Re: Please tear apart this example lead sheet template for traditional Western folk tunes

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 22/02/2022 à 03:09, Tom Campbell a écrit :
I am about to transcribe a bunch of older Western folk music in lead 
sheet form for an open source tunebook.



Nice to hear that!


Am trying to create a robust template so I don't have to think too 
much about anything other than getting the notes, chords, and lyrics 
right. You can see it below, or rendered by the invaluable Lilybin at 
http://lilybin.com/u6p5m8/8.


Can you tell me what's bad about this as a template? The lead sheets 
will contain chord names and guitar fretboard diagrams. Added a 
crucial (for me) section overriding the predefined guitar fretboard 
diagram for a chord. I also took too long to figure out how to get 
pickup notes in a format that seemed natural.


Thanks!

% Lead sheet with:
% - Guitar fretboard diagrams
% - Override a predefined fretboard diagram
% - Pickup note with text above it suppressed
% - Chord and other text suppressed above the pickup note
 Please send critiques totomcampb...@gmail.com
\version "2.18.2"



Before starting, how about upgrading? LilyPond 2.18 is
8 years old, there have been many improvements in the
meantime, and if you ask for help on the lists, people
will be testing snippets in their replies with newer
versions.


\include "predefined-guitar-fretboards.ly 
"


% Override predefined fretboard for e minor.
% This just adds a G to the first (highest) string.
% A little contrived but it's brief.
\storePredefinedDiagram #default-fret-table \chordmode { e:m }
#guitar-tuning
#"o;2-2;2-3;o;o;3-4;"

\header {
title = "Hit and Miss (Daphne)"
composer = "Trad."
}

theMelody = \relative c {
  \clef treble
  \key e \minor
  \time 6/8

% Pickup note
  \partial 8 e'8

% Verse melody (truncated for clarity)
g4 a8 b4 e8
d8. e16 fis8
e4 b16 c

}

theLyrics = \lyricmode {
When Daph -- ne from fair
  Phoe -- bus did fly the --
}

theChords = \chordmode {
% Replace the N.C. that would appear over
% the pickup note
\set noChordSymbol = ""


\once \set?


Best,
Jean

Re: \crossStaff confusion

[Mark Probert]

You wrote:
>> 
> \crossStaff should be used on the voice whose stems should
> extend past their staff. In this case, this is the upper voice.
> To get cross-staff arpeggios, you'd put \arpeggio in both voices
> and use the connectArpeggios property 
>
Thank you! Exactly what I was after.

Kind regards
 ..m.

Re: \crossStaff confusion

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 22/02/2022 à 07:28, Mark Probert a écrit :

Hi, again.

I'm not used to working with piano scores and ran across and example
that required I use \crossStaff. Unfortunately, it is not doing as I
ask it and wonder if someone can point me in the right direction.

In this example I want an arpeggio line and I want the C in the bass to
be joined (and at the correct value to) the voice above it.

As an aside, the convoluted structure helps me in doing this art song
setting as there is a voice line above the piano (not shown) and I
wanted this example in context.




\crossStaff should be used on the voice whose stems should
extend past their staff. In this case, this is the upper voice.
To get cross-staff arpeggios, you'd put \arpeggio in both voices
and use the connectArpeggios property as shown here:

https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-as-lines#arpeggio


\version "2.22"

\layout {
  \context {
    \PianoStaff
    \consists #Span_stem_engraver
    connectArpeggios = ##t
  }
}

upA = \new Voice \relative c' {
  \voiceOne
}

upB = \new Voice \relative c' {
  \voiceTwo
  \crossStaff 8\arpeggio r8 r4 r2
}
dwA = \new Voice \relative c {
  \voiceThree

}
dwB = \new Voice \relative c {
  \voiceFour
  c8\arpeggio r8 r4 r2
}

{
  \new PianoStaff <<
    \new Staff {
  \upA
  \upB
    }
    \new Staff {
  \clef bass
  \dwA
  \dwB
    }
  >>
}

Regards,
Jean

\crossStaff confusion

[Mark Probert]

Hi, again.

I'm not used to working with piano scores and ran across and example 
that required I use \crossStaff. Unfortunately, it is not doing as I 
ask it and wonder if someone can point me in the right direction.

In this example I want an arpeggio line and I want the C in the bass to 
be joined (and at the correct value to) the voice above it. 

As an aside, the convoluted structure helps me in doing this art song 
setting as there is a voice line above the piano (not shown) and I 
wanted this example in context.

TIA .. mark.

 code

\version "2.22"

\layout {
  \context {
\PianoStaff
\consists #Span_stem_engraver
  }
}

upA = \new Voice \relative c' {
  \voiceOne
}

upB = \new Voice \relative c' {
  \voiceTwo
  8\arpeggio r8 r4 r2
}
dwA = \new Voice \relative c {
  \voiceThree

}
dwB = \new Voice \relative c {
  \voiceFour
  \crossStaff { c8 } r8 r4 r2
}

{
  \new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff {
  \upA
  \upB
}
\new Staff {
  \clef bass
  \dwA
  \dwB
}
  >>
}

Please tear apart this example lead sheet template for traditional Western folk tunes

[Tom Campbell]

I am about to transcribe a bunch of older Western folk music in lead sheet
form for an open source tunebook. Am trying to create a robust template so
I don't have to think too much about anything other than getting the notes,
chords, and lyrics right. You can see it below, or rendered by the
invaluable Lilybin at http://lilybin.com/u6p5m8/8.

Can you tell me what's bad about this as a template? The lead sheets will
contain chord names and guitar fretboard diagrams. Added a crucial (for me)
section overriding the predefined guitar fretboard diagram for a chord. I
also took too long to figure out how to get pickup notes in a format that
seemed natural.

Thanks!

