Even within a \Dynamics context it is not so much that items are aligned
to each other but rather to a common reference point that just so
happens to make it *look* like they know about each other.
Consider the following:
\version "2.19.82"
\paper { indent = 0 line-width = 5\in ragged-right = ##f }
\layout { \omit Staff.TimeSignature }
test = {
%% Overlay reference lines.
\once \override Hairpin.stencil =
#(grob-transformer 'stencil (lambda (grob orig)
(grob-interpret-markup grob #{
\markup \with-dimensions-from \stencil $orig \overlay {
\with-color #(rgb-color 0.4 0.7 1.0)
\path #0.2 #'((moveto -2 0) (lineto 66 0))
\with-color #(rgb-color 1.0 0.4 0.7)
\path #0.2 #'((moveto 0 0) (lineto 0 7) (moveto -2 7)
(lineto 2 7) (moveto -1 5.5) (lineto 0 7) (lineto 1 5.5))
\stencil $orig } #})))
| g4\p\< g'2.\!
| g4\p g4\< g'2\!
| g4\p g'4\< g'2\!
| g'2.\< g4\!\f
| g'2\< g4\! g4\f
| g'2\< g'4\! g4\f \break
}
{
\test
\override DynamicLineSpanner.minimum-space = #7
\override DynamicLineSpanner.padding = #0
\override DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding = #0
\test
}
The first system demonstrates the default vertical alignment. Note that
the only time the hairpins and dynamics line up "properly" is when they
start and stop together.
The second system shows that by adjusting some variables you can
essentially request all of the dynamic items to be a certain distance
away from the staff. Note that this is simply a request, and that other
"outside-staff" items can shift the final positioning.
At the end of the day, if you absolutely need perfect alignment, the
\Dynamics context really is the way to go. Consider this usage:
\version "2.19.82"
test = {
| g4\p\< g'2.\! | g4\p g4\< g'2\! | g4\p g'4\< g'2\!
| g'2.\< g4\!\f | g'2\< g4\! g4\f | g'2\< g'4\! g4\f
}
<<
\new Staff \with { \omit Hairpin \omit DynamicText } \test
\new Dynamics \test
This is a cheap way to avoid duplicating effort on the \Dynamics
context.
-- Aaron Hill___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Dynamics offset suddenly changes
Am Mo., 25. März 2019 um 10:42 Uhr schrieb Andrew Bernard
:
>
> Anybody?
>
> I have tried experimenting with large values of \override
> DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding to no avail. I am stumped. Is it a bug?
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 at 20:48, Andrew Bernard wrote:
>>
>> I have a score with a lot of dynamics, a string quartet. There is more or
>> less a continuum of dynamics and hairpins for each instrument. I am not
>> using a dynamics context as the complexity of the music and rhythms makes it
>> very tedious to figure out all the spacer rests that would be need. It's
>> more pragmatic to attach the dynamics to the notes for this particular work.
>> Generally in the score all the dynamics and hairpins line up nicely without
>> me having to adjust them, only occasionally. But now that I have over 100
>> pages, more and more often hairpins that go over the page break and should
>> join to a \p or \f etc on the next page are completely out of alignment.
>> It's as though the hairpin cannot see the ending dynamic indication.
>>
>> is there a reason for this, and is there a fix?
>>
>> Refer to the attached image for an example.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
Hi Andrew,
without an example to reproduce the problem it's close to impossible
to say anything reasonable...
_Maybe_ you stumbled across a problem recently reported:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bug-restarting-staff-destroys-DynamicLineSpanner-staff-padding-after-line-break-td220605.html
A minimal triggering the problem (\break\stopStaff \startStaff needed)
and showing not aligning dynamics (\new Voice needed):
\new Staff {
\override Staff.DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding = 5
c'1\f\>
\break
\stopStaff \startStaff
e' <>\!
\new Voice { d'\p\< e'\! }
}
Also, see my attempt of an workaround there.
HTH a bit,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tangled up in Lilypond syntax
And since we're talking about temporary polyphonic contexts (TPC) there are
a few other things, like lyrics, that don't work in to and out of them.
Mostly multi-note events like slurs, crescendos, etc. You cannot start them
outside a TPC and conclude them inside one, or start them inside a TPC and
conclude them outside one. If you need to use them, extend the measures in
your TPC. This will produce stems/beams you may dislike but judicious use
of "s" can fix that. Well, that's the only way I know how to use them. More
experienced folks on this list may use other methods.
