Re: warning: adding note head to incompatible stem (type = 1/1)
Hi Valentin;
Thank you for your explanation. I've read it several times trying
to grasp all of it. Now I'll have to read the Learning manual again
and experiment further.
I've started from scratch with a new piece, specifying voices from
the start, trying to prevent these conflicts from happening by being
too cavalier. I'll then go back to the piece in question after I have
this new one completed.
Thanks again for all the help,
Ken
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:41 AM Valentin Petzel wrote:
>
> Hi Ken, Hi Paul,
>
> The root of the problem is your use of << ... \\ ... >>. Basically << ... >>
> marks that the contained music should be placed simulataneously instead of
> consecutively (which would be the purpose of { ... }). But this will not put
> the music in different voices. To do so one has to explicitely say << \new
> Voice ... \new Voice ... >>. Since this is quite a bit to write we have the <<
> ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >> syntax, which automatically creates voices an orders
> them like voice 1 (top), voice 2 (bottom), voice 3 (second from top), ...
>
> Note we can also use the \voices function to specify the order of these
> voices!
>
> So here is where the problem lies:
> You do have a staff with two voices lh_one as Voice 1 and lh_two as Voice 2.
> But then Voice 2 has this part
>
> << { fs,1( | f,2) e, | }
> \\ { s8\sustainOn s2. s8\sustainOff | s8\sustainOn s2. s8\sustainOff | }
> >>
>
> which again creates two Voices, the top of which will be Voice 1 and thus
> clash with the actual Voice 1.
>
> Note that in your case you do not actually want new Voices, because the second
> line simply specifies pedal markings and no notes, so it suffices to specify
>
> <<
> { fs,1( | f,2) e, | }
> { s8\sustainOn s2. s8\sustainOff | s8\sustainOn s2. s8\sustainOff | }
> >>
>
> instead, which would place both lines simultaneously without leaving the
> previous Voice.
>
> But in case you actually need two Voices you’d want the Voice to split into
> Voice 4 and Voice 2, not Voice 1 and Voice 2, so you’d need to do
>
> \voices 4,2 << ... \\ ... >>
>
> Cheers,
> Valentin
>
> Am Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2022, 23:59:33 CEST schrieb Kenneth Wolcott:
> > Hi Paul;
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > It looks like somewhere I had jumped to conclusions about engraving
> > polyphony in Lilypond and misled myself for about a year now.
> >
> > This not only works better but the code looks much less cumbersome,
> > more succinct.
> >
> > Interesting that, until now, my syntax actually worked.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:31 PM Paul Hodges wrote:
> > > Change:
> > > \new Staff << { \lh_one } \\ { \lh_two } >>
> > >
> > > to:
> > > \new Staff << \lh_one \lh_two >>
> > >
> > > and you will see a big improvement.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Kenneth Wolcott
> > > To: Lily Pond
> > > Sent: 30/06/2022 20:57
> > > Subject: warning: adding note head to incompatible stem (type = 1/1)
> > >
> > > HI;
> > >
> > > I am now engraving a Cello+Piano arrangement of the last song (no
> > >
> > > lyrics) "None but the Lonely Heart" of Op. 6 of Tchaikovsky.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_but_the_Lonely_Heart_(Tchaikovsky)
> > >
> > > The left hand notes have polyphony.
> > >
> > > The whole note in one measure and the half notes in the following
> > >
> > > measure each conflict with an eighth note rest in the other voice.
> > >
> > > I am not (yet) explicitly using voices, perhaps that is my problem?
> > >
> > > How do I successfully engrave this with Lilypond 2.22.2?
> > >
> > > I also receive the following warning/hint: "warning: maybe input
> > >
> > > should specify polyphonic voices".
> > >
> > > I have attached the full pdf of what I am engraving, my engraving and
> > > the Lilypond source I wrote.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ken Wolcott
>
Re: Generating a spiccato
Hello Siomon & Hans,
I have to ask the person who suggested that xml2ly should generate spiccatos
what they’d like them to look like.
Thanks for your answers!
JM
> Le 28 juin 2022 à 01:03, Simon Albrecht a écrit :
>
> Hi Jacques,
>
> On 27/06/2022 22:13, Jacques Menu wrote:
>> Does anyone know of some way to generate spiccato articulations in the
>> scores produced by Lily?
>
>
> what would you expect that to look like?
>
> { a'4-! }
>
> maybe?
>
> Best, Simon
>
Re: \repeat unfold has problems inside \repeat volta
Thanks for the explanation.
Apparently I misread the documentation.