% Lead sheet with:
% - Guitar fretboard diagrams
% - Override a predefined fretboard diagram
% - Pickup note with text above it suppressed
% - Chord and other text suppressed above the pickup note
 Please send critiques to tomcampb...@gmail.com
\version "2.18.2"
\include "predefined-guitar-fretboards.ly"

% Override predefined fretboard for e minor.
% This just adds a G to the first (highest) string.
% A little contrived but it's brief.
\storePredefinedDiagram #default-fret-table \chordmode { e:m }
#guitar-tuning
#"o;2-2;2-3;o;o;3-4;"

\header {
title = "Hit and Miss (Daphne)"
composer = "Trad."
}

theMelody = \relative c {
  \clef treble
  \key e \minor
  \time 6/8

% Pickup note
  \partial 8 e'8

% Verse melody (truncated for clarity)
g4 a8 b4 e8
d8. e16 fis8
e4 b16 c

}

theLyrics = \lyricmode {
When Daph -- ne from fair
  Phoe -- bus did fly the --
}

theChords = \chordmode {
% Replace the N.C. that would appear over
% the pickup note
\set noChordSymbol = ""
\partial 8 r8
  e2.:min
  b4.:min
  e4.:min
 }

\score {
  <<
  \new ChordNames { \theChords }
  \new FretBoards { \theChords }
  \new Voice = "one" { \autoBeamOn \theMelody }
  \new Lyrics \lyricsto "one" \theLyrics
>>
  \layout { }
  \midi { }
}

Re: Alternative to \parallelMusic?

[David Kastrup]

Kevin Cole  writes:

> Hi,
>
> I have a score with a lot of sections as shown in the attached PNG. I
> see something like what I want to achieve at the end of the section on
> \parallelMusic:
>
> https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/multiple-voices#writing-music-in-parallel
>
> My first thought, to avoid inserting rests, was simply to have the
> same notes appearing in both voices except for where they deviate.
> However, that resulted in sometimes placing the notes consecutively
> rather than concurrently. For example, I ended up with two whole notes
> in one measure.
>
> But as has been mentioned on this list before, there are often
> multiple ways to tackle problems. So, I'm wondering if there's
> something a bit more intuitive, simpler, etc. to get the first of the
> four beamed eighth notes in the second measure to line up with the
> half notes.

Maybe something like this?

\new Voice = "main"
{
  \key d \major
  fis8 g b e'
  fis g b b'~ |
  4.
  8
  \voices 1,"main"
  << { a' a' g' fis'~ | 4. } \\
 { \voiceTwo 2 \oneVoice }
   >>
}

-- 
David Kastrup

Alternative to \parallelMusic?

[Kevin Cole]

Hi,

I have a score with a lot of sections as shown in the attached PNG. I
see something like what I want to achieve at the end of the section on
\parallelMusic:

https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/multiple-voices#writing-music-in-parallel

My first thought, to avoid inserting rests, was simply to have the
same notes appearing in both voices except for where they deviate.
However, that resulted in sometimes placing the notes consecutively
rather than concurrently. For example, I ended up with two whole notes
in one measure.

But as has been mentioned on this list before, there are often
multiple ways to tackle problems. So, I'm wondering if there's
something a bit more intuitive, simpler, etc. to get the first of the
four beamed eighth notes in the second measure to line up with the
half notes.

Re: Setting up classical guitar fingerings

[Luca Fascione]

Yes exactly, because of how our finger to note relation works, the
enhancement in readability with the indication right at the head is
enormous.

L

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, 18:16 Valentin Petzel,  wrote:

> Sure. I suppose for a guitar person having stacked fingerings on top would
> be
> rather confusing, as there is no monotonic relating between finger and
> pitch.
> As such I suppose guitar people would want to use fingerings with left or
> right
> orientations in chords anyway.
>
> Cheers,
> Valentin
>
> Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 17:47:58 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
> > I suspect we might be saying the same thing, Valentin?
> >
> > I was saying infix can be a bit awkward if you want 'pianist' chord
> > fingering (just a stack of numbers above or below), and that your
> original
> > -1-2-3 reads quite nicely (as in: it's easy to see in your head
> what
> > you will get in the engraving just by looking at the source). So a
> keyboard
> > person wouldn't want to use infix, I don't think
> >
> > Whereas a guitar person might find it more attractive to use  g-3>
> > because it's easier to keep it straight in your head what fingers you use
> > on what note that way
> >
> > L
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:42 PM Valentin Petzel 
> wrote:
> > > No, not nescessarily. If we want all Fingerings on top or below there
> is
> > > no real benefit of doing the chord thing. In fact doing that leads to
> the
> > > exact same issue of the fingering for d being next to the other ones.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Valentin
> > >
> > > 21.02.2022 12:38:40 Luca Fascione :
> > >
> > > But wouldn't you finger that as ? (Didn't check the
> number,
> > > I'm just meaning going infix vs postfix)
> > >
> > > I can see that this idea of mine does have issues for fingering your
> way
> > > around (which seems to me it's more of a fingering atop thing, like you
> > > would have in a keyboard score)
> > >
> > > L
> > >
> > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, 12:32 Valentin Petzel, 
> wrote:
> > >> Hello Luca,
> > >>
> > >> changing the X-parent to the NoteHead would mean that we are aligning
> the
> > >> Fingering horizontally wrt. the NoteHead instead of the whole
> NoteColumn.
> > >> This
> > >> would then mean that if for example due to some chord some note heads
> are
> > >> on
> > >> the other side of the Stem the alignment of something like  g>-1-2-3
> > >> would
> > >> change (disregarding that it wouldn’t even be clear what note head to
> > >> use).
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Valentin
> > >>
> > >> Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 09:19:30 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
> > >> > Hi Thomas,
> > >> > thanks for your comment, this helps me refine my understanding of
> > >>
> > >> what's
> > >>
> > >> > going on.
> > >> >
> > >> > At the same time, while I do see that for other articulations
> (fermata,
> > >> > appoggiato) this parenting scheme works very well,
> > >> > I remain wondering whether for the style of layout of the fingering
> > >> > indications that I am after, the appropriate thing to do could be to
> > >>
> > >> change
> > >>
> > >> > the parenting altogether.
> > >> >
> > >> > If we look at chord for a second, I see the  thing
> as a
> > >> > trick because to me even for proper chords the whole FingeringColumn
> > >>
> > >> idea
> > >>
> > >> > is also a weird concept: imagine you're in say C major, and you're
> > >>
> > >> laying
> > >>
> > >> > out fingering on the left of a chord like Fm : I'm very
> > >>
> > >> unclear
> > >>
> > >> > whether the most readable solution is to have the fingerings stacked
> > >>
> > >> one
> > >>
> > >> > atop each other in a column (thereby more distant from f and c
> because
> > >>
> > >> of
> > >>
> > >> > the intervening flat on the aes) or if instead the fingerings on f
> and
> > >>
> > >> c
> > >>
> > >> > should be set tighter to their corresponding note heads and just the
> > >>
> > >> aes
> > >>
> > >> > fingering be displaced left horizontally, to allow for the flat. I
> > >>
> > >> would
> > >>
> > >> > like to experiment with various possibilities there, visually. I
> > >>
> > >> suppose
> > >>
> > >> > you could still displace horizontally inside the column, and then
> push
> > >>
> > >> it
> > >>
> > >> > all inwards closer to the chord even if the bboxes will overlap a
> > >>
> > >> bit... I
> > >>
> > >> > anticipate issues such as making sure the fingering for c' doesn't
> > >> > interfer with the ascender on the flat glyph, also.
> > >> >
> > >> > Which brings me to a question: what consequence would it have to
> > >>
> > >> replace
> > >>
> > >> > the X-parent and Y-parent of the fingering to be the NoteHead
> instead?
> > >> > (I guess there will be a need to deal with the accidentals at a
> > >>
> > >> minimum)
> > >>
> > >> > And also: how would I go at discovering these consequences without
> > >>
> > >> using
> > >>
> > >> > too much of you guys' time?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks again,
> > >> > Luca
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:22 AM Thomas Morley
> > >> > 
> > 

