Re: alternate notes within a part
On Mon 10 Jan 2022 at 01:54:03 (+0100), Valentin Petzel wrote:
> Am Montag, 10. Jänner 2022, 01:32:55 CET schrieb David Wright:
> > On Sun 09 Jan 2022 at 23:36:41 (+0100), Valentin Petzel wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag, 9. Jänner 2022, 23:05:15 CET schrieb David Zelinsky:
> > > > I'm engraving a part that can be played either on cello or bassoon, but
> > > > with several differennces for short sections: e.g. a clef change for
> > > > one and not the other; a different octave for a few measures; double
> > > > stops or not.
> > > >
> > > > I want to have just one version of the source, assigned to a variable
> > > > (e.g. cello-bassoon-notes = {...} ), with the differences indicated by
> > > > short tagged sections (like \tag #'cello {...} \tag #'bassoon {...} ),
> > > > so that I can produce output for each instrument seperately from the
> > > > same source.
> > > >
> > > > There seem to be a couple of problems using tags like this. First, it's
> > > > kludgy because when the notes are parsed, Lilypond includes all notes
> > > > from both tagged parts, and complains about bar check failures. That
> > > > doesn't really matter, since when the notes are used (as say
> > > > \keepWithTag #'cello) it all comes out right. And I can avoid the
> > > > warnings if I tag full measures only. But as I said, it's kludgy.
> > > >
> > > > Worse is that a clef change in one tagged part affects all the
> > > > subsequent music. And similarly, in \relative mode, the tags are
> > > > ignored when Lilypond determines the octave of following notes.
> > > >
> > > > Is there a better way to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Or do I
> > > > really just need to maintain completely separate versions for the two
> > > > instruments?
> > >
> > > Much of what you’re describing should not happen. \keepWithTag and
> > > \removeWithTag remove the music before it is parsed.
> > >
> > > It is true that using tags with relative music can be a bit messy, as
> > > depending on which part you remove the following music will change. You
> > > can
> > > circumvent this by putting your tagged music in absolute mode.
> >
> > I can't replicate that. AIUI the \music=\relative{…} has its pitches
> > baked in when the closing brace is read /on input/, regardless of
> > any tags read. When the music is set in \score{…}, the pitches can't
> > change.
> >
> > OTOH any clefs in \music are only enacted as the music is typeset,
> > so they shouldn't be included in \music, but separately. Otherwise,
> > were a tagged section to finish in the wrong clef, you would have to
> > insert an extra clef but suppress its printing—not worth the hassle.
> >
> > > Can you send us an example of your problems to see where it may come from?
>
> You’re right. \relative does in fact directly change the music events
> (instead
> of doing it during translation), so removing tagged stuff should not make a
> difference.
>
> I’m not exactly sure about what you mean with the clefs. If one tag changes
> the clefs it would be reasonable to assume that at the end of the tagged
> music
> the clef is changed back, like
> \tag #'
You're right. I had forgotten that although you have to cancel the
change of clef with another clef ("extra" clef would be a misnomer),
LP will not print it when it's redundant. So at least that's one
simplification.
I would agree about taking care with what you enclose in \relative { … },
avoiding structure as much as possible. For example, I would not follow
NR in the sections "Different time signatures with (un)equal-length
measures", "Additional voices to avoid collisions" and "Vertically
aligning ossias and lyrics", where several Staffs/Voices are enclosed
by one \relative. It makes any rearrangement of staves' and voices'
ordering very tedious.
Cheers,
David.
music = \relative {
\clef treble
c'4 d e f
g2 a
\tag #'down { c4 b a g \clef alto f e d2 \clef treble }
d1
\tag #'up { c2 e g1 }
c4 b a g
}
\score {
\music
}
\score {
\removeWithTag #'down \music
}
\score {
\removeWithTag #'up \music
}
music = \relative {
\clef treble
c'4 d e f
g2 a
\tag #'down { c4 b a g \clef alto f e d2 }
\clef treble
d1
\tag #'up { c2 e g1 }
c4 b a g
}
\score {
\music
}
\score {
\removeWithTag #'down \music
}
\score {
\removeWithTag #'up \music
}
\markup { "forgot to “cancel” it ↘" }
music = \relative {
\clef treble
c'4 d e f
g2 a
\tag #'down { c4 b a g \clef alto f e d2 }
d1
\tag #'up { c2 e g1 }
c4 b a g
}
\score {
\music
}
\score {
\removeWithTag #'down \music
}
\score {
\removeWithTag #'up \music
}
clef.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Re: Ties on series of tied notes on center line flipping direction (randomly?)