[detailed explanation snipped]
I had a memory that the syntax had changed but couldn't find it upon a
quick look since all the examples at the beginning of the notation
reference still use the old syntax :)
You can likely write
\repeat unfold 8 { ... } \alternative { } ...
in order to quench the \repeat unfold's thirst for an alternative.
While it looks a bit ugly or overdone it probably is what I will start
to use (as it removes disambiguities from my code)
It would probably be better if the default resolution was in direction
of the new syntax, but I don't think that this is trivial.
Thanks David and Valentin for the extended explanation.
Kind regards,
Michael
Re: \repeat unfold has problems inside \repeat volta
Hello Michael,
you’re not exactly wrong there. In recent versions is has become possible to
put the \alternative inside the reapeat block, which allows having
alternatives in other parts than the end, and after all one might say that
this is in fact a more sane way to do it. But for Lilypond still supports the
older way of doing things for reasons of not breaking old scores.
This then leads to some ambiguity in sytax, as we have in your case. It is not
inherently clear if that \alternative block belongs to the inner repeat or to
the outer repeat. The current way is consistent with the older behaviour, but
maybe not what you’d expect to get.
Cheers,
Valentin
Am Freitag, 1. Juli 2022, 12:16:40 CEST schrieb Michael Gerdau:
> > this is not a bug. You’re supposed to put the alternative after the repeat
> > part not inside, so \repeat volta 2 { ... } \alternative { ... }. The way
> > you have put it the \alternative ... is used as alternatives for the
> > \repeat unfold (as it is placed after that one), so after the first
> > repeat you get the first alternative, after the second repeat the second
> > alternative, which is exactly what you are seeing here.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
> Apparently I misread the documentation.
>
> Kind regards,
> Michael
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: \repeat unfold has problems inside \repeat volta
Michael Gerdau writes:
>> this is not a bug. You’re supposed to put the alternative after the repeat
>> part not inside, so \repeat volta 2 { ... } \alternative { ... }. The way you
>> have put it the \alternative ... is used as alternatives for the \repeat
>> unfold (as it is placed after that one), so after the first repeat you get
>> the
>> first alternative, after the second repeat the second alternative, which is
>> exactly what you are seeing here.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
> Apparently I misread the documentation.
I don't think so. The problem is that repeats now support putting the
\alternative phrase inside of the construct since that is a saner way of
doing things. But the previous way is still supported for compatibility
reasons. Your input file could be interpreted either way, and the way
LilyPond interprets it is not the one you intended.
This is a design problem I think, and not a matter of you misreading the
documentation. No idea what a long-term resolution would look like.
You can likely write
\repeat unfold 8 { ... } \alternative { } ...
in order to quench the \repeat unfold's thirst for an alternative.
It would probably be better if the default resolution was in direction
of the new syntax, but I don't think that this is trivial.
--
David Kastrup
Re: \repeat unfold has problems inside \repeat volta
this is not a bug. You’re supposed to put the alternative after the repeat
part not inside, so \repeat volta 2 { ... } \alternative { ... }. The way you
have put it the \alternative ... is used as alternatives for the \repeat
unfold (as it is placed after that one), so after the first repeat you get the
first alternative, after the second repeat the second alternative, which is
exactly what you are seeing here.
Thanks for the explanation.
Apparently I misread the documentation.
Kind regards,
Michael
Re: MIDI and fermata
Hi Mark, theoretically it should work to do something like \once\set Score.tempoWholesPerMinute = 10 to have a single step played slower (but I have not tried if this actually works). The value would then of course depend on your tempo and how much slower you want the step to be. Cheers, Valentin Am Freitag, 1. Juli 2022, 01:55:32 CEST schrieb Mark Probert: > Hi, all. > > I wondering how people deal with adding a fermata into MIDI output. The > most obvious way I can think of is using a cadenza to add some space, but > is there a better way? > > Thanks signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: \repeat unfold has problems inside \repeat volta
Hello Michael,
this is not a bug. You’re supposed to put the alternative after the repeat
part not inside, so \repeat volta 2 { ... } \alternative { ... }. The way you
have put it the \alternative ... is used as alternatives for the \repeat
unfold (as it is placed after that one), so after the first repeat you get the
first alternative, after the second repeat the second alternative, which is
exactly what you are seeing here.
Cheers,
Valentin
Am Freitag, 1. Juli 2022, 11:45:17 CEST schrieb Michael Gerdau:
> Hi list!
>
> the attached Lilypond code IMO shows a bug.
> Or have I misunderstood the way it is supposed to work?