Re: Setting up classical guitar fingerings

[Valentin Petzel]

Sure. I suppose for a guitar person having stacked fingerings on top would be 
rather confusing, as there is no monotonic relating between finger and pitch. 
As such I suppose guitar people would want to use fingerings with left or right 
orientations in chords anyway.

Cheers,
Valentin

Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 17:47:58 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
> I suspect we might be saying the same thing, Valentin?
> 
> I was saying infix can be a bit awkward if you want 'pianist' chord
> fingering (just a stack of numbers above or below), and that your original
> -1-2-3 reads quite nicely (as in: it's easy to see in your head what
> you will get in the engraving just by looking at the source). So a keyboard
> person wouldn't want to use infix, I don't think
> 
> Whereas a guitar person might find it more attractive to use 
> because it's easier to keep it straight in your head what fingers you use
> on what note that way
> 
> L
> 
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:42 PM Valentin Petzel  wrote:
> > No, not nescessarily. If we want all Fingerings on top or below there is
> > no real benefit of doing the chord thing. In fact doing that leads to the
> > exact same issue of the fingering for d being next to the other ones.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Valentin
> > 
> > 21.02.2022 12:38:40 Luca Fascione :
> > 
> > But wouldn't you finger that as ? (Didn't check the number,
> > I'm just meaning going infix vs postfix)
> > 
> > I can see that this idea of mine does have issues for fingering your way
> > around (which seems to me it's more of a fingering atop thing, like you
> > would have in a keyboard score)
> > 
> > L
> > 
> > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, 12:32 Valentin Petzel,  wrote:
> >> Hello Luca,
> >> 
> >> changing the X-parent to the NoteHead would mean that we are aligning the
> >> Fingering horizontally wrt. the NoteHead instead of the whole NoteColumn.
> >> This
> >> would then mean that if for example due to some chord some note heads are
> >> on
> >> the other side of the Stem the alignment of something like -1-2-3
> >> would
> >> change (disregarding that it wouldn’t even be clear what note head to
> >> use).
> >> 
> >> Cheers,
> >> Valentin
> >> 
> >> Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 09:19:30 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
> >> > Hi Thomas,
> >> > thanks for your comment, this helps me refine my understanding of
> >> 
> >> what's
> >> 
> >> > going on.
> >> > 
> >> > At the same time, while I do see that for other articulations (fermata,
> >> > appoggiato) this parenting scheme works very well,
> >> > I remain wondering whether for the style of layout of the fingering
> >> > indications that I am after, the appropriate thing to do could be to
> >> 
> >> change
> >> 
> >> > the parenting altogether.
> >> > 
> >> > If we look at chord for a second, I see the  thing as a
> >> > trick because to me even for proper chords the whole FingeringColumn
> >> 
> >> idea
> >> 
> >> > is also a weird concept: imagine you're in say C major, and you're
> >> 
> >> laying
> >> 
> >> > out fingering on the left of a chord like Fm : I'm very
> >> 
> >> unclear
> >> 
> >> > whether the most readable solution is to have the fingerings stacked
> >> 
> >> one
> >> 
> >> > atop each other in a column (thereby more distant from f and c because
> >> 
> >> of
> >> 
> >> > the intervening flat on the aes) or if instead the fingerings on f and
> >> 
> >> c
> >> 
> >> > should be set tighter to their corresponding note heads and just the
> >> 
> >> aes
> >> 
> >> > fingering be displaced left horizontally, to allow for the flat. I
> >> 
> >> would
> >> 
> >> > like to experiment with various possibilities there, visually. I
> >> 
> >> suppose
> >> 
> >> > you could still displace horizontally inside the column, and then push
> >> 
> >> it
> >> 
> >> > all inwards closer to the chord even if the bboxes will overlap a
> >> 
> >> bit... I
> >> 
> >> > anticipate issues such as making sure the fingering for c' doesn't
> >> > interfer with the ascender on the flat glyph, also.
> >> > 
> >> > Which brings me to a question: what consequence would it have to
> >> 
> >> replace
> >> 
> >> > the X-parent and Y-parent of the fingering to be the NoteHead instead?
> >> > (I guess there will be a need to deal with the accidentals at a
> >> 
> >> minimum)
> >> 
> >> > And also: how would I go at discovering these consequences without
> >> 
> >> using
> >> 
> >> > too much of you guys' time?
> >> > 
> >> > Thanks again,
> >> > Luca
> >> > 
> >> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:22 AM Thomas Morley
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > Am So., 20. Feb. 2022 um 22:41 Uhr schrieb Luca Fascione <
> >> > > 
> >> > > l.fasci...@gmail.com>:
> >> > > >  a) I'm looking for a way to get the fingerings where I want them
> >> > > >  without
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > using one-note-chord tricks
> >> > > 
> >> > > Well, for Fingerings not in chord, like b-1 or -2-1 X-parent
> >> > > is NoteColumn _not_ NoteHead, Y-parent  is VerticalAxisGroup.
> >> > > There is no direct way from NoteHead to 

Re: Setting up classical guitar fingerings

[Luca Fascione]

I suspect we might be saying the same thing, Valentin?