Le 09/01/2022 à 19:06, Richard Shann a écrit : On Sun, 2022-01-09 at 12:48 -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Richard, I guess this means it is not a well-known feature. Not well-known, likely… but sure seems like a bug and not a feature to me. =) It seems to me like a superset of these two issues: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6021 https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/2773 Feel free to add examples there. Best, Jean
Re: alternate notes within a part
Hello David,
You’re right. \relative does in fact directly change the music events (instead
of doing it during translation), so removing tagged stuff should not make a
difference.
I’m not exactly sure about what you mean with the clefs. If one tag changes
the clefs it would be reasonable to assume that at the end of the tagged music
the clef is changed back, like
\tag #' A { something } \tag #' B { \clef bass something else \clef treble }
Cheers,
Valentin
Am Montag, 10. Jänner 2022, 01:32:55 CET schrieb David Wright:
> On Sun 09 Jan 2022 at 23:36:41 (+0100), Valentin Petzel wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 9. Jänner 2022, 23:05:15 CET schrieb David Zelinsky:
> > > I'm engraving a part that can be played either on cello or bassoon, but
> > > with several differennces for short sections: e.g. a clef change for
> > > one and not the other; a different octave for a few measures; double
> > > stops or not.
> > >
> > > I want to have just one version of the source, assigned to a variable
> > > (e.g. cello-bassoon-notes = {...} ), with the differences indicated by
> > > short tagged sections (like \tag #'cello {...} \tag #'bassoon {...} ),
> > > so that I can produce output for each instrument seperately from the
> > > same source.
> > >
> > > There seem to be a couple of problems using tags like this. First, it's
> > > kludgy because when the notes are parsed, Lilypond includes all notes
> > > from both tagged parts, and complains about bar check failures. That
> > > doesn't really matter, since when the notes are used (as say
> > > \keepWithTag #'cello) it all comes out right. And I can avoid the
> > > warnings if I tag full measures only. But as I said, it's kludgy.
> > >
> > > Worse is that a clef change in one tagged part affects all the
> > > subsequent music. And similarly, in \relative mode, the tags are
> > > ignored when Lilypond determines the octave of following notes.
> > >
> > > Is there a better way to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Or do I
> > > really just need to maintain completely separate versions for the two
> > > instruments?
> >
> > Much of what you’re describing should not happen. \keepWithTag and
> > \removeWithTag remove the music before it is parsed.
> >
> > It is true that using tags with relative music can be a bit messy, as
> > depending on which part you remove the following music will change. You
> > can
> > circumvent this by putting your tagged music in absolute mode.
>
> I can't replicate that. AIUI the \music=\relative{…} has its pitches
> baked in when the closing brace is read /on input/, regardless of
> any tags read. When the music is set in \score{…}, the pitches can't
> change.
>
> OTOH any clefs in \music are only enacted as the music is typeset,
> so they shouldn't be included in \music, but separately. Otherwise,
> were a tagged section to finish in the wrong clef, you would have to
> insert an extra clef but suppress its printing—not worth the hassle.
>
> > Can you send us an example of your problems to see where it may come from?
>
> Cheers,
> David.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: alternate notes within a part
On Sun 09 Jan 2022 at 23:36:41 (+0100), Valentin Petzel wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 9. Jänner 2022, 23:05:15 CET schrieb David Zelinsky:
> > I'm engraving a part that can be played either on cello or bassoon, but
> > with several differennces for short sections: e.g. a clef change for
> > one and not the other; a different octave for a few measures; double
> > stops or not.
