Re: frescobaldi macports broken after update
- On Feb 13, 2014, 6:54:10 AM, Davide Liessi wrote: Please try this to upgrade your installation (including py2app) and reinstall frescobaldi(-devel): sudo port selfupdate sudo port upgrade outdated sudo port uninstall active and name:frescobaldi sudo port install frescobaldi # or frescobaldi-devel, as you prefer Then please test Frescobaldi's behaviour and let me know: > if you either > - drag and drop a ly file (or any text file, for what is worth) over the icon > of Frescobaldi in the Dock, or > - right-click on a ly file and choose "Open with..." > "Frescobaldi > ([version])", or > - double-click on a ly file associated with Frescobaldi (to associate a file: > right-click on the file, choose "Get Info" and choose "Frescobaldi > ([version])" in the "Open with..." dropdown list), > then Frescobaldi should start, if it is not already running, and open the > file. Best wishes. Davide - After updating and trying those steps (same thing happens for each): Frescobaldi launches, and I see the splash screen. Then when the flash screen goes away, there is nothing; no window open, not on any space. Even right-click on Frescobaldi in the dock and selecting “Show all windows” reveals nothing. Then after waiting a while, I click on the Frescobaldi icon in the dock, which has the indicator light that says Frescobaldi is open, and a new window pops right up with the file I opened. - 2014-01-25 Tim McNamara : > Also, there is a non-Mac-like behavior. Clicking the close button on the > upper left hand corner of the document window quits the app. I realize that > on some/most OSes this is normal behavior, but not Macs. FWIW. Reported as https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/issues/352. - Just my opinion, but I would not lose too much effort over this if it were me. Tim is right that it is a non-Mac-like behavior, but Apple itself has seemed to forgotten this. All of these 1st party programs quit just by clicking the close window button: Notes, Contacts, System Preferences, App Store, Image Capture, Reminders, iPhoto The “rhyme and reason,” if there is any, seems to be that all of those are single window programs, even the rather large program iPhoto. A few other programs that can have multiple windows behave differently. If you close the only window open, the program stays open long enough to go to the menu at the top of the screen to open a new window, but as soon as you click away to another program, that program quits. iTunes, Calendar, Pages, iBooks, and Maps all behave this way, to name a few. As Frescobaldi can have more than one window, I would think that it should be have like these. But then to mix things up, if you close the last remaining window of Safari and go away to another program, Safari stays open as long as it wants. Apple itself is confused, and no wonder new users get confused. I try to explain to Windows converts that closing the window does not close the program, but then there are oh-so-many exceptions. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: promoting LilyPond
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:55 AM, Martin Tarenskeen wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Garrett McGilvray wrote: > >> The reason that I came back for a second try was not that it was free, since >> I had already paid for "the real thing." I don't remember what made me >> think of it, but I remembered the essay on LilyPond's goal of superior >> engraving, and I decided to give it a second try. I fared better the second >> time. I have redone some of my past work in LilyPond, and I like the new >> results better. I doubt now I'll go back to Finale. > > I would be interested to see a comparison of some *good* scores engraved > using Finale (and/or Sibelius) and the same scores using LilyPond. Maybe you > can post some examples? > > It's easy to show a really bad Finale result and compare it with how much > better LilyPond can do this. > > But it is more fair to compare a good Finale/Sibelius score, prepared by a > skilled and experienced Finale/Sibelius user, and then try to use LilyPond to > do things better. If a true comparison between Finale and LilyPond is what you want, then I am surely not the person to provide it, because as you say, a truly fair comparison should be made by comparing results by people with much experience in each program. But if that is not what you want, then I can't help but feel that posting my own example of a "*good*" score of mine would be an invitation for everyone to critique what I did wrong in either version. The whole point of my post was not that LilyPond was better than Finale but rather to agree with David's comment that the fact that LilyPond is free should not be its main selling point, because that's not what drew me in. Whether or not LilyPond is better is irrelevant to my point, but rather that I perceived it to be better, and that is what eventually drew me in. Now, to focus on a different point: the question as to whether a truly fair comparison can be made only by professionals. I have no doubt that an experienced professional in Finale (and I've ignored Sibelius because I've never used it, so I have no opinion) could produce a better score than the best that I can do in LilyPond. But I don't think each one's merit could be totally measured based on what one is able to achieve with the greatest skill and effort given at tweaks. I am fairly confident that if a person tried an experiment to make a sample score in Finale that looked like LilyPond's default output, he could nearly well achieve an identical look. He would alter stem, line, slur thickness. He could manually position each note to line up with LilyPond. He could develop a font that copycats LilyPond's default. In the end, the two results would be identical, and based on final output alone, the two options would therefore be judged comparable. Of course, default LilyPond is not th e target goal, but my point is that it is not just about what one can do if he applies skill and time to tweaking output. I know that beautiful results can be had from either program with much tweaking on both sides, but default output should be at least part of the comparison. Then we come to the fact that there are very many people who use either of these programs who are not professionals, or even professionals who do not have the time to tweak every score to perfection. In my case, I am very much aware of many of the tools to tweak just about everything in Finale. However, first, I don't want to have to fight with spacing at the minute level, and secondly, as