I was saying infix can be a bit awkward if you want 'pianist' chord
fingering (just a stack of numbers above or below), and that your original
-1-2-3 reads quite nicely (as in: it's easy to see in your head what
you will get in the engraving just by looking at the source). So a keyboard
person wouldn't want to use infix, I don't think

Whereas a guitar person might find it more attractive to use 
because it's easier to keep it straight in your head what fingers you use
on what note that way

L

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:42 PM Valentin Petzel  wrote:

> No, not nescessarily. If we want all Fingerings on top or below there is
> no real benefit of doing the chord thing. In fact doing that leads to the
> exact same issue of the fingering for d being next to the other ones.
>
> Cheers,
> Valentin
>
> 21.02.2022 12:38:40 Luca Fascione :
>
> But wouldn't you finger that as ? (Didn't check the number,
> I'm just meaning going infix vs postfix)
>
> I can see that this idea of mine does have issues for fingering your way
> around (which seems to me it's more of a fingering atop thing, like you
> would have in a keyboard score)
>
> L
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, 12:32 Valentin Petzel,  wrote:
>
>> Hello Luca,
>>
>> changing the X-parent to the NoteHead would mean that we are aligning the
>> Fingering horizontally wrt. the NoteHead instead of the whole NoteColumn.
>> This
>> would then mean that if for example due to some chord some note heads are
>> on
>> the other side of the Stem the alignment of something like -1-2-3
>> would
>> change (disregarding that it wouldn’t even be clear what note head to
>> use).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Valentin
>>
>> Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 09:19:30 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
>> > Hi Thomas,
>> > thanks for your comment, this helps me refine my understanding of
>> what's
>> > going on.
>> >
>> > At the same time, while I do see that for other articulations (fermata,
>> > appoggiato) this parenting scheme works very well,
>> > I remain wondering whether for the style of layout of the fingering
>> > indications that I am after, the appropriate thing to do could be to
>> change
>> > the parenting altogether.
>> >
>> > If we look at chord for a second, I see the  thing as a
>> > trick because to me even for proper chords the whole FingeringColumn
>> idea
>> > is also a weird concept: imagine you're in say C major, and you're
>> laying
>> > out fingering on the left of a chord like Fm : I'm very
>> unclear
>> > whether the most readable solution is to have the fingerings stacked
>> one
>> > atop each other in a column (thereby more distant from f and c because
>> of
>> > the intervening flat on the aes) or if instead the fingerings on f and
>> c
>> > should be set tighter to their corresponding note heads and just the
>> aes
>> > fingering be displaced left horizontally, to allow for the flat. I
>> would
>> > like to experiment with various possibilities there, visually. I
>> suppose
>> > you could still displace horizontally inside the column, and then push
>> it
>> > all inwards closer to the chord even if the bboxes will overlap a
>> bit... I
>> > anticipate issues such as making sure the fingering for c' doesn't
>> > interfer with the ascender on the flat glyph, also.
>> >
>> > Which brings me to a question: what consequence would it have to
>> replace
>> > the X-parent and Y-parent of the fingering to be the NoteHead instead?
>> > (I guess there will be a need to deal with the accidentals at a
>> minimum)
>> > And also: how would I go at discovering these consequences without
>> using
>> > too much of you guys' time?
>> >
>> > Thanks again,
>> > Luca
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:22 AM Thomas Morley 
>>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > Am So., 20. Feb. 2022 um 22:41 Uhr schrieb Luca Fascione <
>> > >
>> > > l.fasci...@gmail.com>:
>> > > >  a) I'm looking for a way to get the fingerings where I want them
>> > > >  without
>> > > >
>> > > > using one-note-chord tricks
>> > >
>> > > Well, for Fingerings not in chord, like b-1 or -2-1 X-parent
>> > > is NoteColumn _not_ NoteHead, Y-parent  is VerticalAxisGroup.
>> > > There is no direct way from NoteHead to Fingering and vice versa.
>> > >
>> > > Thus putting Fingering in-chord is unavoidable, imho, even for single
>> > > notes.
>> > > It is _not_ a trick, but a requirement.
>> > >
>> > > Furthermore, you say you set music for classical guitar, then chords
>> > > will happen anyway, although not in your example.
>> > > Please note, as soon as more than one in-chord Fingering is present a
>> > > FingeringColumn is created. Which will make things even more
>> > > complicated.
>> > > See
>> > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6125
>> > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/732
>> > >
>> > > Sorry to be of not more help,
>> > >
>> > >   Harm
>>
>>

Re: Setting up classical guitar fingerings

[Valentin Petzel]

No, not nescessarily. If we want all Fingerings on top or below there is no 
real benefit of doing the chord thing. In fact doing that leads to the exact 
same issue of the fingering for d being next to the other ones.

Cheers,
Valentin

21.02.2022 12:38:40 Luca Fascione :