> >
> > I want to have just one version of the source, assigned to a variable
> > (e.g. cello-bassoon-notes = {...} ), with the differences indicated by
> > short tagged sections (like \tag #'cello {...} \tag #'bassoon {...} ),
> > so that I can produce output for each instrument seperately from the
> > same source.
> >
> > There seem to be a couple of problems using tags like this. First, it's
> > kludgy because when the notes are parsed, Lilypond includes all notes
> > from both tagged parts, and complains about bar check failures. That
> > doesn't really matter, since when the notes are used (as say
> > \keepWithTag #'cello) it all comes out right. And I can avoid the
> > warnings if I tag full measures only. But as I said, it's kludgy.
> >
> > Worse is that a clef change in one tagged part affects all the
> > subsequent music. And similarly, in \relative mode, the tags are
> > ignored when Lilypond determines the octave of following notes.
> >
> > Is there a better way to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Or do I
> > really just need to maintain completely separate versions for the two
> > instruments?
>
> Much of what you’re describing should not happen. \keepWithTag and
> \removeWithTag remove the music before it is parsed.
>
> It is true that using tags with relative music can be a bit messy, as
> depending on which part you remove the following music will change. You can
> circumvent this by putting your tagged music in absolute mode.
I can't replicate that. AIUI the \music=\relative{…} has its pitches
baked in when the closing brace is read /on input/, regardless of
any tags read. When the music is set in \score{…}, the pitches can't
change.
OTOH any clefs in \music are only enacted as the music is typeset,
so they shouldn't be included in \music, but separately. Otherwise,
were a tagged section to finish in the wrong clef, you would have to
insert an extra clef but suppress its printing—not worth the hassle.
> Can you send us an example of your problems to see where it may come from?
Cheers,
David.
music = \relative {
c'4 d e f
g2 a
\tag #'down { c4 b a g f e d2 }
\tag #'up { c2 e g1 }
c4 b a g
}
\score {
\music
}
\score {
\removeWithTag #'down \music
}
\score {
\removeWithTag #'up \music
}
\score {
<<
\music
{
\clef treble
s1 * 3
\clef alto
s1 * 3
\clef treble
s1
}
>>
}
\score {
<<
{ \removeWithTag #'down \music
}
{
\clef treble
s1 * 2
\clef alto
s1 * 2
\clef treble
s1
}
>>
}
\score {
<<
{ \removeWithTag #'up \music }
{
\clef treble
s1 * 3
\clef alto
s1
\clef treble
s1
}
>>
}
tag.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Re: alternate notes within a part
On 2022-01-09 2:50 pm, Valentin Petzel wrote: It depends a bit on how structured your music is. If you’ve got two Voices it is reasonable to give both their own relative clause. If you music does not have a lot of complex structure a top level relative is very much find. Problematic are cases where notes within the music might change, thus affecting stuff after it. This might be the case with tags, but also with cues or scores in footnotes (where also someone might think about adding something, and suddenly the main music body has problems. Having been bitten more times than worth counting, I have almost exclusively moved to using \fixed. The level of consistent and precise control means I can add, change, or remove notes as well as freely copy and paste music around without fear of notes being thrown off into the wrong octave. That said, I think \relative is still useful as a tool for reasonably-scoped melodic phrases where there is much less chance for things to go awry. So, if a song had, say, three main sections, I would probably use one \relative per, decoupling the sections from each other. (Also, there is a good chance each section ends up as its own variable anyway.) Going more granular might make sense if a section was particularly long. At that point, the early and later notes just stop having any practical relationship with one another, so they might be better placed in their own blocks. -- Aaron Hill
Re: alternate notes within a part
Hello Aaron, It depends a bit on how structured your music is. If you’ve got two Voices it is reasonable to give both their own relative clause. If you music does not have a lot of complex structure a top level relative is very much find. Problematic are cases where notes within the music might change, thus affecting stuff after it. This might be the case with tags, but also with cues or scores in footnotes (where also someone might think about adding something, and suddenly the main music body has problems. But these cases can be simply dealt with by enclosing them in an \absolute statement or even in another \relative statement. Lilypond will then simply ignore these parts for the outer relative music. Cheers, Valentin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: alternate notes within a part
Aaron Hill writes:
> On 2022-01-09 2:05 pm, David Zelinsky wrote:
>> Is there a better way to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Or do I
>> really just need to maintain completely separate versions for the two
>> instruments?
