from:"Anthonys Lists"

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

2016-05-27 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 27/05/2016 07:16, Michael Hendry wrote:

Other mysteries (to me!) may also be explained in a similar way:

Why aren’t trumpets and clarinets made a bit shorter, so that they don’t have 
to have transposed parts?
Well, they DON'T need transposed parts. You just need to learn a 
different mapping between notes and fingers. As indeed, having learnt 
the trombone, I have to do. If I'm given a part in bass clef, I read a 
C, I play a C. When given a part in treble clef, I read a C, I play a Bb 
a ninth lower.


The major reason as far as I know that clarinets and trumpets etc 
transpose is to do with the fact that a player may play several 
instruments in the course of one piece. And as far as bands are 
concerned, players may be asked to switch instruments to cover for 
missing players. To explain ... (using the trumpet as an example...)


The trumpet comes typically in two tunings - Bb or D. The equivalent 
member of the horn family, the cornet, comes in Bb or Eb (and I believe 
both have a - rare - C version).  Then you have the flugel horn as well. 
Imagine having to play part of a part on a Bb trumpet, then switch to a 
D trumpet half way through, when all your parts are written in concert 
pitch? You read a C, and on the Bb instrument it's first finger. A few 
bars and an instrument switch later, you read a C and on the Eb 
instrument it's first and second finger an embouchure/harmonic lower. 
(And in the orchestra, French/English horns used to change pitch by 
changing the crook, again typically several times in one piece...)


I look at music for brass and wind instruments as tablature. The note 
position tells you what fingering/harmonic to use. The music is 
transposed so the resulting note is the correct pitch. This means that 
any clarinet/sax player can pick up any clarinet/sax and know how to 
play it. Likewise (excluding the trombone) any brass player can pick up 
any brass instrument and know how to play it.


To give an example specifically for you, aimed at the guitar, I'm also 
an amateur classical guitarist. I remember going round my aunt's, who 
was having guitar lessons, and she showed me some pieces that she said 
"were very hard, because they were written for the lute". She was rather 
shocked when I said "oh I could probably sight-read those". It wasn't 
easy, but by tuning the g string down to f#, it wasn't hard either. 
Imagine how much easier it would have been if all the notes meant for 
the g string were transposed up a semitone to match :-) In other words, 
a sort of tablature - the note position indicates the string/position, 
not the pitch.


Oh - and why is the trombone different? Unlike the other brass/woodwind 
instruments, which in their modern form all date from the 1800s, the 
trombone in approximately its present form goes back at least three 
centuries earlier, to the sackbut from the 1500s. So brass/wind notation 
evolved with the instruments, but the trombone long predates that.


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

2016-05-24 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 23/05/2016 18:38, N. Andrew Walsh wrote:
it's very common to describe a pitch with something like "C# -49.52c" 
where the latter part is a deviation in cents from a standard 
reference pitch (which can also be set as "A440" or some other tuning 
pitch [which is sometimes necessary when dealing with European 
orchestras inexorably tuning themselves higher and higher to seem more 
"flashy" or whatever]).


Not a modern phenomenon. A lot of Baroque parts are almost unsingable in 
the original pitch because they were written for A=400 or somesuch.


And when I bought my first trombone the band I played with threatened to 
hacksaw bits off it because as a modern instrument it was tuned to 
A=440. Most of the (ancient) band instruments were tuned to something 
like A=460 and mine wouldn't sharpen up enough.


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Fwd: Re: Placing a section name at the start of a staff

2016-05-12 Thread Anthonys Lists

Resending yet again because the list kept rejecting large attachments ...

 Forwarded Message 
Subject:Re: Placing a section name at the start of a staff
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2016 21:27:26 +0100
From:   Anthonys Lists 
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org

On 10/05/2016 01:05, David Wright wrote:

On Mon 09 May 2016 at 16:52:44 (+0100), Wols Lists wrote:
Reading the manual saves you having to remember everything.
Read 3.2 Titles and headers.

Very helpful, thanks. I do, however, have a slight problem with that ...
I have a custom bookTitleMarkup ... edited in a rather "monkey see,
monkey do" kind of way. That said, it should work pretty much as the
standard version does.

My other approach to doing this sort of thing is "\stopStaff
\cadenzaOn ... \cadenzaOff \startStaff" but will this suppress
things like key signature etc at the start of the line? My initial
experiments in that respect haven't worked, although it seems
obvious to me why. But I don't want to carry on down that route if
it's going to turn into a rabbit's warren of tweaks and fixes to get
right.

Without an example of whay you've done, I wouldn't like to comment.
It seems more complicated.

I use it to put text in the middle of a piece usually - some scores
break the part and put the word "Coda" in the middle, or in my most
recent case, "extended cadenza". I just expect if I try it at the start
of a piece, it's likely to collide with a lot of the stuff lilypond
"just does" for you.

Well, if you've actually done it, then it should be simple to do again
for the new case, ie the start of a piece.

Or is it that you just want somebody to do it for you and then report
back on what they find?

No - I was hoping somebody HAD ALREADY done it, and could say "this is
what worked for me". I've been down enough rabbit holes trying to get
lily to do what I want, and I was hoping somebody might save me a few
trips down the garden path ...