> But wouldn't you finger that as ? (Didn't check the number, I'm 
> just meaning going infix vs postfix)
> 
> I can see that this idea of mine does have issues for fingering your way 
> around (which seems to me it's more of a fingering atop thing, like you would 
> have in a keyboard score)
> 
> L
> 
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, 12:32 Valentin Petzel,  wrote:
>> Hello Luca,
>> 
>> changing the X-parent to the NoteHead would mean that we are aligning the
>> Fingering horizontally wrt. the NoteHead instead of the whole NoteColumn. 
>> This
>> would then mean that if for example due to some chord some note heads are on
>> the other side of the Stem the alignment of something like -1-2-3 
>> would
>> change (disregarding that it wouldn’t even be clear what note head to use).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Valentin
>> 
>> Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 09:19:30 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
>>> Hi Thomas,
>>> thanks for your comment, this helps me refine my understanding of what's
>>> going on.
>>>
>>> At the same time, while I do see that for other articulations (fermata,
>>> appoggiato) this parenting scheme works very well,
>>> I remain wondering whether for the style of layout of the fingering
>>> indications that I am after, the appropriate thing to do could be to change
>>> the parenting altogether.
>>>
>>> If we look at chord for a second, I see the  thing as a
>>> trick because to me even for proper chords the whole FingeringColumn idea
>>> is also a weird concept: imagine you're in say C major, and you're laying
>>> out fingering on the left of a chord like Fm : I'm very unclear
>>> whether the most readable solution is to have the fingerings stacked one
>>> atop each other in a column (thereby more distant from f and c because of
>>> the intervening flat on the aes) or if instead the fingerings on f and c
>>> should be set tighter to their corresponding note heads and just the aes
>>> fingering be displaced left horizontally, to allow for the flat. I would
>>> like to experiment with various possibilities there, visually. I suppose
>>> you could still displace horizontally inside the column, and then push it
>>> all inwards closer to the chord even if the bboxes will overlap a bit... I
>>> anticipate issues such as making sure the fingering for c' doesn't
>>> interfer with the ascender on the flat glyph, also.
>>>
>>> Which brings me to a question: what consequence would it have to replace
>>> the X-parent and Y-parent of the fingering to be the NoteHead instead?
>>> (I guess there will be a need to deal with the accidentals at a minimum)
>>> And also: how would I go at discovering these consequences without using
>>> too much of you guys' time?
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>> Luca
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:22 AM Thomas Morley 
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Am So., 20. Feb. 2022 um 22:41 Uhr schrieb Luca Fascione <
>>> >
>>> > l.fasci...@gmail.com>:
>>> > >  a) I'm looking for a way to get the fingerings where I want them
>>> > >  without
>>> > >
>>> > > using one-note-chord tricks
>>> >
>>> > Well, for Fingerings not in chord, like b-1 or -2-1 X-parent
>>> > is NoteColumn _not_ NoteHead, Y-parent  is VerticalAxisGroup.
>>> > There is no direct way from NoteHead to Fingering and vice versa.
>>> >
>>> > Thus putting Fingering in-chord is unavoidable, imho, even for single
>>> > notes.
>>> > It is _not_ a trick, but a requirement.
>>> >
>>> > Furthermore, you say you set music for classical guitar, then chords
>>> > will happen anyway, although not in your example.
>>> > Please note, as soon as more than one in-chord Fingering is present a
>>> > FingeringColumn is created. Which will make things even more
>>> > complicated.
>>> > See
>>> > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6125
>>> > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/732
>>> >
>>> > Sorry to be of not more help,
>>> >
>>> >   Harm
>> 

Re: Setting up classical guitar fingerings

[Luca Fascione]

This is neat!
Thansk Valentin your explanation is very clear.

Question: I would have thought it should be the fingering mark to push the
beams away, not the other way around, I'm expecting it's uncool to go
rummage in the setup of the beams/stems in before-line-break? Or is this
how that handshake happens?

Another concept that in thus second seems related is the skyline: am I
right that this is the running Y direction minmax of the
NoteHead+accidentals? If I "just" made the skyline include the fingering
marks, would this push the beams up? Or am I just way off my rocker?

L

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, 12:27 Valentin Petzel,  wrote:

> Hello Luca,
>
> A scheme engraver follows the concept of a closure, so it is some sort of
> function that returns different values on different arguments. This is
> somewhat
> the functional approach to OOP. So an engraver can be seen as an object
> that
> has some methods, which (as some sort of callback) need to be passed a
> reference to the actual engraver. So for example an acknowledger is  a
> function that takes as argument the engraver itself, the acknowledged grob
> and
> the original engraver producing the grob.
>
> About after-line-breaking: Spacing is a kind of problematic thing. Spacing
> might rely on line breaking, but line breaking might rely on spacing. Thus
> Lilypond first creates some sort of spacing approximation, it then
> calculates
> the line breaking, and then finalizes the spacing.
>
> Our problem is that something like Beaming and thus stem length (on which
> we
> want depend our spacing) are only really fixed after line breaking.
>
> For such things each grob as two callbacks before-line-breaking and after-
> line-breaking that are called on the grob before calculating the line
> breaking
> and after calculating the line breaking. Using this we can tweak the grobs
> after the line breaking is calculated to do what we want.
>
> In this case I’m using a custom engraver to store Stems and Note Heads
> inside
> the properties of the Fingering grob (so that we can access them) and then
> in
> after-line-breaking we take the length of the stem, we check if there is
> Beaming on the left side, if there is we get the lowest beam position and
> use
> it to estimate the height of the Beam (this does still get messed up by
> very
> slanted Beams, it might be useful to also get a reference to the Beam grob
> to
> factor in the angle of the Beam). With this we can estimate the free space
> between NoteHead and Beam, and depending on this space, shift the
> Fingering
> grob.
>
> Cheers,
> Valentin
>
> Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 08:58:36 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
> > Hi Valentin, thank you this is super interesting. There's a lot of
> > information in there I want to read more carefully,
> > but for the moment I have one question: when is after-line-breaking
> invoke?
> > Or actually, better question: where do I go to discover when (and I guess
> > by what) after-line-breaking is invoked?
> >
> > Another thing at the moment I don't follow is the 'engraver' variable in
> > the scheme engraver you wrote:
> > where does that come from? (I suspect it's some kind of name available
> > where the engraver is invoked, but again: how would I go at discovering
> > this?)
> >
> > Many thanks, this is very helpful
> > Luca
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 11:07 PM Valentin Petzel 
> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > our problem here is that such things like the positioning of beams are
> not
> > > known for quite some time. But we could use something like
> > > after-line-breaking
> > > to adjust the results. Somewhat like here.
> > >
> > > Valentin
> > >
> > > Am Sonntag, 20. Februar 2022, 21:17:31 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
> > > > So... would anybody be able to lend a hand here please?
> > > >
> > > > Many thanks
> > > > Luca
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 7:49 PM Luca Fascione 
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > sorry for the double-post, I'm unsure whether this should go to
> -user
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > > > -devel.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm looking for some guidance to set up fingering on classical
> guitar
> > > > > sheets.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am attaching a simple piece of music, with two engraving sets
> > >
> > > (measures
> > >
> > > > > 1-5 and 6-10), one "as-is" from lilypond, the other using some
> > > > > trickery
> > > > > involving one-note chords, purely to show a sample of what the
> result
> > >
> > > I'm
> > >
> > > > > after (and it's an approximation), vs what I get at the moment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Measures 1-5 in the source look like what I am intending to type,
> but
> > >
> > > it
> > >
> > > > > has a number of engraving defects I don't understand (you can see
> the
> > > > > beams
> > > > > don't  avoid the fingerings, nor they are located correctly wrt the
> > > > > accidentals, the second beat of measure 5 illustrates this well.
> I'm
> > >
> > > not
> > >
> > > > > super in love with measure 10 either, but if I understand 