>
> You can certainly use the tag approach, just keep a few things in mind.
>
...
>
> Consider this below:
>
> foo = {
> \relative b' { | b4 a8 g fis2 }
> << \tag one \relative g' { | g8 a b d e2 }
> \tag two \relative e' { | e4 d cis2 } >>
> \relative g' { | g1 \bar "|." }
> }
Thanks! I had tried to do something similar to this, but it didn't
work. Probably I was missing some brackets somewhere. I will give this
a try.
-David
Re: alternate notes within a part
Hello David,
Much of what you’re describing should not happen. \keepWithTag and
\removeWithTag remove the music before it is parsed.
It is true that using tags with relative music can be a bit messy, as
depending on which part you remove the following music will change. You can
circumvent this by putting your tagged music in absolute mode.
Can you send us an example of your problems to see where it may come from?
Cheers,
Valentin
Am Sonntag, 9. Jänner 2022, 23:05:15 CET schrieb David Zelinsky:
> I'm engraving a part that can be played either on cello or bassoon, but
> with several differennces for short sections: e.g. a clef change for
> one and not the other; a different octave for a few measures; double
> stops or not.
>
> I want to have just one version of the source, assigned to a variable
> (e.g. cello-bassoon-notes = {...} ), with the differences indicated by
> short tagged sections (like \tag #'cello {...} \tag #'bassoon {...} ),
> so that I can produce output for each instrument seperately from the
> same source.
>
> There seem to be a couple of problems using tags like this. First, it's
> kludgy because when the notes are parsed, Lilypond includes all notes
> from both tagged parts, and complains about bar check failures. That
> doesn't really matter, since when the notes are used (as say
> \keepWithTag #'cello) it all comes out right. And I can avoid the
> warnings if I tag full measures only. But as I said, it's kludgy.
>
> Worse is that a clef change in one tagged part affects all the
> subsequent music. And similarly, in \relative mode, the tags are
> ignored when Lilypond determines the octave of following notes.
>
> Is there a better way to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Or do I
> really just need to maintain completely separate versions for the two
> instruments?
>
> -David
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: alternate notes within a part
On 2022-01-09 2:05 pm, David Zelinsky wrote:
Is there a better way to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Or do I
really just need to maintain completely separate versions for the two
instruments?
You can certainly use the tag approach, just keep a few things in mind.
Firstly, you should use simultaneous music in places where the tagged
parts are in parallel. This should avoid the issues with bar check
failures as the music remains valid time-wise without needing to remove
tags.
Secondly, \relative should be used in a more restrictive scope, not as a
top-level tool where changes to pitches often have unexpected side
effects, or you run into issues with tagged material. \fixed is
certainly an option to consider, although for many melodic phrases
\relative is really quite handy.
Consider this below:
foo = {
\relative b' { | b4 a8 g fis2 }
<< \tag one \relative g' { | g8 a b d e2 }
\tag two \relative e' { | e4 d cis2 } >>
\relative g' { | g1 \bar "|." }
}
<< \new Staff \with { instrumentName = "both" } \foo
\new Staff \with { instrumentName = "one" } \keepWithTag one \foo
\new Staff \with { instrumentName = "two" } \keepWithTag two \foo >>
-- Aaron Hill
Re: connecting beams
Hello,
When answering to a digest, please don’t quote the whole digest and change the
subject to whatever you want to reply to. In this case as this does not seem
to be a reply to anything simply write a new mail to lilypond-user@gnu.org.
About your question: You can manually specify Beaming using [ and ]. So you
can do
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff = "up" {
8[
\change Staff = "down"
g8 fis g
\change Staff = "up"
8
\change Staff = "down"
e8 dis e]
\change Staff = "up"
}
\new Staff = "down" {
\clef bass
% keep staff alive
s1
}
>>
to get a connected Beam. What do you mean by „at an angle of 90 degrees”? Do
you want the Beam to be straight?