Guy Stalnaker
jimmyg...@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:02 PM Guy Stalnaker wrote:
> Opps. True. No \\ if using my earlier code. Thanks for catching that!
>
> Guy Stalnaker
> jimmyg...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:02 PM Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
>
>>
>> Slight amendation of Mark's suggestion. Since you're doing a vocal
>> composition, to keep lyrics applied into this temporary poloyphonic
>> context, use this syntax:
>>
>> << { \voiceOne } \\
>> \new Voice { \voiceTwo { } }
>> >> \oneVoice
>>
>> Lyrics set to the voice will carry into the temporary polyphonic context
>> { \voiceOne } and then should continue after the \oneVoice. But note that
>> use of slurs will break the lyrics placement so you may need to include
>> \skip1 in your lyrics to shift the lyric syllables to the proper note
>> location.
>>
>> Slight correction: This is only true if you omit the \\. Compare
>>
>> \version "2.19.82"
>>
>> \new Staff \relative a' {
>> a a a << { \voiceOne a a a } \\ \new Voice { \voiceTwo e b b } >>
>> \oneVoice a a a
>> }
>> \addlyrics { \repeat unfold 10 test }
>>
>> and
>>
>> \version "2.19.82"
>>
>> \new Staff \relative a' {
>> a a a << { \voiceOne a a a } \new Voice { \voiceTwo e b b } >>
>> \oneVoice a a a
>> }
>> \addlyrics { \repeat unfold 10 test }
>>
>> (Background: {a} \\ {b} is a shorthand that creates _two_ new voices
>> called "1" and "2".)
>>
>> Lukas
>>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tangled up in Lilypond syntax
Slight amendation of Mark's suggestion. Since you're doing a vocal
composition, to keep lyrics applied into this temporary poloyphonic
context, use this syntax:
<< { \voiceOne } \\
\new Voice { \voiceTwo { } }
>> \oneVoice
Lyrics set to the voice will carry into the temporary polyphonic
context { \voiceOne } and then should continue after the \oneVoice.
But note that use of slurs will break the lyrics placement so you may
need to include \skip1 in your lyrics to shift the lyric syllables to
the proper note location.
Slight correction: This is only true if you omit the \\. Compare
\version "2.19.82"
\new Staff \relative a' {
a a a << { \voiceOne a a a } \\ \new Voice { \voiceTwo e b b } >>
\oneVoice a a a
}
\addlyrics { \repeat unfold 10 test }
and
\version "2.19.82"
\new Staff \relative a' {
a a a << { \voiceOne a a a } \new Voice { \voiceTwo e b b } >>
\oneVoice a a a
}
\addlyrics { \repeat unfold 10 test }
(Background: {a} \\ {b} is a shorthand that creates _two_ new voices
called "1" and "2".)
Lukas
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bach, beams, and benchmarks
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 7:43 AM David Kastrup wrote: > Abraham Lee writes: > > > Hi, David! > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 8:38 AM David Kastrup wrote: > >> > > >> > Here's my first page of this piece. > >> > >> I'd have been interested in the second one, the multi-string passages > >> close to the end. Since there are fingerings in your page, you are > >> obviously not writing an Urtext. > >> > > > > Most definitely not. I am also not a string player, so you'll have to > > forgive the fingering. I was merely copying this from another source as > an > > exercise. > > > > Anyway, see the attached PDF which includes both pages. Hopefully that > > satisfies your interests. > > Yes, thanks. I should mention that "copying this from another source" > is a bad idea _unless_ you are creating an Urtext since things like the > fingering are copyrighted (except for quite old editions). > You'll get no argument from me about this. It was purely an educational exercise for me at the time I created it and nothing more. I can't argue any which way for the "goodness" of the edition's fingering I copied from (I think it was even from a couple of sources), so please feel free to ignore them as they bear no importance to the discussion of the OP's specific request here, but thanks for the feedback. I will keep it in mind. Best, Abraham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tangled up in Lilypond syntax
Opps. True. No \\ if using my earlier code. Thanks for catching that!