Re: Setting up classical guitar fingerings

[Luca Fascione]

But wouldn't you finger that as ? (Didn't check the number,
I'm just meaning going infix vs postfix)

I can see that this idea of mine does have issues for fingering your way
around (which seems to me it's more of a fingering atop thing, like you
would have in a keyboard score)

L

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, 12:32 Valentin Petzel,  wrote:

> Hello Luca,
>
> changing the X-parent to the NoteHead would mean that we are aligning the
> Fingering horizontally wrt. the NoteHead instead of the whole NoteColumn.
> This
> would then mean that if for example due to some chord some note heads are
> on
> the other side of the Stem the alignment of something like -1-2-3
> would
> change (disregarding that it wouldn’t even be clear what note head to use).
>
> Cheers,
> Valentin
>
> Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 09:19:30 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > thanks for your comment, this helps me refine my understanding of what's
> > going on.
> >
> > At the same time, while I do see that for other articulations (fermata,
> > appoggiato) this parenting scheme works very well,
> > I remain wondering whether for the style of layout of the fingering
> > indications that I am after, the appropriate thing to do could be to
> change
> > the parenting altogether.
> >
> > If we look at chord for a second, I see the  thing as a
> > trick because to me even for proper chords the whole FingeringColumn idea
> > is also a weird concept: imagine you're in say C major, and you're laying
> > out fingering on the left of a chord like Fm : I'm very unclear
> > whether the most readable solution is to have the fingerings stacked one
> > atop each other in a column (thereby more distant from f and c because of
> > the intervening flat on the aes) or if instead the fingerings on f and c
> > should be set tighter to their corresponding note heads and just the aes
> > fingering be displaced left horizontally, to allow for the flat. I would
> > like to experiment with various possibilities there, visually. I suppose
> > you could still displace horizontally inside the column, and then push it
> > all inwards closer to the chord even if the bboxes will overlap a bit...
> I
> > anticipate issues such as making sure the fingering for c' doesn't
> > interfer with the ascender on the flat glyph, also.
> >
> > Which brings me to a question: what consequence would it have to replace
> > the X-parent and Y-parent of the fingering to be the NoteHead instead?
> > (I guess there will be a need to deal with the accidentals at a minimum)
> > And also: how would I go at discovering these consequences without using
> > too much of you guys' time?
> >
> > Thanks again,
> > Luca
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:22 AM Thomas Morley 
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Am So., 20. Feb. 2022 um 22:41 Uhr schrieb Luca Fascione <
> > >
> > > l.fasci...@gmail.com>:
> > > >  a) I'm looking for a way to get the fingerings where I want them
> > > >  without
> > > >
> > > > using one-note-chord tricks
> > >
> > > Well, for Fingerings not in chord, like b-1 or -2-1 X-parent
> > > is NoteColumn _not_ NoteHead, Y-parent  is VerticalAxisGroup.
> > > There is no direct way from NoteHead to Fingering and vice versa.
> > >
> > > Thus putting Fingering in-chord is unavoidable, imho, even for single
> > > notes.
> > > It is _not_ a trick, but a requirement.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, you say you set music for classical guitar, then chords
> > > will happen anyway, although not in your example.
> > > Please note, as soon as more than one in-chord Fingering is present a
> > > FingeringColumn is created. Which will make things even more
> > > complicated.
> > > See
> > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6125
> > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/732
> > >
> > > Sorry to be of not more help,
> > >
> > >   Harm
>
>

Re: Setting up classical guitar fingerings

[Valentin Petzel]

Hello Luca,

changing the X-parent to the NoteHead would mean that we are aligning the 
Fingering horizontally wrt. the NoteHead instead of the whole NoteColumn. This 
would then mean that if for example due to some chord some note heads are on 
the other side of the Stem the alignment of something like -1-2-3 would 
change (disregarding that it wouldn’t even be clear what note head to use).

Cheers,
Valentin

Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 09:19:30 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
> Hi Thomas,
> thanks for your comment, this helps me refine my understanding of what's
> going on.
> 
> At the same time, while I do see that for other articulations (fermata,
> appoggiato) this parenting scheme works very well,
> I remain wondering whether for the style of layout of the fingering
> indications that I am after, the appropriate thing to do could be to change
> the parenting altogether.
> 
> If we look at chord for a second, I see the  thing as a
> trick because to me even for proper chords the whole FingeringColumn idea
> is also a weird concept: imagine you're in say C major, and you're laying
> out fingering on the left of a chord like Fm : I'm very unclear
> whether the most readable solution is to have the fingerings stacked one
> atop each other in a column (thereby more distant from f and c because of
> the intervening flat on the aes) or if instead the fingerings on f and c
> should be set tighter to their corresponding note heads and just the aes
> fingering be displaced left horizontally, to allow for the flat. I would
> like to experiment with various possibilities there, visually. I suppose
> you could still displace horizontally inside the column, and then push it
> all inwards closer to the chord even if the bboxes will overlap a bit... I
> anticipate issues such as making sure the fingering for c' doesn't
> interfer with the ascender on the flat glyph, also.
> 
> Which brings me to a question: what consequence would it have to replace
> the X-parent and Y-parent of the fingering to be the NoteHead instead?
> (I guess there will be a need to deal with the accidentals at a minimum)
> And also: how would I go at discovering these consequences without using
> too much of you guys' time?
> 
> Thanks again,
> Luca
> 
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:22 AM Thomas Morley 
> 
> wrote:
> > Am So., 20. Feb. 2022 um 22:41 Uhr schrieb Luca Fascione <
> > 
> > l.fasci...@gmail.com>:
> > >  a) I'm looking for a way to get the fingerings where I want them
> > >  without
> > > 
> > > using one-note-chord tricks
> > 
> > Well, for Fingerings not in chord, like b-1 or -2-1 X-parent
> > is NoteColumn _not_ NoteHead, Y-parent  is VerticalAxisGroup.
> > There is no direct way from NoteHead to Fingering and vice versa.
> > 
> > Thus putting Fingering in-chord is unavoidable, imho, even for single
> > notes.
> > It is _not_ a trick, but a requirement.
> > 
> > Furthermore, you say you set music for classical guitar, then chords
> > will happen anyway, although not in your example.
> > Please note, as soon as more than one in-chord Fingering is present a
> > FingeringColumn is created. Which will make things even more
> > complicated.
> > See
> > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6125
> > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/732
> > 
> > Sorry to be of not more help,
> > 
> >   Harm