Cheers,
Valentin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
alternate notes within a part
I'm engraving a part that can be played either on cello or bassoon, but
with several differennces for short sections: e.g. a clef change for
one and not the other; a different octave for a few measures; double
stops or not.
I want to have just one version of the source, assigned to a variable
(e.g. cello-bassoon-notes = {...} ), with the differences indicated by
short tagged sections (like \tag #'cello {...} \tag #'bassoon {...} ),
so that I can produce output for each instrument seperately from the
same source.
There seem to be a couple of problems using tags like this. First, it's
kludgy because when the notes are parsed, Lilypond includes all notes
from both tagged parts, and complains about bar check failures. That
doesn't really matter, since when the notes are used (as say
\keepWithTag #'cello) it all comes out right. And I can avoid the
warnings if I tag full measures only. But as I said, it's kludgy.
Worse is that a clef change in one tagged part affects all the
subsequent music. And similarly, in \relative mode, the tags are
ignored when Lilypond determines the octave of following notes.
Is there a better way to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Or do I
really just need to maintain completely separate versions for the two
instruments?
-David
Re: Beam slopes
Hi Yurij
If the question was rather about forcing the beam to be kneed you could do it
like this:
(The auto-knee-gap should be less than the interval between the notes)
\version "2.22.0"
\new Score \new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff = "up" {
\once \override Beam.damping = #+inf.0
\once \override Beam.auto-knee-gap = #0
8
\change Staff = "down"
g8 fis g
\change Staff = "up"
\once \override Beam.damping = #+inf.0
8
\change Staff = "down"
e8 dis e
\change Staff = "up"
}
\new Staff = "down" {
\clef bass
% keep staff alive
s1
}
>>
> 9 jan. 2022 kl. 21:58 skrev Aaron Hill :
>
> On 2022-01-09 12:30 pm, Виноградов Юрий wrote:
>> Hello. How to make a connecting beam at an angle of 90 degrees in this
>> code
>
> Please review this thread [1] from last year, as I think you are looking for
> the same behavior.
>
> [1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2021-05/msg00078.html
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>
Re: Beam slopes
On 2022-01-09 12:30 pm, Виноградов Юрий wrote: Hello. How to make a connecting beam at an angle of 90 degrees in this code Please review this thread [1] from last year, as I think you are looking for the same behavior. [1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2021-05/msg00078.html -- Aaron Hill
Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 230, Issue 34
Hello. How to make a connecting beam at an angle of 90 degrees in this code \version "2.22.0" \new PianoStaff <<\new Staff = "up" {8\change Staff = "down"g8 fis g\change Staff = "up"8\change Staff = "down"e8 dis e\change Staff = "up"}\new Staff = "down" {\clef bass% keep staff alives1}>> С уважением,Виноградов Юрий. 09.01.2022, 20:22, "lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org" :Send lilypond-user mailing list submissions tolilypond-user@gnu.orgTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visithttps://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-useror, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' tolilypond-user-requ...@gnu.orgYou can reach the person managing the list atlilypond-user-ow...@gnu.orgWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of lilypond-user digest..."Today's Topics: 1. Re: Ties on series of tied notes on center line flipping direction (randomly?) (Valentin Petzel) 2. Re: Ties on series of tied notes on center line flipping direction (randomly?) (Thomas Morley)--Message: 1Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2022 17:16:16 +0100From: Valentin Petzel <valen...@petzel.at>To: "lilypond-user@gnu.org" <lilypond-user@gnu.org>Subject: Re: Ties on series of tied notes on center line flippingdirection (randomly?)Message-ID: <7605575.PQgf2AF5vi@siductionbox>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"Hi Richard,It is hard to try to understand the problem with just some pictures. Do youhave some code you can send us?Cheers,ValentinAm Sonntag, 9. J?nner 2022, 13:34:48 CET schrieb Richard Shann: Hi, Has anyone experienced the direction of ties on a series of tied notes on the center line of the staff flipping direction, seemingly at random? I attach an example, but I haven't been able to cut the file concerned down while keeping the effect - if I delete the lyrics for example the problem at that point goes away and if I delete bars likewise (*). I guess this might be related to the question of how LilyPond decides the direction for ties on notes on the center line in any case? I am on version 2.22 of LilyPond. Richard Shann (*) I should add that as my lyrics are written separately from the notes, deleting bars without deleting the corresponding lyrics as I did does alter the underlay of the lyrics, so perhaps it is all lyrics related...