>
> \version "2.23.10"
>
> music = \relative g' {
>\time 6/8
>\partial 8
>r8 |
>\repeat volta 2 {
> g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8
> r8 d8 r8 r8 |
> g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8
> r8 d8 r8 r8 |
> %g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8
> r8 d8 r8 r8 |
> %g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8
> r8 d8 r8 r8 |
> \alternative {
>\volta 1 { g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 }
>\volta 2 { g8 r8 r8 g,8 r8 }
> }
>}
>\bar "|."
> }
>
> \markup "This is how it is supposed to look like..."
> \score {
>\music
> }
>
>
> musicb = \relative g' {
>\time 6/8
>\partial 8
>r8 |
>\repeat volta 2 {
> \repeat unfold 8 { g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 }
> \alternative {
>\volta 1 { g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 }
>\volta 2 { g8 r8 r8 g,8 r8 }
> }
>}
>\bar "|."
> }
>
> \markup "...and this IMO is a bug in bar 4"
> \score {
>\musicb
> }
>
> Kind regards,
> Michael
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: warning: adding note head to incompatible stem (type = 1/1)
Hi Ken, Hi Paul,
The root of the problem is your use of << ... \\ ... >>. Basically << ... >>
marks that the contained music should be placed simulataneously instead of
consecutively (which would be the purpose of { ... }). But this will not put
the music in different voices. To do so one has to explicitely say << \new
Voice ... \new Voice ... >>. Since this is quite a bit to write we have the <<
... \\ ... \\ ... ... >> syntax, which automatically creates voices an orders
them like voice 1 (top), voice 2 (bottom), voice 3 (second from top), ...
Note we can also use the \voices function to specify the order of these
voices!
So here is where the problem lies:
You do have a staff with two voices lh_one as Voice 1 and lh_two as Voice 2.
But then Voice 2 has this part
<< { fs,1( | f,2) e, | }
\\ { s8\sustainOn s2. s8\sustainOff | s8\sustainOn s2. s8\sustainOff | }
>>
which again creates two Voices, the top of which will be Voice 1 and thus
clash with the actual Voice 1.
Note that in your case you do not actually want new Voices, because the second
line simply specifies pedal markings and no notes, so it suffices to specify
<<
{ fs,1( | f,2) e, | }
{ s8\sustainOn s2. s8\sustainOff | s8\sustainOn s2. s8\sustainOff | }
>>
instead, which would place both lines simultaneously without leaving the
previous Voice.
But in case you actually need two Voices you’d want the Voice to split into
Voice 4 and Voice 2, not Voice 1 and Voice 2, so you’d need to do
\voices 4,2 << ... \\ ... >>
Cheers,
Valentin
Am Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2022, 23:59:33 CEST schrieb Kenneth Wolcott:
> Hi Paul;
>
> Thank you.
>
> It looks like somewhere I had jumped to conclusions about engraving
> polyphony in Lilypond and misled myself for about a year now.
>
> This not only works better but the code looks much less cumbersome,
> more succinct.
>
> Interesting that, until now, my syntax actually worked.
>
> Ken
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:31 PM Paul Hodges wrote:
> > Change:
> > \new Staff << { \lh_one } \\ { \lh_two } >>
> >
> > to:
> > \new Staff << \lh_one \lh_two >>
> >
> > and you will see a big improvement.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > From: Kenneth Wolcott
> > To: Lily Pond
> > Sent: 30/06/2022 20:57
> > Subject: warning: adding note head to incompatible stem (type = 1/1)
> >
> > HI;
> >
> > I am now engraving a Cello+Piano arrangement of the last song (no
> >
> > lyrics) "None but the Lonely Heart" of Op. 6 of Tchaikovsky.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_but_the_Lonely_Heart_(Tchaikovsky)
> >
> > The left hand notes have polyphony.
> >
> > The whole note in one measure and the half notes in the following
> >
> > measure each conflict with an eighth note rest in the other voice.
> >
> > I am not (yet) explicitly using voices, perhaps that is my problem?
> >
> > How do I successfully engrave this with Lilypond 2.22.2?
> >
> > I also receive the following warning/hint: "warning: maybe input
> >
> > should specify polyphonic voices".
> >
> > I have attached the full pdf of what I am engraving, my engraving and
> > the Lilypond source I wrote.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ken Wolcott
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
\repeat unfold has problems inside \repeat volta
Hi list!
the attached Lilypond code IMO shows a bug.
Or have I misunderstood the way it is supposed to work?