And I DID search the lsr, with no joy.

How do other people deal with section names? Especially, how do you
do it like the score I'm copying - at the start of the line ...

I don't know what the score you're copying looks like. I think we've
been here before...

I'm not a visual person - I tend to describe things as text ... I was
hoping someone who's done something similar would chime in - I would
expect them to recognise the description if they have. I don't like
repurposing stuff meant to be used otherwise - lily normally expects the
section name to be *above* the score part, as part of the header, iirc.

What sort of reasoning is that? If you repurpose something
successfully and report back on it, there's a chance that your case
will be folded into the software. It may even happen that a
generalisation is discovered that had been originally missed. †

And the instrument name normally doesn't change several times per part
... :-) so if I put the section name in the instrument variable I'm not
expecting it work exactly as I would like ... and it'll probably come
with unwanted surprises.

Use the short name; that can be changed on the fly. I use it when the
number of staves changes so that singers know which line is theirs.

† 1) It used to give me great satisfaction to sit down with a user of
my software and watch them do things with it that I had never designed
it for. It their methodology was not straightforward, I would then
redesign things to make it easier and more efficient (which is why I
sat with them in the first place).

I've had the reverse experience - try and design something where the
workflow just flowed, and the users moaned and demanded that the job be
made much more messy and complicated. The company I worked for did
surveys, and I was tasked with writing the survey analysis software. So
I asked for a copy of the questionnaire, and designed the data entry
form to match. The user was meant to open the questionnaire, type the
contents of the first page into the first data entry form, turn the
page, type the contents of the second page into the second form, etc
etc. You'll need to know that page 1 was the company details, and there
were multiple page 2s, one per country.

When the survey designers had successfully run the first survey, they
handed it over to the department who were supposed to be maintaining the
survey. They were outraged. They wanted to rip all the questionnaires
apart, bulk enter all the page 1s together, sort all the page 2s BY
HAND, and bulk enter each country one by one ... sometimes one despairs ...

† 2) A picture is worth a thousand words.

Q. Why do some people much prefer the radio over the TV?
A. Because the pictures are so much better!

I'm one of those people. That said, if I want other people to help me,
then it behoves me to meet them on *their* terms, not mine,

Re: sorry for the spam

2016-05-10 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 10/05/2016 20:55, Federico Bruni wrote:
The message was sent from nabble, so I guess that someone stole the 
password to log in there (not your gmail password). Try updating the 
password on nabble.com 


Does nabble hide (or partially obscure) email addresses like google 
groups does? If not, then it's pretty irresponsible of nabble but a 
simple screen-scraper-type program could easily find your posts to the 
list, and from that send messages to the list that claimed to be from 
you. No password-stealing required at all ...


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: sorry for the spam

2016-05-10 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 10/05/2016 19:05, MarcM wrote:

I am sorry but i am not sending those messages. Someone accessed my gmail
account, took the contacts and is spoofing my email address.

I received an email of insults from Cynthia Karl  which
really is not necessary. I secured my gmail account but it's apparently not
enough.

Thanks for your understanding.

Feel free to remove me from the list.

Dunno about gmail, but we regularly have this problem with yahoo 
accounts. I get the impression that hackers get into the server and as 
Marc says, they get the contact list and spoof the email address.


Contrary to Marc's assumption, I doubt his email account was hacked. The 
hackers have some way of getting hold of the contacts without having to 
actually break into the account, which is why securing the account 
didn't work ... and which is why I avoid cloud email accounts ...


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Placing a section name at the start of a staff

2016-05-10 Thread Anthonys Lists

On 10/05/2016 17:45, Stephen MacNeil wrote:
>>Thank you very much. It's close, but will need a little tweaking. 
Your example is right-justified against the left margin, whereas I 
want it >>starting at the left margin, and pushing the staff to the right

remove indent

\paper {

%indent = 0

%left-margin = 15

}

does that work?

I tried that ... the text moved to the right, but not enough. I suspect 
removing the indent re-installed the standard indent, and the text is 
justified flush with that, but I need to add a bigger indent to make room.

>>The other glitch is the inter-score spacing seems to be slightly 
larger than the intersystem spacing - I'm trying to tell by eye and 
it's >>difficult to be sure - but if it's hard to tell then I should 
be able to live with it :-)

If I understand it's probably because the instrument name takes lager 
space, so make it smaller? But I am not exactly sure that's what you mean.

What I meant was I suspect the space between scores is greater than the 
space between staffs. I need to investigate. It's bed time for me now 
(silly o'clock start for work tomorrow) so I can't play with it now, but 
I've got plenty of leads to keep me going, thanks. I'm probably going to 
try shortInstrumentName for the subsequent texts to try and keep 
everything in one \score, but if that doesn't work I think multiple 
scores will work fine.

Thanks very much,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Placing a section name at the start of a staff

2016-05-10 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 09/05/2016 04:11, Stephen MacNeil wrote:
Actually I just noticed \halign -- that's not needed I copied it from 
another one where it was needed


so those examples should just read

\set Staff.instrumentName = \markup { \box \fontsize #5 \pad-around 
#.5 \bold "B"}



etc.