-- next part --A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: signature.ascType: application/pgp-signatureSize: 833 bytesDesc: This is a digitally signed message part.URL: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/attachments/20220109/4b0a759a/attachment.sig>--Message: 2Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2022 17:43:25 +0100From: Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com>To: Valentin Petzel <valen...@petzel.at>Cc: "lilypond-user@gnu.org" <lilypond-user@gnu.org>Subject: Re: Ties on series of tied notes on center line flippingdirection (randomly?)Message-ID:<cabsfgywnzfcqxspbbf2ymfy9d7ao-mzqekc11tj4t9ju_no...@mail.gmail.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"Am So., 9. Jan. 2022 um 17:16 Uhr schrieb Valentin Petzel <valen...@petzel.at>: Hi Richard, It is hard to try to understand the problem with just some pictures. Do you have some code you can send us? Cheers, Valentin Am Sonntag, 9. J?nner 2022, 13:34:48 CET schrieb Richard Shann: > Hi, > > Has anyone experienced the direction of ties on a series of tied notes > on the center line of the staff flipping direction, seemingly at > random? > > I attach an example, but I haven't been able to cut the file concerned > down while keeping the effect - if I delete the lyrics for example the > problem at that point goes away and if I delete bars likewise (*). > > I guess this might be related to the question of how LilyPond decides > the direction for ties on notes on the center line in any case? I am on > version 2.22 of LilyPond. > > Richard Shann > > (*) I should add that as my lyrics are written separately from the > notes, deleting bars without deleting the corresponding lyrics as I did > does alter the underlay of the lyrics, so perhaps it is all lyrics > related...Below triggers it:\relative b' { b2~ b1*3/8~ b1*1/8 }Obviously it depends on spacing/tie-length, see also:\relative b' { \cadenzaOn b1~ b1~ \override NoteColumn.X-offset = #-2 b}No time to investigate further, though.Cheers, Harm--Subject: Digest Footer___lilypond-user mailing listlilypond-user@gnu.orghttps://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user--End of lilypond-user Digest, Vol 230, Issue 34**
Re: Ties on series of tied notes on center line flipping direction (randomly?)
On Sun, 2022-01-09 at 12:48 -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > I guess this means it is not a well-known feature. > > Not well-known, likely… but sure seems like a bug and not a feature > to me. =) > > > Does anyone have an idea if there are guidelines which suggest > > what choice should be made? > > It is traditional to place ties on whole notes as if they had stems: > above if the stems would go down, below if the stems would go up. So > the question here reduces to the question of which side the stems > would be on [if there were stems]? > > For middle-line notes, there is no strict rule… but there is a > general consensus that stems shouldn't flip unnecessarily. That means > in this case, the stems would/should go down, and thus the ties would > [all] be above. That makes sense - it would even be possible for Denemo to work around the, erm, feature but it will be much better to leave it to LilyPond... Richard > > Hope that helps! > Kieren.
Re: Ties on series of tied notes on center line flipping direction (randomly?)
Hi Richard, > I guess this means it is not a well-known feature. Not well-known, likely… but sure seems like a bug and not a feature to me. =) > Does anyone have an idea if there are guidelines which suggest > what choice should be made? It is traditional to place ties on whole notes as if they had stems: above if the stems would go down, below if the stems would go up. So the question here reduces to the question of which side the stems would be on [if there were stems]? For middle-line notes, there is no strict rule… but there is a general consensus that stems shouldn't flip unnecessarily. That means in this case, the stems would/should go down, and thus the ties would [all] be above. Hope that helps! Kieren.
Re: Ties on series of tied notes on center line flipping direction (randomly?)