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Setting up classical guitar fingerings

[Valentin Petzel]

Hello Luca,

A scheme engraver follows the concept of a closure, so it is some sort of 
function that returns different values on different arguments. This is somewhat 
the functional approach to OOP. So an engraver can be seen as an object that 
has some methods, which (as some sort of callback) need to be passed a 
reference to the actual engraver. So for example an acknowledger is  a 
function that takes as argument the engraver itself, the acknowledged grob and 
the original engraver producing the grob.

About after-line-breaking: Spacing is a kind of problematic thing. Spacing 
might rely on line breaking, but line breaking might rely on spacing. Thus 
Lilypond first creates some sort of spacing approximation, it then calculates 
the line breaking, and then finalizes the spacing.

Our problem is that something like Beaming and thus stem length (on which we 
want depend our spacing) are only really fixed after line breaking.

For such things each grob as two callbacks before-line-breaking and after-
line-breaking that are called on the grob before calculating the line breaking 
and after calculating the line breaking. Using this we can tweak the grobs 
after the line breaking is calculated to do what we want.

In this case I’m using a custom engraver to store Stems and Note Heads inside 
the properties of the Fingering grob (so that we can access them) and then in 
after-line-breaking we take the length of the stem, we check if there is 
Beaming on the left side, if there is we get the lowest beam position and use 
it to estimate the height of the Beam (this does still get messed up by very 
slanted Beams, it might be useful to also get a reference to the Beam grob to 
factor in the angle of the Beam). With this we can estimate the free space 
between NoteHead and Beam, and depending on this space, shift the Fingering 
grob.

Cheers,
Valentin

Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 08:58:36 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
> Hi Valentin, thank you this is super interesting. There's a lot of
> information in there I want to read more carefully,
> but for the moment I have one question: when is after-line-breaking invoke?
> Or actually, better question: where do I go to discover when (and I guess
> by what) after-line-breaking is invoked?
> 
> Another thing at the moment I don't follow is the 'engraver' variable in
> the scheme engraver you wrote:
> where does that come from? (I suspect it's some kind of name available
> where the engraver is invoked, but again: how would I go at discovering
> this?)
> 
> Many thanks, this is very helpful
> Luca
> 
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 11:07 PM Valentin Petzel  wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > our problem here is that such things like the positioning of beams are not
> > known for quite some time. But we could use something like
> > after-line-breaking
> > to adjust the results. Somewhat like here.
> > 
> > Valentin
> > 
> > Am Sonntag, 20. Februar 2022, 21:17:31 CET schrieb Luca Fascione:
> > > So... would anybody be able to lend a hand here please?
> > > 
> > > Many thanks
> > > Luca
> > > 
> > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 7:49 PM Luca Fascione 
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > sorry for the double-post, I'm unsure whether this should go to -user
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > > > -devel.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm looking for some guidance to set up fingering on classical guitar
> > > > sheets.
> > > > 
> > > > I am attaching a simple piece of music, with two engraving sets
> > 
> > (measures
> > 
> > > > 1-5 and 6-10), one "as-is" from lilypond, the other using some
> > > > trickery
> > > > involving one-note chords, purely to show a sample of what the result
> > 
> > I'm
> > 
> > > > after (and it's an approximation), vs what I get at the moment.
> > > > 
> > > > Measures 1-5 in the source look like what I am intending to type, but
> > 
> > it
> > 
> > > > has a number of engraving defects I don't understand (you can see the
> > > > beams
> > > > don't  avoid the fingerings, nor they are located correctly wrt the
> > > > accidentals, the second beat of measure 5 illustrates this well. I'm
> > 
> > not
> > 
> > > > super in love with measure 10 either, but if I understand the docs
> > > > correctly, the issue there is that the 'offset' correction is applied
> > > > post-layout, and so naturally it won't back-affect the placement of
> > > > the
> > > > beams.
> > > > 
> > > > I have made several other experiments, I'm just not wanting to waste
> > > > people's time. But setting Fingering.side-axis = #X seems somewhat
> > > > promising, but it seems unable to find any usable Y data about the
> > > > parents,
> > > > and smashes all numbers on the B line, as well as not dealing with
> > > > accidentals.
> > > > 
> > > > I have an engraving project in front of me, for which I'm more than
> > 
> > happy
> > 
> > > > to put in the time to contribute the code to a proper solution myself,
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > > > I really don't want to make poor use of time from folks busy with
> > > > other
> > > > 

Re: Setting up classical guitar fingerings

[Valentin Petzel]

Hello Harm,

That is not exactly true. As I have done in my previous reply we can create an 
engraver that acknowledges Fingerings and NoteHeads and store a reference to 
the NoteHead grob in the Fingerings details property.