Thank you very much. It's close, but will need a little tweaking. Your 
example is right-justified against the left margin, whereas I want it 
starting at the left margin, and pushing the staff to the right 
(actually, I think that was your \halign, removing that moves it 
partially (but not enough) to the right so I'll have to play).


The other glitch is the inter-score spacing seems to be slightly larger 
than the intersystem spacing - I'm trying to tell by eye and it's 
difficult to be sure - but if it's hard to tell then I should be able to 
live with it :-) So now I know this approach should work without too 
much difficulty.


It sounds like shortInstrumentName might work even better from my point 
of view, but my first attempts in that direction have not been 
promising. I think I know what I'm doing wrong, though.


Thanks again
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Placing a section name at the start of a staff

2016-05-08 Thread Anthonys Lists

Basically, I want to do pretty much what "instrument name" does in a 
score - I want to put the name of the section in front of the start of 
the staff. The problem is, as always, when you use a feature for what 
it's not intended for, you can get unexpected side effects. I've got 
four sections, so that'll mean four \score's. Will I get unexpected 
(read - unwanted) headers between the scores? Basically, if you don't 
notice the section name, you shouldn't realise that the music doesn't 
just flow on.


My other approach to doing this sort of thing is "\stopStaff \cadenzaOn 
... \cadenzaOff \startStaff" but will this suppress things like key 
signature etc at the start of the line? My initial experiments in that 
respect haven't worked, although it seems obvious to me why. But I don't 
want to carry on down that route if it's going to turn into a rabbit's 
warren of tweaks and fixes to get right.


Searching the lsr or googling just points me at loads of stuff about 
"outside staff objects" - not surprisingly since text is normally 
outside the staff - but it leaves me wondering "am I not using the right 
search terms, or is there nothing to find?".


How do other people deal with section names? Especially, how do you do 
it like the score I'm copying - at the start of the line ...


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

2016-04-29 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 29/04/2016 12:58, Matt Hood wrote:

Hi all,

I’ve got a non-technical question regarding mode of pitch input. What does 
everyone prefer? Relative, absolute, or a mix of both?


Relative. Every time. Alhough I'm sure other people will disagree with 
me :-)


I’ve always stuck to relative, but I feel like I’ve hit a brick wall as far as 
fluency goes. I’m still quite slow at it, and I spend half of my time trying to 
work out whether I need to change octave or not - usually getting it wrong, and 
watching half of a page disappear into ledger lines.


The problem isn't applying the rule (the rule is easy). The problem is 
*remembering* to apply the rule. If it's a fourth away or less then no 
modifier is needed. I actually find it more effort keeping note 
*lengths* accurate.



  Add in temporary polyphonic passages, chords, etc, and it all just becomes an 
exercise in trial and error. Any tips for keeping control?


Mmmm. I don't tend to do chords ... I can see where that makes life 
difficult ... I think if I had to do a lot of chords I probably would 
switch to absolute. But for entering voices - and even when combining 
them - to me relative just seems so much simpler.




Any anecdotes or mildly related musings are welcome, I feel like it would be 
good to facilitate a general discussion.



Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Replying to posts

2016-04-28 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 28/04/2016 15:18, Johan Vromans wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:43:34 +0100
Steve Downes  wrote:


4) it doesn't go out of date due to format change

Although not related to email per se, this is the strongest argument to
always use the simplest data format that can represent the information.



5) It doesn't corrupt your formatting

Which is why HTML is considered "not fit for purpose" (as indeed 
Thunderbird often is ...) on many development lists.


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

2016-04-28 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 27/04/2016 01:04, Carl Sorensen wrote:

On 4/26/16 3:56 PM, "Thomas Morley"  wrote:


2016-04-26 2:21 GMT+02:00 Wols Lists :

On 25/04/16 05:31, David Wright wrote:

(I still don't know what you're trying to accomplish
[...])


The problem here is the thread has drifted quite a lot. Sorry, David, my 
previous email was a bit sarky, for which I apologise, but as I said in 
my original email, this is my eternal bugbear, and you touched a nerve 
... Incidentally, I didn't notice this earlier, but the house style I'm 
copying DOES put the tempo above the tune name ... :-)

Copy "House Style", maybe?
And the whole point of this entire thread has been about
SAVING VERTICAL SPACE - it's just plain butt-ugly for markup to stack
vertically when a slight shift sideways could save lines - plus there's
the high price I put on page turns that could be saved by reclaiming
that wasted space.



Anyway, you seem to want multiple texts applied to a the same BarLine.
These texts shouldn't be stacked vertically but horizontally, right?

I think that the desired functionality is to allow markups to be loosely
tied to notes, so that if possible, they can shift horizontally some
amount instead of shifting vertically to avoid collisions.


Yup. Because actually, a lot of markup doesn't actually belong to a 
*note*. It belongs to a *phrase*. Which leads to the desire that, not 
only should markup shift right or left to avoid a collision, it should 
be able to push *music* out of the way. For example, I have a bit of 
code similar to the following ...


R1 | \mark \default \tempo "Scherzando" R1*8 | \mark \default

At present, the scherzando sits above both rehearsal marks. And if I had 
another tempo at the second mark, I'd have colliding tempi which doesn't 
make musical sense :-) If only the scherzando could say "I apply to the 
next 8 bars. The 9th bar must come after I end".