\version "2.23.10"
music = \relative g' {
\time 6/8
\partial 8
r8 |
\repeat volta 2 {
g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8
r8 d8 r8 r8 |
g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8
r8 d8 r8 r8 |
%g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8
r8 d8 r8 r8 |
%g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8
r8 d8 r8 r8 |
\alternative {
\volta 1 { g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 }
\volta 2 { g8 r8 r8 g,8 r8 }
}
}
\bar "|."
}
\markup "This is how it is supposed to look like..."
\score {
\music
}
musicb = \relative g' {
\time 6/8
\partial 8
r8 |
\repeat volta 2 {
\repeat unfold 8 { g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 }
\alternative {
\volta 1 { g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 }
\volta 2 { g8 r8 r8 g,8 r8 }
}
}
\bar "|."
}
\markup "...and this IMO is a bug in bar 4"
\score {
\musicb
}
Kind regards,
Michael\version "2.23.10"
music = \relative g' {
\time 6/8
\partial 8
r8 |
\repeat volta 2 {
g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 |
g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 |
%g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 |
%g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 |
\alternative {
\volta 1 { g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 }
\volta 2 { g8 r8 r8 g,8 r8 }
}
}
\bar "|."
}
\markup "This is how it is supposed to look like..."
\score {
\music
}
musicb = \relative g' {
\time 6/8
\partial 8
r8 |
\repeat volta 2 {
\repeat unfold 8 { g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 }
\alternative {
\volta 1 { g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 }
\volta 2 { g8 r8 r8 g,8 r8 }
}
}
\bar "|."
}
\markup "...and this IMO is a bug in bar 4"
\score {
\musicb
}
repeat-volta-unfold-bug.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Re: Simultaneous ottava and non-ottava voices
Thank you!
-Ahanu
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022, 04:00 Paul Hodges wrote:
> The ottava bracket needs both ends defined to appear, so the ottava
> command and its cancellation should be at the start and end of the music to
> be affected, like this:
>
> << { \ottava 1 \repeat unfold 4 c'' \ottava 0 } \\ { \repeat unfold 4
> d,, } >>
>
> However, the command is acted on at the staff level, so both voices are
> affected as you have observed. This is changed not by what you have tried
> doing, but by removing the engraver from the staff context and inserting it
> in the voice context so that only the voice containing the commands is
> affected, like so:
>
> \layout {
> \context {
> \Staff
> \remove Ottava_spanner_engraver
> }
> \context {
> \Voice
> \consists Ottava_spanner_engraver
> }
> }
>
> See the first snippet at
> https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/snippets/tweaks-and-overrides
>
> Paul
>
>
> * From: * Ahanu Banerjee
> * To: * lilypond-user
> * Sent: * 01/07/2022 0:24
> * Subject: * Simultaneous ottava and non-ottava voices
>
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to have two voices in one measure, on one staff, with one
> voice as "Ottava 1" and the other as "Ottava 0"? (I realise this notation
> may seem unclear, but I have a specific use case.)
>
> If I try the following, each ottava overrides the other:
>
> \version "2.23.10"
> \relative c' {
> << { \ottava 1 \repeat unfold 4 c'' } \\ { \ottava 0 \repeat unfold 4
> d,, } >>
> }
>
> Thanks,
> -Ahanu
>
>
Re: Simultaneous ottava and non-ottava voices
The ottava bracket needs both ends defined to appear, so the ottava command and
its cancellation should be at the start and end of the music to be affected,
like this:
<< { \ottava 1 \repeat unfold 4 c'' \ottava 0 } \\ { \repeat unfold 4 d,, } >>
However, the command is acted on at the staff level, so both voices are
affected as you have observed. This is changed not by what you have tried
doing, but by removing the engraver from the staff context and inserting it in
the voice context so that only the voice containing the commands is affected,
like so:
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\remove Ottava_spanner_engraver
}
\context {
\Voice
\consists Ottava_spanner_engraver
}
}
See the first snippet at
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/snippets/tweaks-and-overrides
Paul
From: Ahanu Banerjee
To: lilypond-user
Sent: 01/07/2022 0:24
Subject: Simultaneous ottava and non-ottava voices
Hi,
Is it possible to have two voices in one measure, on one staff, with one voice
as "Ottava 1" and the other as "Ottava 0"? (I realise this notation may seem
unclear, but I have a specific use case.)
If I try the following, each ottava overrides the other:
\version "2.23.10"
\relative c' {
<< { \ottava 1 \repeat unfold 4 c'' } \\ { \ottava 0 \repeat unfold 4 d,, } >>
}
Thanks,
-Ahanu