On Sun, 2022-01-09 at 17:43 +0100, Thomas Morley wrote:
> Am So., 9. Jan. 2022 um 17:16 Uhr schrieb Valentin Petzel <
> valen...@petzel.at>:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > It is hard to try to understand the problem with just some
> > pictures. Do you
> > have some code you can send us?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Valentin
> >
> > Am Sonntag, 9. Jänner 2022, 13:34:48 CET schrieb Richard Shann:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Has anyone experienced the direction of ties on a series of tied
> > > notes
> > > on the center line of the staff flipping direction, seemingly at
> > > random?
> > >
> > > I attach an example, but I haven't been able to cut the file
> > > concerned
> > > down while keeping the effect - if I delete the lyrics for
> > > example the
> > > problem at that point goes away and if I delete bars likewise
> > > (*).
> > >
> > > I guess this might be related to the question of how LilyPond
> > > decides
> > > the direction for ties on notes on the center line in any case? I
> > > am on
> > > version 2.22 of LilyPond.
> > >
> > > Richard Shann
> > >
> > > (*) I should add that as my lyrics are written separately from
> > > the
> > > notes, deleting bars without deleting the corresponding lyrics as
> > > I did
> > > does alter the underlay of the lyrics, so perhaps it is all
> > > lyrics
> > > related...
>
> Below triggers it:
>
> \relative b' { b2~ b1*3/8~ b1*1/8 }
>
> Obviously it depends on spacing/tie-length, see also:
>
> \relative b' {
> \cadenzaOn
> b1~
> b1~
> \override NoteColumn.X-offset = #-2
> b
> }
>
> No time to investigate further, though.
Thank you for the replies - I guess this means it is not a well-known
feature. Does anyone have an idea if there are guidelines which suggest
what choice should be made?
Richard
Re: Ties on series of tied notes on center line flipping direction (randomly?)
Am So., 9. Jan. 2022 um 17:16 Uhr schrieb Valentin Petzel :
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> It is hard to try to understand the problem with just some pictures. Do you
> have some code you can send us?
>
> Cheers,
> Valentin
>
> Am Sonntag, 9. Jänner 2022, 13:34:48 CET schrieb Richard Shann:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Has anyone experienced the direction of ties on a series of tied notes
> > on the center line of the staff flipping direction, seemingly at
> > random?
> >
> > I attach an example, but I haven't been able to cut the file concerned
> > down while keeping the effect - if I delete the lyrics for example the
> > problem at that point goes away and if I delete bars likewise (*).
> >
> > I guess this might be related to the question of how LilyPond decides
> > the direction for ties on notes on the center line in any case? I am on
> > version 2.22 of LilyPond.
> >
> > Richard Shann
> >
> > (*) I should add that as my lyrics are written separately from the
> > notes, deleting bars without deleting the corresponding lyrics as I did
> > does alter the underlay of the lyrics, so perhaps it is all lyrics
> > related...
Below triggers it:
\relative b' { b2~ b1*3/8~ b1*1/8 }
Obviously it depends on spacing/tie-length, see also:
\relative b' {
\cadenzaOn
b1~
b1~
\override NoteColumn.X-offset = #-2
b
}
No time to investigate further, though.
Cheers,
Harm
Re: Ties on series of tied notes on center line flipping direction (randomly?)
Hi Richard, It is hard to try to understand the problem with just some pictures. Do you have some code you can send us? Cheers, Valentin Am Sonntag, 9. Jänner 2022, 13:34:48 CET schrieb Richard Shann: > Hi, > > Has anyone experienced the direction of ties on a series of tied notes > on the center line of the staff flipping direction, seemingly at > random? > > I attach an example, but I haven't been able to cut the file concerned > down while keeping the effect - if I delete the lyrics for example the > problem at that point goes away and if I delete bars likewise (*). > > I guess this might be related to the question of how LilyPond decides > the direction for ties on notes on the center line in any case? I am on > version 2.22 of LilyPond. > > Richard Shann > > (*) I should add that as my lyrics are written separately from the > notes, deleting bars without deleting the corresponding lyrics as I did > does alter the underlay of the lyrics, so perhaps it is all lyrics > related... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Ties on series of tied notes on center line flipping direction (randomly?)