That is, there could potentially be a shift in both X and Y to avoid
collisions, and the shift with the least badness is the one that is chosen
-- perhaps it's one line up in Y and two lines left in X, or something
similar.

If we had some facility for doing such a movement, then it would be
relatively straightforward to assign penalties for taking up more vertical
space, along with penalties for moving horizontally away from the desired
home point.  And we'd choose the layout with the lowest penalty.

But right now, as far as I know, we have no such facility.  I believe that
right now, we horizontally space the music elements to avoid collisions,
and then we vertically shift the outside-staff grobs to avoid collisions,
and then we space the skylined staves to achieve the desired spacing.  And
there's nothing in this algorithm that lets us simultaneously vertically
AND horizontally shift the outside-staff grobs.

Such a feature would be cool to add.  But it's not trivial in any sense of
the word, given the current LilyPond spacing architecture, as I understand
it.


That's what I understood, too. Because the outside-staff grobs need to 
make the music elements wider if appropriate, and coding that sort of 
feedback loop is probably a nightmare! In fact, coding it AT ALL seems 
to be a nightmare with the current state of lilypond. You need some way 
of allocating a minumum width to a random fragment of music (like above 
- I need those 8 bars to take a minumum width, but while the current 
part is all rests, another part may be all notes, so I can't even say 
"make this rest that wide" because next time round it might not be a rest!


And apologies if I am grumpy about this topic, but as I said earlier in 
the thread, it seems that every time I work around one problem, a 
different one replaces it - that's why the original post just asked "any 
pointers?".


I always used to deal with the multiple markups problem by doing 
"s4\markup s2.", except that this time round I noticed the problem with 
it breaking up multi-measure-rests. So I (re)found the trick of 
"<>\markup", except that moved the markup to the left and exacerbated 
the collision problem.


Now I've been given the trick of "\markup "   text" " (ie leading 
spaces) but that seems temperamental - with pretty much identical code I 
have two markups where, in the first instance, the rehearsal mark has 
fallen through the blank space to rest on the stave, as required. But 
the second instance - near as dammit identical as far as I can see - the 
rehearsal mark has only fallen to the horizontal centre line of the 
markup, despite there being nothing underneath it preventing it falling 
to the stave.


It's just so  frustrating :-(

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Replying to posts

2016-04-27 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 27/04/2016 12:35, N. Andrew Walsh wrote:


With all due respect, considerate is as considerate does. Shouting
and screaming because you use some obscure tool that doesn't work
the way 99% of the internet messaging tools in use work, and
expect people to be accommodating of you, isn't considerate.

Well,  here's the part where I feel like I should put the popcorn down 
and step back in. See, I've had to spend no small amount of time 
arguing with people higher up in the various institutions where I've 
worked, that I can't read mails they send in proprietary formats. I 
had one place that would type an email message as a Word document and 
send that as an email attachment, because they didn't understand how 
email worked. And I, that annoying nerd with the Linux box, had to 
point out every time that I couldn't read it and got told in no 
uncertain terms that I would "get mail like everybody else did" and 
kindly asked to keep my mouth shut.


And the reality is, most people HERE, including the most important ones! 
use simple, plain-text, email clients. There's a reason why Outlook 
Lusers are not welcome on most mailing lists, and that's because the 
result is incomprehensible, pretty fast!


Why is it that you get so many idiots who think that "ooh, shiny" is the 
same as "new, improved". Lilypond is not aimed at the "ooh shiny" 
brigade, so if you want to be part of that, please go somewhere else ...


>>> But the slow internet connection issue is not really a problem for 
emails, even at the snail-like speed of 1.6GBs.


I would absolutely LOVE a speed of 1.6GBs (This wasn't you Andrew, I 
know) but, much as some people may have moved up, I think a speed of 
1.6Mb/s is much more common - and maybe four orders of magnitude slower! 
Amd even THAT is fast for a lot of people. Ever heard of the "long 
tail"? There's a lot of people still who are on slow links or 
pay-per-MB, and mailing list etiquette is aimed at not wasting OTHER 
PEOPLES' resources. It's just plain rude to expect otherwise.


Cheers,
Wol
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Guitar bend error

2016-04-24 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 24/04/2016 16:13, Stephen MacNeil wrote:

Add a line break before bar 25

r4 r8 e' g2 | \break  % gradual bend on g2 towards a |

% BAR 25

\bendGrace g8( a2) g2( | % gradual bend on g2 towards a |

\bendGrace g8 a4 g8) e g2( | % gradual bend on g2 towards a |



Or, if it's a longer piece and you want lily to choose the line breaks 
to look nice, you could put a \noBreak after bars 25 and 25?


r4 r8 e' g2 | % gradual bend on g2 towards a |

% BAR 25

\bendGrace g8( a2) g2( \noBreak | % gradual bend on g2 towards a |

\bendGrace g8 a4 g8) e g2( \noBreak | % gradual bend on g2 towards a |


(not tested, but that was my immediate reaction on reading this thread - 
disallow breaks where they're going to cause a problem)


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

2016-04-24 Thread Anthonys Lists

On 24/04/2016 03:13, David Wright wrote:

On Sat 23 Apr 2016 at 11:25:05 (+0100), Wols Lists wrote:

On 22/04/16 19:36, David Wright wrote:

On Fri 22 Apr 2016 at 15:47:59 (+0100), Anthonys Lists wrote:

On 22/04/2016 14:31, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

David K wrote:

Hm?  How could you even have a compressed multi-measure rest when there
is anything like an "8-bar phrase" in parallel?
That sounds like a problem that cannot occur.