Guy Stalnaker
jimmyg...@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:02 PM Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
>
> Slight amendation of Mark's suggestion. Since you're doing a vocal
> composition, to keep lyrics applied into this temporary poloyphonic
> context, use this syntax:
>
> << { \voiceOne } \\
> \new Voice { \voiceTwo { } }
> >> \oneVoice
>
> Lyrics set to the voice will carry into the temporary polyphonic context {
> \voiceOne } and then should continue after the \oneVoice. But note that use
> of slurs will break the lyrics placement so you may need to include \skip1
> in your lyrics to shift the lyric syllables to the proper note location.
>
> Slight correction: This is only true if you omit the \\. Compare
>
> \version "2.19.82"
>
> \new Staff \relative a' {
> a a a << { \voiceOne a a a } \\ \new Voice { \voiceTwo e b b } >>
> \oneVoice a a a
> }
> \addlyrics { \repeat unfold 10 test }
>
> and
>
> \version "2.19.82"
>
> \new Staff \relative a' {
> a a a << { \voiceOne a a a } \new Voice { \voiceTwo e b b } >> \oneVoice
> a a a
> }
> \addlyrics { \repeat unfold 10 test }
>
> (Background: {a} \\ {b} is a shorthand that creates _two_ new voices
> called "1" and "2".)
>
> Lukas
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tangled up in Lilypond syntax
P.S. Using the syntax from my first email, you don't need any longer the
\sopranoVoiceTwo. You simply put the notes in the { \voiceTwo } location of
the temporary polyphonic context.
Guy Stalnaker
jimmyg...@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:38 PM Guy Stalnaker wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Slight amendation of Mark's suggestion. Since you're doing a vocal
> composition, to keep lyrics applied into this temporary poloyphonic
> context, use this syntax:
>
> << { \voiceOne } \\
> \new Voice { \voiceTwo { } }
> >> \oneVoice
>
> Lyrics set to the voice will carry into the temporary polyphonic context {
> \voiceOne } and then should continue after the \oneVoice. But note that use
> of slurs will break the lyrics placement so you may need to include \skip1
> in your lyrics to shift the lyric syllables to the proper note location.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy Stalnaker
> jimmyg...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:59 AM Mark Stephen Mrotek
> wrote:
>
>> Tim,
>>
>> You can "insert" a second voice using the << // >> syntax explained here:
>>
>>
>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning/i_0027m-hearing-voices
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: lilypond-user
>> [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of
>> Tim
>> Slattery
>> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 9:29 AM
>> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> Subject: Tangled up in Lilypond syntax
>>
>> I'm setting a fairly short song. It's sixteen measures, in the standard
>> four
>> voice parts. I used Frescobaldi to set up the basic structure, so the
>> syntax
>> I'm using comes from modifying what it put out.
>>
>> What causes the grief is that the last measure in the soprano part is
>> polyphonic (or polyrythmic). That necessitated a second soprano voice,
>> which
>> skips the first 15 measures and has three notes in the last measure.
>>
>> Lower down, Frescobaldi generates this language:
>>
>> sopranoVoicePart = \new Staff \with {
>> instrumentName = "Soprano"
>> midiInstrument = "choir aahs"
>> } { \sopranoVoice }
>> \addlyrics { \verseOne }
>> \addlyrics { \verseTwo }
>>
>> Since I now had two soprano voices, I did:
>>
>> sopranoVoicePart = \new Staff \with {
>> instrumentName = "Soprano"
>> midiInstrument = "choir aahs"
>> } { << \sopranoVoice \sopranoVoiceTwo >> } \addlyrics { \verseOne }
>> \addlyrics { \verseTwo }
>>
>> which results in several error messages like this:
>> programing error: No spring between column 0 and next one
>>
>> Makes no sense to me. It does create a PDF, but its all jumbled with
>> titles,
>> staffs and notes printed on top of each other. And no words for the
>> soprano
>> part at all.
>>
>> I'm not an expert in Lilypond syntax, so I'm at a standstill. What do I
>> need
>> to do to make this work?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> Tim Slattery
>> tim risingdove com
>>
>>
>> ___
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>
>>
>> ___
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tangled up in Lilypond syntax
Tim,
Slight amendation of Mark's suggestion. Since you're doing a vocal
composition, to keep lyrics applied into this temporary poloyphonic
context, use this syntax:
<< { \voiceOne } \\
\new Voice { \voiceTwo { } }
>> \oneVoice
Lyrics set to the voice will carry into the temporary polyphonic context {
\voiceOne } and then should continue after the \oneVoice. But note that use
of slurs will break the lyrics placement so you may need to include \skip1
in your lyrics to shift the lyric syllables to the proper note location.