I was trained to read the music, not write it, I won't know the finer rules of when and where I should override Finale's default. On the one hand, I look at Finale's default output, and on the whole I feel like it looks as it should. But then I look at LilyPond's output and see, "Oh yeah, that does look more correct." That's the best someone like me can do without knowing rules of engraving. So in my circumstance, a comparison of what a professional can do is irrelevant. I need to know rather what *I* can do or what I have time to do in one program or another. So my own comparison of my own work in one versus my own work in the other is exceedingly relevant and fair in helping me decide which is right for me. That is especially true since I am a hobbyist doing my own work for my own use. I'm the only one who needs to be pleased in that case. And all of this is just to explain a comment I made about what aspect of LilyPond appealed to me that made me give it a second chance. That seemed to be the point of a thread about "promoting LilyPond." ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: promoting LilyPond
I've laid low because I'm still new enough that I don't have much to contribute unless it is a question, but here I might actually have something to say: > On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:00, David Kastrup wrote: > > Again, I don't think the "no money" aspect should be a primary selling > point. I definitely agree there. We often have the idea that "You get what you pay for." Too much emphasis on free may cheapen LilyPond in people's minds. Personal anecdote: Two or three years ago I gave LilyPond a try as a candidate to replace my aging Finale 2000. I eventually decided that free software was not going to be sufficient for my needs and that I would have to go ahead and pay for "the real thing." I doubt whether my assessment was fair, but that's the way I saw it. So instead I paid the big bucks (for me) to upgrade to the then-current Finale 2011. I can't remember why I then arrived at the decision I did. I don't know if the LP version at that time was insufficient compared to today, or more likely, I didn't know how to make it work. It may have been the shape notes (which now I know of the super easy \aikenheads). The reason that I came back for a second try was not that it was free, since I had already paid for "the real thing." I don't remember what made me think of it, but I remembered the essay on LilyPond's goal of superior engraving, and I decided to give it a second try. I fared better the second time. I have redone some of my past work in LilyPond, and I like the new results better. I doubt now I'll go back to Finale. Part of the change of my mindset was my experience with Finale. I was disappointed by how little it had improved after 11 years of updates. I became disappointed with its output once I saw what LilyPond could do. And although a GUI should be quite a bit easier to use for most people, Finale remains to my mind one of the most unintuitive GUI programs there is. I spent a lot of time in its manuals and searching its forums. To get to the point, the "you get what you pay for" mindset was replaced for me by the idea that you can "take the easy way out" or you can "take the time to do it right." LilyPond then compared favorably from the second perspective to me. It was the challenge that led to perfection. I hope no one takes offense at these comparisons. I only mean them as my own first and second impressions (fair or otherwise) to show how in my case the free price was not what drew me in. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Frescobaldi included in MacPorts!
Note: Apologies to Davide for the double message. I forgot to Reply All the first time. On Nov 6, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Davide Liessi wrote: > Dear users of Frescobaldi and Mac OS X, > > I'm pleased to announce that Frescobaldi and python-poppler-qt4 have > been included in MacPorts! [1] [2] > This means that the procedure for installing Frescobaldi is now > greatly simplified. > > You can find the new installation instructions at [3] (Italian translation > [4]). > There you'll find also instructions about how to migrate a previous > installation with Philippe Massart's guide or my Portfile repository > to the new MacPorts-only-based installation. > > Best wishes. > Davide > > > [1] https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40138 > [2] https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40139 > [3] https://github.com/dliessi/ports/blob/master/INSTALL-Frescobaldi.md > [4] https://github.com/dliessi/ports/blob/master/INSTALL-Frescobaldi.it.md I followed the instructions in your link #3, but the port failed. I do have Mac OS 10.9, which apparently was causing problems earlier, but that was since reported as fixed. I previously have Frescobaldi installed via Philippe Massart's method, and so the command I used was this, copied directly from the instructions in the migration section: sudo port -f install frescobaldi Here is the output in Terminal beginning where the first warning occurs: Warning: File /opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/lib/python2.7/site-packages/popplerqt4.so already exists. Moving to: /opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/lib/python2.7/site-packages/popplerqt4.so.mp_1383781060. Error: org.macports.activate for port py27-python-poppler-qt4 returned: can't create directory "/opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/lib/python2.7/site-packages/python_poppler_qt4-0.16.3-py2.7.egg-info": file already exists Error: Failed to install py27-python-poppler-qt4 Please see the log file for port py27-python-poppler-qt4 for details: /opt/local/var/macports/logs/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_release_tarballs_ports_python_py-python-poppler-qt4/py27-python-poppler-qt4/main.log Error: The following dependencies were not installed: py27-python-poppler-qt4 To report a bug, follow the instructions in the guide: http://guide.macports.org/#project.tickets Error: Processing of port frescobaldi failed It seems to me it is snagging on the fact that a needed component is already installed, but I don't know what to do about it. However, it is not critical for me, since I still have the current version installed the old way and that still works as it did before I tried to install with the new MacPorts install. Which is not to say perfectly (since it is a bit quirky in OS 10.9), but besides a few hiccups, it works fine. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Work around note head bug.