I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens in the 
part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use multiple \tag 
constructs just to handle this issue.

Exactly... I write my music with "voiceStaff" to contain all the
score-level stuff eg tempi, tune names, rehearsal marks etc, and
"voiceInstrument" to contain the stuff that varies by instrument, eg
notes, dynamics, anything else like that ...

In the case example, the phrase is eight bars long, commencing with
a two-bar rest. For another instrument, it won't have a rest. And I
don't want the output to change dramatically depending on what's in
the part.

So of course, because voiceStaff is not meant to contain notes, it
uses "s" all the time. And I very rarely produce scores, this case
is absolutely typical for me in that we only have a bass-clef part,
and because while some players in our section can read both, we have
some players who can only read bass or treble clef so transposing is
a regular requirement. So I'll have three parts to do, 1st, 2nd and
bass.

I haven't followed all that. Is this the sort of thing you want?

Pretty much. In your example it's exactly okay - the "poco allegretto"
is to the right of the rehearsal mark, so the four marks take three
lines to display. (Note I tend to use box-barnumber, so my rehearsal
marks can get quite wide :-)

Now, imagine the "poco allegretto" and "This is the army mr jones" were
the other way round - the "This" would collide with the rehearsal mark,
and it would take four lines.

I'm not quite sure why you'd do that. The tempo is part of the
music. The tune titles that you want to include are not. But you can
add spaces to the beginnings of strings to avoid collisions.

Ah - does that mean the rehearsal mark would happily overwrite the blank 
space at the start of the other markup string?

But as for "why would I want to do that" - to serve as an example maybe. 
Let's change it then. Get rid of the tempo. The title would still 
collide with the rehearsal mark, and it would still take three lines - I 
wouldn't save a line. But shift the title a couple of mill to the right, 
and it would drop down and save us a line. SAVING VERTICAL SPACE is the 
point.

I want some semi-automatic way so I can push the other markup to the
right of the rehearsal mark and make sure I only use three lines. Oh -
and if I use "extra-spacing-width" (which iirc works fine with
multi-measure-rests), as soon as I have another part which actually has
some notes in the first bar of the MMR, that first bar will be the same
width as the markup so that then looks awful :-(

A lot in there. Your OP didn't have automation specified. Most people
drop into scheme for that, don't they?

Most people? Most people probably give up and go back to Sibelius, or 
Finale, or whatever. My day job was programming, and I haven't managed 
to get to grips with Scheme (it was FORTRAN/C, so Scheme is a bit of a 
culture shock :-) because time to concentrate and learn is a luxury :-(

Why not push the rehearsal mark left if you want loads of text to the right?
I don't get the bit about notes in a MMR. Isn't that a contradiction?

Not really. My modus operandi is

voiceStaff = ...
voiceInstrument1 = ...
voiceInstrument2 = ...

\score {
  <<
voiceStaff
voiceInstrument1
  >>
}
\score {
  <<
voiceStaff
voiceInstrument2
  >>
}

The problem is that the contents of voiceInstrumentx has a *major* 
influence on the way the contents of voiceStaff is displayed :-( 
Instrument1 may have an MMR, Instrument2 may have notes, they affect the 
bar spacing in different ways, and I may get markup collisions in one 
part, and no collisions in the other. Basically, lily is setting the 
notes, and then fitting the markup over the notes. There are occasions 
when you want to set the markup and then fit the notes under it.

The problem really is, all I want to do is stick multiple marks on a
barline (which doesn't work, lily doesn't do multiple \mark's :-(, and I
want to be able to move those markups to the right so they don't collide
with the rehearsal mark. \tempo *partly* solves my problem.

Well, that's a relief. BTW you can have multiple marks. My example had
one \tempo and the rest were marks.

The trouble
is, all the tweaks I've come up with (like f

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

2016-04-23 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 23/04/2016 12:23, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

Hi Wol,


if I use "extra-spacing-width" (which iirc works fine with
multi-measure-rests), as soon as I have another part which actually has
some notes in the first bar of the MMR, that first bar will be the same
width as the markup so that then looks awful

\textLengthOff

?

Hope this helps,
Kieren.


BRILLIANT (but not the way you intended :-)

As far as I can tell, \textLengthOff is the default, but I looked it up 
in the manual, and found out how to attach a markup to a zero-length 
note! Just attach it to an empty chord!


So instead of doing "s4\markup s2. s1*7", I can simply do "<>\markup 
s1*8", and that stops my multi-measure-rests mucking up. (I think I'd 
found that before ages ago, but forgotten it ...)