Regards,
Guy Stalnaker
jimmyg...@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:59 AM Mark Stephen Mrotek
wrote:
> Tim,
>
> You can "insert" a second voice using the << // >> syntax explained here:
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning/i_0027m-hearing-voices
>
> Mark
>
> -Original Message-
> From: lilypond-user
> [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of
> Tim
> Slattery
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 9:29 AM
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Tangled up in Lilypond syntax
>
> I'm setting a fairly short song. It's sixteen measures, in the standard
> four
> voice parts. I used Frescobaldi to set up the basic structure, so the
> syntax
> I'm using comes from modifying what it put out.
>
> What causes the grief is that the last measure in the soprano part is
> polyphonic (or polyrythmic). That necessitated a second soprano voice,
> which
> skips the first 15 measures and has three notes in the last measure.
>
> Lower down, Frescobaldi generates this language:
>
> sopranoVoicePart = \new Staff \with {
> instrumentName = "Soprano"
> midiInstrument = "choir aahs"
> } { \sopranoVoice }
> \addlyrics { \verseOne }
> \addlyrics { \verseTwo }
>
> Since I now had two soprano voices, I did:
>
> sopranoVoicePart = \new Staff \with {
> instrumentName = "Soprano"
> midiInstrument = "choir aahs"
> } { << \sopranoVoice \sopranoVoiceTwo >> } \addlyrics { \verseOne }
> \addlyrics { \verseTwo }
>
> which results in several error messages like this:
> programing error: No spring between column 0 and next one
>
> Makes no sense to me. It does create a PDF, but its all jumbled with
> titles,
> staffs and notes printed on top of each other. And no words for the soprano
> part at all.
>
> I'm not an expert in Lilypond syntax, so I'm at a standstill. What do I
> need
> to do to make this work?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Tim Slattery
> tim risingdove com
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Tangled up in Lilypond syntax
Tim,
You can "insert" a second voice using the << // >> syntax explained here:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning/i_0027m-hearing-voices
Mark
-Original Message-
From: lilypond-user
[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Tim
Slattery
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 9:29 AM
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Tangled up in Lilypond syntax
I'm setting a fairly short song. It's sixteen measures, in the standard four
voice parts. I used Frescobaldi to set up the basic structure, so the syntax
I'm using comes from modifying what it put out.
What causes the grief is that the last measure in the soprano part is
polyphonic (or polyrythmic). That necessitated a second soprano voice, which
skips the first 15 measures and has three notes in the last measure.
Lower down, Frescobaldi generates this language:
sopranoVoicePart = \new Staff \with {
instrumentName = "Soprano"
midiInstrument = "choir aahs"
} { \sopranoVoice }
\addlyrics { \verseOne }
\addlyrics { \verseTwo }
Since I now had two soprano voices, I did:
sopranoVoicePart = \new Staff \with {
instrumentName = "Soprano"
midiInstrument = "choir aahs"
} { << \sopranoVoice \sopranoVoiceTwo >> } \addlyrics { \verseOne }
\addlyrics { \verseTwo }
which results in several error messages like this:
programing error: No spring between column 0 and next one
Makes no sense to me. It does create a PDF, but its all jumbled with titles,
staffs and notes printed on top of each other. And no words for the soprano
part at all.
I'm not an expert in Lilypond syntax, so I'm at a standstill. What do I need
to do to make this work?
Thanks
--
Tim Slattery
tim risingdove com
___
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
Tangled up in Lilypond syntax
I'm setting a fairly short song. It's sixteen measures, in the
standard four voice parts. I used Frescobaldi to set up the basic
structure, so the syntax I'm using comes from modifying what it put
out.
What causes the grief is that the last measure in the soprano part is
polyphonic (or polyrythmic). That necessitated a second soprano voice,
which skips the first 15 measures and has three notes in the last
measure.