Cheers,
Valentin

Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 01:22:18 CET schrieb Thomas Morley:
> Am So., 20. Feb. 2022 um 22:41 Uhr schrieb Luca Fascione 
:
> >  a) I'm looking for a way to get the fingerings where I want them without
> > 
> > using one-note-chord tricks
> 
> Well, for Fingerings not in chord, like b-1 or -2-1 X-parent
> is NoteColumn _not_ NoteHead, Y-parent  is VerticalAxisGroup.
> There is no direct way from NoteHead to Fingering and vice versa.
> 
> Thus putting Fingering in-chord is unavoidable, imho, even for single notes.
> It is _not_ a trick, but a requirement.
> 
> Furthermore, you say you set music for classical guitar, then chords
> will happen anyway, although not in your example.
> Please note, as soon as more than one in-chord Fingering is present a
> FingeringColumn is created. Which will make things even more
> complicated.
> See
> https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6125
> https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/732
> 
> Sorry to be of not more help,
>   Harm



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Combining crossStaff with a central beam

[Paul Hodges]

Thank you very much - that's a nicer resolution than I had managed (which was 
very much a hack - less code for a single example, but poorer spacing).


As for crossStaff and direction, I have certainly found matching to be 
necessary in my experience; and it's logical to require the same, because 
otherwise it's not clear which end gets the stem and flags (if any).


Paul



 From:   Thomas Morley  
 To:   Paul Hodges  
 Cc:   lilypond-user  
 Sent:   20/02/2022 14:59 
 Subject:   Re: Combining crossStaff with a central beam 

Am Sa., 19. Feb. 2022 um 19:45 Uhr schrieb Paul Hodges : 
> 
> I am trying to set the attached image (both staves are bass clef).  I have 
> written the tuplet (without the note on the top staff in the first chord) in 
> my lower staff voice and jumping between staves as required; the missing note 
> I have set in my top staff voice as the first note of a tuplet with bracket 
> and number hidden and followed by the required skip.  But I can't find any 
> way to make the two parts of the first chord join up, because the \crossStaff 
> directive requires the stems to be in the same direction, and here they are 
> inherently not so. 
> 
> Any ideas? 
> 
> I can produce non-working code if required, but I think the description of 
> the problem is enough. 
> 
> Paul 
 
Afaict, \crossStaff does not _require_ Stems in the same direction. 
Ofcourse different directions usually make the Stem to far apart from 
each other to connect them. 
Though, if you move a NoteColumn so that the Stems are very close, 
they are connectable. 
Sometimes this is very tedious, but quite often the below defined 
pushNC works nicely: 
 
pushNC = 
\once \override NoteColumn.X-offset = 
  #(lambda (grob) 
    (let* ((p-c (ly:grob-parent grob X)) 
           (p-c-elts (ly:grob-object p-c 'elements)) 
           (stems 
             (if (ly:grob-array? p-c-elts) 
                 (filter 
                   (lambda (elt)(grob::has-interface elt 'stem-interface)) 
                   (ly:grob-array->list p-c-elts)) 
                 #f)) 
           (stems-x-exts 
             (if stems 
                 (map 
                   (lambda (stem) 
                     (ly:grob-extent 
                       stem 
                       (ly:grob-common-refpoint grob stem X) 
                       X)) 
                   stems) 
                 '())) 
           (sane-ext 
             (filter interval-sane? stems-x-exts)) 
           (cars (map car sane-ext))) 
    (if (pair? cars) 
        (abs (- (apply max cars)  (apply min cars))) 
        0))) 
 
\layout { 
  \context { 
    \Score 
    \consists #Span_stem_engraver 
  } 
} 
\new PianoStaff << 
  \new Staff = "1" { 
      \pushNC 
      g''4*1/8 s16. 
  } 
  \new Staff = "2" { 
      \clef "bass" 
      \override Beam.auto-knee-gap = 1 
      \override Beam.positions = 
      #(grob-transformer 'positions 
        (lambda (grob original) (coord-translate original -1))) 
      \override TupletBracket.direction = #DOWN 
      \override TupletBracket.bracket-visibility = ##t 
      \tuplet 5/4 { 
        \crossStaff 32[ 
        \change Staff = "1" 
        c''' bis' 
        \change Staff = "2" 
        a ] 
 
      } 
  } 
>> 
 
HTH, 
  Harm 

Re: Setting up classical guitar fingerings

[Luca Fascione]

Hi Thomas,
thanks for your comment, this helps me refine my understanding of what's
going on.

At the same time, while I do see that for other articulations (fermata,
appoggiato) this parenting scheme works very well,
I remain wondering whether for the style of layout of the fingering
indications that I am after, the appropriate thing to do could be to change
the parenting altogether.

If we look at chord for a second, I see the  thing as a
trick because to me even for proper chords the whole FingeringColumn idea
is also a weird concept: imagine you're in say C major, and you're laying
out fingering on the left of a chord like Fm : I'm very unclear
whether the most readable solution is to have the fingerings stacked one
atop each other in a column (thereby more distant from f and c because of
the intervening flat on the aes) or if instead the fingerings on f and c
should be set tighter to their corresponding note heads and just the aes
fingering be displaced left horizontally, to allow for the flat. I would
like to experiment with various possibilities there, visually. I suppose
you could still displace horizontally inside the column, and then push it
all inwards closer to the chord even if the bboxes will overlap a bit... I
anticipate issues such as making sure the fingering for c' doesn't
interfer with the ascender on the flat glyph, also.

Which brings me to a question: what consequence would it have to replace
the X-parent and Y-parent of the fingering to be the NoteHead instead?
(I guess there will be a need to deal with the accidentals at a minimum)
And also: how would I go at discovering these consequences without using
too much of you guys' time?

Thanks again,
Luca

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:22 AM Thomas Morley 
wrote:

> Am So., 20. Feb. 2022 um 22:41 Uhr schrieb Luca Fascione <
> l.fasci...@gmail.com>:
>
> >  a) I'm looking for a way to get the fingerings where I want them without
> > using one-note-chord tricks
>
> Well, for Fingerings not in chord, like b-1 or -2-1 X-parent
> is NoteColumn _not_ NoteHead, Y-parent  is VerticalAxisGroup.
> There is no direct way from NoteHead to Fingering and vice versa.
>
> Thus putting Fingering in-chord is unavoidable, imho, even for single
> notes.
> It is _not_ a trick, but a requirement.
>
> Furthermore, you say you set music for classical guitar, then chords
> will happen anyway, although not in your example.
> Please note, as soon as more than one in-chord Fingering is present a
> FingeringColumn is created. Which will make things even more
> complicated.
> See
> https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6125
> https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/732
>
> Sorry to be of not more help,
>   Harm
>