I'll need to play a bit more, but that's another niggle fixed ... :-)

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

2016-04-22 Thread Anthonys Lists

On 22/04/2016 16:55, David Kastrup wrote:

>The first fermata prints fine. The second fermata prints "programming
>error: Object is not a markup." in the log and doesn't print. So
>that's another bug tracked down in my piece,

That's_explicitly_  what \fermataMarkup is for.  If people consulted the
manual before reporting known quirks...

Oops - I *used* to know the manuals very well - I proofread them from 
cover to cover back in Graham's day ...

I know a lot has changed since then - as I said \fermata didn't even 
work on notes back then - but there's a lot that's changed since then. 
Having a comprehensive out-of-date knowledge can bite you ... and I 
don't use lily enough to keep up with the changes.

That said, this *is* the user list, and sometimes RTFM is a good answer. 
Although I hate it when they don't tell you where in the FM to R. 
(That's not the case here, though, I ought to be able to find it very 
easily :-) Often it's not knowing WHAT to look for that's the problem, 
as in here I thought I knew about fermata ...

We'd probably have less inclination to address the quirks eventually.
As David Wright said, it seems MMRs are just one big quirk (as I'm 
finding out with this piece), so that's probably a big job to address :-(

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

2016-04-22 Thread Anthonys Lists

On 22/04/2016 14:49, Paul Scott wrote:

I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens
>in the part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use
>multiple \tag constructs just to handle this issue.

Me too.  I asked a long time ago and got the idea that I was the only
one concerned about this.  Essentially why is alignment different for
multi-measure rests than notes.

And other things too? Try the following ...

f1->\fermata R1*3 R1\fermata

The first fermata prints fine. The second fermata prints "programming 
error: Object is not a markup." in the log and doesn't print. So that's 
another bug tracked down in my piece, but - from a musician's pov - it 
doesn't make sense that the first example on a note should work fine, 
and the second on a rest produces an error. (It never used to work on 
notes at all, iirc, only as a mark on barlines, so maybe I should be 
grateful for small mercies :-)

It's easy enough to fix - something like "\markup #symbol.fermata" - 
I'll have to look up the syntax - but it's just frustrating that it's 
not consistent.

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

2016-04-22 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 22/04/2016 14:31, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

Wol: Scan through the thread starting 
at  and 
see if anything there helps.

Good luck,
Kieren.
Just scanned it - unfortunately I'm using \markup on an s, rather than 
\mark, for my tune name (because I've already got two colliding marks, 
rehearsal and tempo), so that thread saying "compress MMRs when they 
don't contain blah blah" will fail because I've got a markup in there :-(


If I had some mark I could stick the tune name in that wouldn't collide 
with and be suppressed by the rehearsal mark, then maybe it would work. 
But without writing some new kind of mark (is there one already 
available? it might have been added at some point?) I don't know what 
else to do - using markup seemed the best option. And I don't fancy 
trying to write a new mark, I've dug into this on a couple of occasions 
and got out of my depth rather quickly.


Losing an MMR isn't really a problem, it just looks a little bit odd :-( 
and I come across plenty of music that (imho) has weird MMR settings 
anyway. Usually because they've compressed the end of one phrase into 
the start of another - I really don't like it when a single MMR spans 
several incomplete musical phrases.


Oh well. I'll carry on fiddling :-) But it is frustrating when all I 
want to do is move a bit of text a smidgeon to one side, and I just can 
NOT work out how to do it without all sorts of other unintended side 
effects ...


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

2016-04-22 Thread Anthonys Lists

On 22/04/2016 14:31, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

David K wrote:

>Hm?  How could you even have a compressed multi-measure rest when there
>is anything like an "8-bar phrase" in parallel?
>That sounds like a problem that cannot occur.

I assume Wol (like me) has the problem where the compressed rest happens in the 
part, not in the full score — but one wants not to have to use multiple \tag 
constructs just to handle this issue.
Exactly... I write my music with "voiceStaff" to contain all the 
score-level stuff eg tempi, tune names, rehearsal marks etc, and 
"voiceInstrument" to contain the stuff that varies by instrument, eg 
notes, dynamics, anything else like that ...

In the case example, the phrase is eight bars long, commencing with a 
two-bar rest. For another instrument, it won't have a rest. And I don't 
want the output to change dramatically depending on what's in the part.

So of course, because voiceStaff is not meant to contain notes, it uses 
"s" all the time. And I very rarely produce scores, this case is 
absolutely typical for me in that we only have a bass-clef part, and 
because while some players in our section can read both, we have some 
players who can only read bass or treble clef so transposing is a 
regular requirement. So I'll have three parts to do, 1st, 2nd and bass.

And because text seems to centre on the "s" (or something like that), as 
you say, its appearance is affected greatly by what happens to be in the 
part :-( I just want markups to be able to shunt stuff out of the way 
*sideways*. Bearing in mind the parts I'm setting, often the cost of a 
page turn is unacceptable, so to lose a huge amount of space because a 
markup increases staff spacing (or wastes horizontal space pushing music 
aside) is a nightmare. A march part, for example, has to cram an entire 
piece onto a piece of A5 paper (half-letter size, for Americans). And 
no, you can't just turn over ...

Wol: Scan through the thread starting 
at  and 
see if anything there helps.

Thanks, I'll investigate.