Lower down, Frescobaldi generates this language:
sopranoVoicePart = \new Staff \with {
instrumentName = "Soprano"
midiInstrument = "choir aahs"
} { \sopranoVoice }
\addlyrics { \verseOne }
\addlyrics { \verseTwo }
Since I now had two soprano voices, I did:
sopranoVoicePart = \new Staff \with {
instrumentName = "Soprano"
midiInstrument = "choir aahs"
} { << \sopranoVoice \sopranoVoiceTwo >> }
\addlyrics { \verseOne }
\addlyrics { \verseTwo }
which results in several error messages like this:
programing error: No spring between column 0 and next one
Makes no sense to me. It does create a PDF, but its all jumbled with
titles, staffs and notes printed on top of each other. And no words
for the soprano part at all.
I'm not an expert in Lilypond syntax, so I'm at a standstill. What do
I need to do to make this work?
Thanks
--
Tim Slattery
tim risingdove com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: force a line break in the middle of a measure
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 15:39, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
>
> Am 25.03.19 um 15:17 schrieb Leo Correia de Verdier:
>
> [Line break in mid-measure and mid-note]
> > If exact midi playback isn’t a main concern I would do it like:
> >
> > \version "2.19.82"
> > \new PianoStaff
> > <<
> >\new Staff {\partial 4 r4 b1 1 1 1*3/4 s4 }
> >\new Staff {\partial 4 g4 g1 1 1 2. \bar"" \break \partial 4 4}
>
> Not necessary:
>
> \version "2.19.82"
>
> \layout {
>\context {
> \Voice
> \remove "Forbid_line_break_engraver"
>}
> }
>
> \new PianoStaff
> <<
>\new Staff {\partial 4 r4 b1 1 1 1 }
>\new Staff {\partial 4 g4 g1 1 1 2. \bar"" \break \partial 4 4}
> >>
>
> Best
> Lukas
>
>
Thank you Lukas, great!!
Regards, g.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: force a line break in the middle of a measure
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 15:17, Leo Correia de Verdier <
leo.correia.de.verd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If exact midi playback isn’t a main concern I would do it like:
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> \new PianoStaff
> <<
> \new Staff {\partial 4 r4 b1 1 1 1*3/4 s4 }
> \new Staff {\partial 4 g4 g1 1 1 2. \bar"" \break \partial 4 4}
> >>
>
>
Ah, yes, thank you!
Best regards, g.
P.S. Well, midi playback is a concern but I think this is easy to fix
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: force a line break in the middle of a measure
Am 25.03.19 um 15:17 schrieb Leo Correia de Verdier:
[Line break in mid-measure and mid-note]
If exact midi playback isn’t a main concern I would do it like:
\version "2.19.82"
\new PianoStaff
<<
\new Staff {\partial 4 r4 b1 1 1 1*3/4 s4 }
\new Staff {\partial 4 g4 g1 1 1 2. \bar"" \break \partial 4 4}
Not necessary:
\version "2.19.82"
\layout {
\context {
\Voice
\remove "Forbid_line_break_engraver"
}
}
\new PianoStaff
<<
\new Staff {\partial 4 r4 b1 1 1 1 }
\new Staff {\partial 4 g4 g1 1 1 2. \bar"" \break \partial 4 4}
>>
Best
Lukas
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bach, beams, and benchmarks
Yes, thanks. I should mention that "copying this from another source" is a bad idea _unless_ you are creating an Urtext since things like the fingering are copyrighted (except for quite old editions). This may be particularly infuriating concerning the Bach solo string pieces since a) the more complex passages have only one feasible and obvious fingering: they are written for violin/cello rather than against them. b) cluttering the score with pre-printed fingering is more annoying than helpful anyway, particularly so where a "creative element" is indisputible since the editor has diverged from the obvious best choice. In general it tends to be a better idea for legal reasons to copy Urtext editions: their claim to copyright is actually constrained to the graphical elements rather than the musical content. But I found that extensively "helpful" editions particularly of the solo suites/sonatas are not actually helpful for performance preparation since they are a distraction and impede with the player's "breathing room". I think there a some questionable presuppositions in your reasoning (while you're obviously right regarding the legal aspects, and I also tend to agree that it's nice to have the "breathing room" an edition without printed fingerings leaves the player). Especially, I'd challenge the term "obvious best choice". Even if you do not abuse the instrument (and the work) and try, for example, to play the D major cello suite on a four-stringend instrument (which is not what Bach intended, but is possible - albeit quite hard - and in any case absolutely common), there are many reasons why there might be more than one possible and sensible fingering for a given passage, no matter if it's "more complex" or not. Hands and tastes differ, and so does the degree by