Dear users,
There is a bug in the Mac version where the Re half-note in \aikenHeads renders
as a quarter note in 2.16, and the problem just swaps for the whole note in
2.17. This has been reported to the bug list, but I'm wondering how to work
around it in the mean time. Here is a minimal version of what I'm trying to fix:
\version "2.16.2"
\relative e' {
\aikenHeads
\key d \major
< e a >2\fermata
}
On Mac Lilypond 2.16 that E comes out a quarter note. To override the note
head, I'm thinking notehead.s0re is the one I want (from this list). I've been
trying to sort it out myself, but is still new to me. I'm thinking of using
\tweak #'glyph-name = , but I'm apparently not putting the string value in
correctly. I was hoping to find out the proper format for a string from the
4.2.3 Types of Properties chart, but I don't see strings on that list. So maybe
my problem is just not putting the string in correctly. I've done some hunting,
and I think I found some examples that do it this way: #"string". Is that right?
Any solution would be appreciated, whether a bit of code to automatically fix
\aikenHeads 2nd interval half note in each instance, or whether just a \tweak
that I can put in manually each time. So far, it's not but one or two instances
in each piece, which I could manage without it being automatic. Any additional
learning about entering string values in \override and \tweak would also be
helpful.
-Garrett
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics to hymn - new user
Hi Folks. I thank you all for your continued help. Thomas Morley-2 wrote > don't put \new Lyrics _into_ the Staff. This one line showed me the essence of my error, so I am able to work from there. Now that I look at it, it does look like a newbie error, but I just wasn't seeing it before. Eluze wrote: > I'm not sure, but I guess Garrett wants the lyrics in a sequential line What I'm trying to deal with is the fact that the number of lines in the verses and the number of lines in the chorus very often do not match. See for example the attached image of where the verses and chorus meet in a particularly well-known hymn: <> You see that the chorus line there is not aligned with any of the verse lines, but rather both sides are centered according to the number of lines in their own section. I'm imagining some way to explicitly end a lyric context so that it won't the affect the spacing of a subsequent context when on the same line. I'm really just trying to figure out what is the best way to handle the verse/chorus transition. I expect I am going to encounter this kind of thing often since a lot of what I do are hymns. My current project is just a simple arrangement of Silver Bells for a Christmas event later this year, and I've used one of the methods suggested here (the \set associatedVoice) and some heavy-handed forcing of lyric order. The current solution is not too bad. I'll send my file in case any one wants to look at it to see if you can think of a better way (but only if you want to). Please excuse the fact that my music training is not in composition :( Silver Bells.ly Description: Binary data ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics to hymn - new user
On Oct 12, 2013, at 10:25 PM, Carl Peterson wrote:
> So this would be your basic setup:
>
> \score {
>\new Staff = "top" {
> << \new Voice = "sopVerse" { } % voice for verse melody and combined alto
> \new Voice = "altoVerse" { } % voice for verse alto lines that
> require separate stem, such as "days" on line 2
> >>
> << \new Voice = "sopChorus" { } % voice for chorus melody and combined
> alto
> \new Voice = "altoChorus" { } % voice for chorus alto lines that
> require separate stem, particularly "gently home" at end
> >>
> }
> \new Staff = "bottom" {
> << \new Voice = "tenVerse" { } % voice for verse tenor lines requiring
> separate stems
> \new Voice = "bassVerse" { } % voice for verse bass and combined
> tenor stems
> >>
> << \new Voice = "tenChorus" { } % voice for chorus tenor lines requiring
> separate stems
> \new Voice = "bassChorus" { } % voice for chorus bass and combined
> tenor stems
> >>
> }
> }
>
> You'll then associate your lyrics with the proper voices.