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Termination of variable definitions

2016-04-22 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 19/04/2016 21:55, Johannes Waldmann wrote:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-04/msg00465.html


... But it's recursive.

what does that mean?  - J.W.



Recursion: See "Recursion".

To take the violin example,

violin = \new Staff {
  \relative {
a'4 b c b
  }
}

"violin" contains a "\new Staff { ... }" expression.

But "Staff" contains a "\relative { ... }" expression

and "relative" contains a music expression "a'4 b c b"

It's turtles all the way down :-)

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Multi-measure rests and mark collisions ...

2016-04-22 Thread Anthonys Lists


My usual bugbear ... :-(

I have a couple of instances where I have a rehearsal mark, a tempo 
mark, and a tune name all wanting to be over the same barline (this is 
an arrangement, where there are several tunes and each is identified 
where it occurs).


So I have something along the lines of

<<
{ s1 | \mark \default \tempo "poco allegretto" s1^\markup "This is the 
army mr jones" s1*7 }

{ c1 | R1*2 }
>>

However, the two "s1"s are causing the R1*2 to print as two separate 
bars :-( I'm also getting


warning: MultiMeasureRestText has empty extent and non-empty stencil.

in the log, which I guess is related. Any ideas how to get the rest to 
print as a multi-measure rest? The problem, from my pov, is that the 
first, markup, line is meant to be shared across multiple parts, so if I 
do s1*8^\markup, the text is centred over the 8-bar phrase or some other 
wrongness, although that fixes the multi-measure-rest problem.


The other problem I have, is is there any way I can shunt markup left or 
right (both tempo and text)? I've been using extra-spacing-width, which 
works a treat sometimes, and is dreadful elsewhere. It's been fine for 
rehearsal marks, but when I use it on tempo and text, it's been shoving 
the music out of the way, which then looks awful. I just want to push 
the text slightly to the right to avoid colliding with the rehearsal 
mark (and I have tried extra-spacing-width leaving one or other argument 
at its default +-infinity, and again it seems to work sometimes and be a 
nightmare elsewhere ...) All the horizontal adjustment stuff I've seen 
seems to be for in-staff objects like lines, noteheads, accidentals ... 
will they work on markups?


Pointers greatly appreciated ...

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

2016-04-18 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 18/04/2016 22:01, Sharon Rosner wrote:
Lilypond would expectedly complain about line 2, then proceed to put 
together the PDF file and finally exit with a “fatal error”. The PDF 
File would include 2 scores, so that means right after encountering 
the syntax error on line 2, it continued to correctly process line 3. 
So what was it that was fatal about this? Is this a matter of some 
internal implementation details we don’t understand or what? And 
again, how is this any different than a non-fatal error?


Firstly, as a programmer and a musician, I'd say that for lilypond to 
produce whatever output it can is IMPORTANT. A failed pdf is a perfectly 
usable debugging trace - I've used a computer system that, if the 
program failed, it erased any and all changes to open files - which is a 
recipe for frustration when debugging - wtf is the computer deleting my 
debug logs for!, and actually a data integrity nightmare too ... the 
more debugging info I have the better!


And secondly, to me it seems clear why the error is termed "fatal" - the 
parser aborted. You don't want a compilation error to return a fatal 
error to "make" and, because it receives a fatal error, make throws a 
fatal error and crashes too, do you? The question is WHERE in the stack 
do we actually trap and handle the error.


Lilypond, imho, makes the correct decision FOR THE USER, traps the 
error, and then turns the incomplete output, from the *crashed* parser, 
into an incomplete pdf. (Or, in this example, restarts the parser for 
the next score.) A *programmer* (which most lilypond users are *not*), 
wants to handle the problem at the next level up, in "make", but let's 
face it, how many of lilypond's users even know what make *is*?


And how many *programmers* actually bother to check compilation logs and 
fix problems that are thrown up? If you want strict error handling then 
add a --werror option to lilypond that just says "crash on error and let 
make handle it", then those people using make can deal with the lack of 
debug info their way.


But leave it the way it is for those users who never check the logs and 
just look to see if the output looks right. I must admit I fall into 
both camps - when running lily on Windows I only check the log if I have 
a problem. When running it on linux, I run it from konsole so I see all 
the errors and warnings anyway. And being the sort of person I am I tend 
to try to get rid of warnings because I know the result is a more robust 
system.


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Best Practices for file structures, score and parts

2015-10-02 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 02/10/2015 08:58, N. Andrew Walsh wrote:
do I enter the transposing instruments into the score in concert pitch 
or transposed? Can Frescobaldi (my editor of choice) take an entire 
Voice and transpose it into concert pitch after I've edited, or should 
I enter the content in concert pitch (transposing back into C on the 
fly as I type)?
Playing trombone as I do, I get parts in any combination of bass clef, 
tenor clef, or treble/Bf. I need some sort of convention to avoid 
getting messed up, and the obvious one for me is:


All parts are entered as variables. All parts are copied in in the pitch 
they are written. All parts are wrapped in a transpose to make the 
variable concert pitch. So the notes are entered as either


voiceTromboneI = \transpose c' bf { c e g }

or

voiceTromboneI = \transpose c' c' { bf d f }

When outputting a treble clef part I can then do the following no 
problem ...