which the player of "old" music is willing to adopt historical fingering styles that generally faded into oblivion in the course of centuries. On the cello (which is the only instrument I can account for), aspects of fingering style that changed over time include - the attitude towards using open strings, - the preferred positions to be used when leaving 1s position, - the fingers to be used when changing position (this is an especially personal matter - I, for one, very often play semitones with the same finger even if it is 4-4, a practice some colleagues frown at), - in later pieces (from Haydn on), the extent to which the thumb is used, - if using the thumb, the extent to which the 4th finger is used at the same time (something that can be observed in many practical editions from early 20th century, but has become quite much out of fashion since), - the question whether to use the 4th finger in higher positions (5-7) where the thumb is not involved (it's a quite recent development seen in young master cellists that they routinely /do/ use the 4th finger here, contrary to everything that is explained in traditional textbooks) and so on. For instance, in Abraham's edition, bar 20 starts with 1-2-2. A valid choice (which is also in Wenzinger's standard edition), but one I would never use, preferring 1-2-1 to avoid the awkward arm movement involved in preparing a clean Barré. Now this is hardly a "more complex passage" ... but I'm not quite sure how to define that term, anyway. (Except for a funny circular and self-contradictory definition: "A more complex passage is one where you need a fingering to survive, and in these, the fingering is obvious since the piece is written for the instrument instead of against it." ;-) ) Lukas ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: force a line break in the middle of a measure
If exact midi playback isn’t a main concern I would do it like:
\version "2.19.82"
\new PianoStaff
<<
\new Staff {\partial 4 r4 b1 1 1 1*3/4 s4 }
\new Staff {\partial 4 g4 g1 1 1 2. \bar"" \break \partial 4 4}
>>
> 25 mars 2019 kl. 14:39 skrev Gianmaria Lari :
>
> In the following code I force a line break in the middle of a measure
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> \new PianoStaff
> <<
> \new Staff {\partial 4 r4 b1 1 1 2.~4 }
> \new Staff {\partial 4 g4 g1 1 1 2. \bar"" \break \partial 4 4}
> >>
> (see image a1)
> This is ok.
>
>
> Now, I know it's musically wrong but I would like to know if there is any way
> to force a line break also in this other case (I highlighted the change):
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> \new PianoStaff
> <<
> \new Staff {\partial 4 r4 b1 1 1 1 }
> \new Staff {\partial 4 g4 g1 1 1 2. \bar"" \break \partial 4 4}
> >>
> (see image a2)
>
> Thank you, g.
> ___
> 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: Bach, beams, and benchmarks
Abraham Lee writes: > Hi, David! > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 8:38 AM David Kastrup wrote: >> > >> > Here's my first page of this piece. >> >> I'd have been interested in the second one, the multi-string passages >> close to the end. Since there are fingerings in your page, you are >> obviously not writing an Urtext. >> > > Most definitely not. I am also not a string player, so you'll have to > forgive the fingering. I was merely copying this from another source as an > exercise. > > Anyway, see the attached PDF which includes both pages. Hopefully that > satisfies your interests. Yes, thanks. I should mention that "copying this from another source" is a bad idea _unless_ you are creating an Urtext since things like the fingering are copyrighted (except for quite old editions). This may be particularly infuriating concerning the Bach solo string pieces since a) the more complex passages have only one feasible and obvious fingering: they are written for violin/cello rather than against them. b) cluttering the score with pre-printed fingering is more annoying than helpful anyway, particularly so where a "creative element" is indisputible since the editor has diverged from the obvious best choice. In general it tends to be a better idea for legal reasons to copy Urtext editions: their claim to copyright is actually constrained to the graphical elements rather than the musical content. But I found that extensively "helpful" editions particularly of the solo suites/sonatas are not actually helpful for performance preparation since they are a distraction and impede with the player's "breathing room". -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
force a line break in the middle of a measure
In the following code I force a line break in the middle of a measure
\version "2.19.82"
\new PianoStaff
<<
\new Staff {\partial 4 r4 b1 1 1 2.~4 }
\new Staff {\partial 4 g4 g1 1 1 2. \bar"" \break \partial 4 4}
>>
(see image a1)
This is ok.