On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 4:36 AM Richard Shann wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone experienced the direction of ties on a series of tied notes
> on the center line of the staff flipping direction, seemingly at
> random?
I suspect you are using a tie without a direction character. This is
fine, but when Lilypond doesn't make the direction decision you would
make, you can force it with the ^ and _ characters.
%%%
\version "2.22.1"
% Tie direction automatic
{ c''1 ~ 1 }
% Tie direction up
{ c''1 ^~ 1 }
% Tie direction down
{ c''1 _~ 1 }
%%%
--
Knute Snortum
Ties on series of tied notes on center line flipping direction (randomly?)
Hi, Has anyone experienced the direction of ties on a series of tied notes on the center line of the staff flipping direction, seemingly at random? I attach an example, but I haven't been able to cut the file concerned down while keeping the effect - if I delete the lyrics for example the problem at that point goes away and if I delete bars likewise (*). I guess this might be related to the question of how LilyPond decides the direction for ties on notes on the center line in any case? I am on version 2.22 of LilyPond. Richard Shann (*) I should add that as my lyrics are written separately from the notes, deleting bars without deleting the corresponding lyrics as I did does alter the underlay of the lyrics, so perhaps it is all lyrics related...
Re: 2.23.5 articulate.ly and repeat alternatives
Le 07/01/2022 à 13:12, Thomas Morley a écrit :
Am Fr., 7. Jan. 2022 um 02:31 Uhr schrieb Joel C. Salomon
:
Yesterday, I wrote:
\version "2.23.5"
\include "articulate.ly"
music = \relative c' {
c1
\repeat volta 2 {
e
\alternative {
{ g } { gis }
}
}
b
}
\score { \music }
\score { \unfoldRepeats \music }
\score { \articulate \music }
\score { \articulate \unfoldRepeats \music }
To be clear about the issue:
• `\score { \music }` correctly yields
C |: E G :| G# B
• `\score { \unfoldRepeats \music }` correctly yields
C E G E G# B
• but `\score { \articulate \music }` yields
C E G G# E G G# B
with both alternatives, G & G#, printed both times.
—Joel C. Salomon
I've created https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6254 for this.
For now use the older syntax:
Not
\repeat volta 2 { ... \alternative { { ... } { ... } } }
but
\repeat volta 2 { ... } \alternative { { ... } { ... } }
Thanks! Now I see why I didn't understand the issue
at first (I had naively converted to the old syntax
to test 2.22).
Best,
Jean
Re: Rotated hairpin crossing staff
Le 09/01/2022 à 03:03, Rachel Green a écrit :
Hi,
How would I allow the hairpin to cross the staff? I would like the
hairpin to be parallel with the notes as in the picture. I figured out
how to rotate it, but LilyPond does not allow the hairpin to intersect
with the staff.
I tried \override Hairpin.padding = #0, but that wasn’t right.
An example snippet is below.
The problem here is that the rotation property just rotates
the object without further adjustments. The hairpin could cross
the staff if it was long enough, but because its length is
computed as if it were horizontal, it misses some length.
You can correct this using a negative value for shorten-pair
(shortening by a negative amount means lengthening). In the
snippet below, I've also adjusted the beam to make
room for the hairpin, and moved the hairpin vertically.
\version "2.20.0"
\language "english"
VarOneTreble = \relative c'
{
s2.
}
VarOneBass = \relative c
{
\clef bass
\time 3/4
\once \override DynamicLineSpanner.Y-offset = -8
\once \override Hairpin.shorten-pair = #'(0 . -2.5)
\once \override Hairpin.rotation = #'(23 -1 1)
\tuplet 6/4 4 { g,16-\< d' g b d g }
\change Staff = "treble"
\once \override Beam.positions = #'(-8 . 0)
b32 d g b d g b d g8\! r
}
\score {
\new GrandStaff
<<
\new Staff = "treble" { \VarOneTreble }
\new Staff = "bass" { \VarOneBass }
>>
}
There is a snippet here demonstrating shorten-pair:
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-attached-to-notes#dynamics
Best,
Jean