\transpose bf c' \voiceTromboneI

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Repeat with alternatives

2015-10-02 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 02/10/2015 07:24, Johan Vromans wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:41:21 +0100
Anthonys Lists  wrote:


Anyways, I think we've all missed the OPs problem. As he phrased it, I
understand he wants

{fixed part 1} {alternative 1} {alternative 2} {fixed part 2} repeat

I'm not familiar with a clean notation for the above.

For the normal repeat, with alternative endings, this would be

|: fixed part 1 |1 alterrnative 1 :|2 alternative 2 |

Would this be understood by the average musician?

|: fixed part 1 |1 alterrnative 1 |2 alternative 2 | fixed part 2 :|

-- Johan


Quite possibly, actually ...

I won't email it to the list, but if people want it (email me off-list, 
trombone parts only) my version of Radetzky iirc has some weird volta 
progression. At the end of the day, it's down to the conductor to make 
sure the players know what they're doing.


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Repeat with alternatives

2015-10-01 Thread Anthonys Lists

On 01/10/2015 18:40, Tim McNamara wrote:

On Sep 30, 2015, at 8:22 AM, s.p.korzil...@gmail.com wrote:

Dear Sir / Madam,

I’m trying to write a piece that has repeats with alternatives. It seems that “\repeat volta 2” is the way to go with supplying the alternatives in “\alternative”. However, this seems to work only for alternative endings, while I have alternative middle parts.

I have tried to fix this manually with introducing volta brackets and repeat signs. Unfortunately Lilypond doesn’t recognize this as a repeat and counts the notes of the alternatives as if they are all played in one run (so that the first note after the alternatives does not start a new measure, as it should, see attachment).

Yes. You are starting the alternative in the middle of the bar which, from the
perspective of the musician reading the piece, is going to look very odd and be
hard to follow. The alternatives should always be full bars not only for
Lilypond to function correctly but for the musicians to be able to play it
correctly without needing a lot of instruction.

But that's no use if you're setting parts for something that someone
else has written ... it gets thoroughly confusing if some people have
parts one way, and others have parts another way. I've had to set stuff
like that and it gets tricky ...

I think I used a mixture of \partial and spacer rests.

Anyways, I think we've all missed the OPs problem. As he phrased it, I
understand he wants

{fixed part 1} {alternative 1} {alternative 2} {fixed part 2} repeat

How you do that, I dunno, apart from just not using \repeat and setting
the bits manually.

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: License of code posted to this list

2015-05-09 Thread Anthonys Lists


On 09/05/2015 22:06, David Bellows wrote:

I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the 
list is by default with the author and has no license by itself. So I think you 
can't assume it's PD.

This sounds correct as well. Does just making the code available to
the world in a public manner imply anything about it being OK to use
it in another project? I don't know the answer to that and thus these
questions. But you are correct, I'm betting, that the author does
automatically own the copyright to the code (at least in the US).


The Berne Convention (which applies to pretty much every country in the 
world - the US was one of the last to join the system) says that 
EVERYTHING you write, by default, is your copyright, for a minimum term 
of 50 years. Various modifications apply, of course, for example 
employees are assumed for the purpose of this to be the employer, so the 
employer gets the copyright etc etc.


The other crucial thing about Berne is that it says the nationality of 
the copyright holder is irrelevant (this was crucial because of the way 
the US made it almost impossible for foreign authors to register or keep 
copyrights).


There's nothing, as far as I know, in Berne that says copyrights have to 
be protectable (a country could abolish copyright and still be compliant 
with Berne, as long as the same rules were applied to works by local 
nationals as to foreign nationals).


So basically, unless the list post explicitly says "this is PD", or 
"this code may be used for any purpose", or some other grant of 
permission, then in most jurisdictions using it is technically illegal. 
A clear example of differences in jurisdiction is that if I used your 
code to make money, that's a criminal offense over here. But not afaik 
in America.


Then in some jurisdictions you cannot abrogate your rights (EU 
especially), and in some jurisdictions you can't place stuff in the 
Public Domain.


Should there be some kind of agreement that everyone signs off on when
subscribing to the mail list concerning any code they might
contribute?

And is the line that David added sufficient?:

Dunno about what David wrote, but I'm sure I didn't sign off on anything 
when I joined the list. Basically, if you want to be legal and you want 
to use some code you saw on the list, you need to get the author's 
permission. Hopefully, he put that permission in the post, otherwise you 
need to contact him. That said, the chances of anyone complaining are 
minimal, and in most jurisdictions breach of copyright is a civil 
offence so the damages will be small and the costs horrendous so nobody 
will want to do anything about it.


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Putting text IN the staff

2015-04-26 Thread Anthonys Lists


Simple problem, I can't find the solution ... :-)

Basically, what I want is "\StaffOff   ...text...   \StaffOn". So, 
thinking treble clef, the text would be centred on the "b" line. Markup, 
however, seems to want to be above or below the staff, and that's it. 
How do I force it IN the staff, or am I using the wrong technique 
completely? I know you can force a rest to a note-position, is there any 
way of doing the same with text?


Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

61 matches

Mail list logo