Now, I know it's musically wrong but I would like to know if there is any
way to force a line break also in this other case (I highlighted the
change):
\version "2.19.82"
\new PianoStaff
<<
\new Staff {\partial 4 r4 b1 1 1 1 }
\new Staff {\partial 4 g4 g1 1 1 2. \bar"" \break \partial 4 4}
>>
(see image a2)
Thank you, g.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bach, beams, and benchmarks
Hi, David! On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 8:38 AM David Kastrup wrote: > Abraham Lee writes: > > > Hi, Chad! > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:19 AM Chad Linsley wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I’m by no means a seasoned Lilypond pro but I’ve been exploring how the > >> program handles beams. In the essay, the 1950 Barenreiter Bach cello > suite > >> edition is held up as a benchmark of high quality engraving. Seeing this > >> really helps the user understand why Lilypond’s default slurs are shaped > >> the way they are (not overly curvaceous). However, when I entered the > first > >> few systems, the beaming was much steeper than in the Barenreiter. It > only > >> started looking closer to it when I put a blank measure on the end > (three > >> measures to system = tighter spacing). I then tried the various tweaking > >> parameters for beams which worked fine on a beam-to-beam basis. What I’m > >> curious about is whether or not Lilypond can be set to produce beaming > >> closer to the Barenreiter without quite as much intervention. For > example, > >> the damping factor didn’t respond very sensitively when I tried using > >> decimal points. > >> > >> Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks! > >> > > > > Here's my first page of this piece. > > I'd have been interested in the second one, the multi-string passages > close to the end. Since there are fingerings in your page, you are > obviously not writing an Urtext. > Most definitely not. I am also not a string player, so you'll have to forgive the fingering. I was merely copying this from another source as an exercise. Anyway, see the attached PDF which includes both pages. Hopefully that satisfies your interests. Best, Abraham suite1-in-G-Major-bwv1007-Prelude.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Intentionally delay starting staffs to avoid lots of rests during intro solo?
Hi Stig,
Am 24.03.19 um 20:15 schrieb Stig Brautaset:
["Frenching" at the beginning of a score]
PS: I'm a beginner both with reading/writing music and Lilypond so feel
free to let me know if this is simply Not Done, especially if you have
suggestions of What To Do Instead. :-)
This is
i) possible with recent versions of LilyPond (command
\RemoveAllEmptyStaves, added by Simon Albrecht on Mozart's 260th birthday),
ii) not terribly common at least in traditional orchestral scores (where
usually the whole orchestra is displayed in the first system, omitting
silent staves only from the second system on)
iii) perfectly valid in some situations like yours, but has the slight
drawback that the long form of instrumentName's are then never printed
for those instruments that are ommited in the first system. So, you
definitely should provide shortInstrumentName's for all staves.
Look at this:
\version "2.19.82"
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\RemoveAllEmptyStaves
}
}
<<
\new Staff \with { instrumentName = "Instrument 1"
shortInstrumentName = "Instr. 1" } { R1*20 d4 }
\new Staff \with { instrumentName = "Instrument 2"
shortInstrumentName = "Instr. 2" } { R1*20 d4 }
\new Staff \with { instrumentName = "Instrument 3"
shortInstrumentName = "Instr. 3" } { R1*20 d4 }
\new Staff \with { instrumentName = "Voice" shortInstrumentName =
"Voc" } { \repeat unfold 81 d'4 }
\new Staff \with { instrumentName = "Instrument 4"
shortInstrumentName = "Instr. 4" } { R1*20 d4 }
>>
Best
Lukas
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Dynamics offset suddenly changes
Anybody? I have tried experimenting with large values of \override DynamicLineSpanner.staff-padding to no avail. I am stumped. Is it a bug? Andrew On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 at 20:48, Andrew Bernard wrote: > I have a score with a lot of dynamics, a string quartet. There is more or > less a continuum of dynamics and hairpins for each instrument. I am not > using a dynamics context as the complexity of the music and rhythms makes > it very tedious to figure out all the spacer rests that would be need. It's > more pragmatic to attach the dynamics to the notes for this particular > work. Generally in the score all the dynamics and hairpins line up nicely > without me having to adjust them, only occasionally. But now that I have > over 100 pages, more and more often hairpins that go over the page break > and should join to a \p or \f etc on the next page are completely out of > alignment. It's as though the hairpin cannot see the ending dynamic > indication. > > is there a reason for this, and is there a fix? > > Refer to the attached image for an example. > > Andrew > > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