Oh dear, I did some testing yesterday, and I thought I had it figured out
following Carl's model above, but today I tried adding lyrics, and I get an
error: " programming error: Moment is not increasing. Aborting
interpretation." I have tried to make a sample following the model above, and
for simplicity's sake I have brought it down to a single clef. Try this and it
will work beautifully (I'm on 2.16.2 and Mac OS 10.8.5) :
\version "2.16.2"
sopVerse = \relative c' {
\time 3/4
\voiceOne
c4^"Verses"
}
altoVerse = \relative c' {
\voiceTwo
c4 s2
}
sopChorus = \relative f' {
\voiceOne
f4^"Chorus"
}
altoChorus = \relative f' {
\voiceTwo
f4 s2
}
\score {
\new Staff = "top" \relative c' {
<<
\new Voice = "sopVerse" { \sopVerse }
\new Voice = "altoVerse" { \altoVerse }
% \new Lyrics \lyricsto "sopVerse" { one two three }
>>
<<
\new Voice = "sopChorus" { \sopChorus }
\new Voice = "altoChorus" { \altoChorus }
% \new Lyrics \lyricsto "sopChorus" { four five six }
>>
}
}
That works like you would expect, but uncomment the two "\new Lyrics" lines and
it will cause the error. Is there something wrong with the way it is laid out?
I tried really hard to mimic Carl's model, and I can't find that I'm missing
anything.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics to hymn - new user
On Oct 16, 2013, at 9:05 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > So here is the challenging question: what would be required to have a > hymn typesetter be able to look at the documentation of LilyPond, and > start typesetting hymns with the delivered doc and styles within an > hour? > There are a couple of useful snippets for hymns, but for me the trouble was that they all had each part as a separate voice, whereas most of the hymnals I am familiar with use shape notes with the parts on each staff grouped in a single voice as a chord. The shape notes are super easy (thank you LilyPond!). The difficulty comes with the occasional split voices or where two parts share a single pitch, necessitating stems going both directions from a single note head. Carl has helped me get going, but getting that kind of music to play nicely with lyrics was the challenge for me. And now off topic but in response to Carl... On Oct 16, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Carl Peterson wrote: > Regarding "a lot less fighting to get right," I am acquainted with a number > of people who have been involved in publishing hymnals with shape notes. I > constantly see them talking about all the work arounds to make shape note > stems work correctly, to get the spacing right, etc., etc. My comment is > always, "Or you could just use LilyPond." In talking with one person who does > a lot of hymn setting in Finale. He says it takes him at least an hour to set > a hymn and get it right and fix all the quirks of Finale. For the me the shape notes aren't too hard. It isn't obvious how to set it. Honestly, even though it is a GUI, I have to spend as much time in the documentation sometimes as I do for LilyPond as a new user. But once you learn how, the only annoyance there is that Finale is not smart enough to flip the Fa note head depending on stem direction so you have to manually select a new note head for every instance. However, my greatest annoyance was this: When trying to make versions to be displayed by PowerPoint, the goal is to have large text for readability without having one measure per line, and this means a lot of manual measure spacing, then moving the alignment of lyrics and notes manually throughout. So I would spend a good deal of time working on all of this custom spacing, and then I would notice one little error in the music I had input. A simple fix, right? Nope. I make the one little change, and the entire spacing reflows back to default, negating a good deal of work. I really hated that. I'm hoping I can replace Finale for good in making PowerPoint versions of hymns. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics to hymn - new user
On Oct 13, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Carl Peterson wrote:
>
>
> To your specific issue, what you would do is use skips to get the notes where
> they need to be. For instance, if you were to define variables outside the
> score block for the parts,
>
> sopVerse = { 4 \stemUp d' c'2 \stemNeutral }
> altoVerse = { \stemDown s2. c'4 c'2 s2 }
>
> This would have three beats chorded, then two sets of notes separated, then
> the last stack chorded.
>
Carl,
I've now had a chance to practice following the examples you have given me
(both sets), and now I understand how to do what I need to do. Thank you for
taking the time to answer my question and give me an example of how it will
work.
And thanks also to the several who gave their thoughts to whether I should
reply to all. This is indeed a very helpful community of people. I'm coming
from a background in occasional usage of Finale, and although it seems weird to
move away from "the real thing" (a very expensive app I paid for) for this free
and text-based solution, the truth is that I'm finding that the results are
just better and require a lot less fighting to get right, and all that thanks
to a community of people who are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Thanks to all: those who program, support, and contribute to LilyPond and
Frescobaldi, and to the community of helpful users.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics to hymn - new user
Hi Carl,
On Oct 12, 2013, at 10:25 PM, Carl Peterson wrote:
> The basic answer is that you ideally need two sequential sets of voice
> contexts, one for the verse, one for the chorus. So this would be your basic
> setup:
>
> \score {
>\new Staff = "top" {
> << \new Voice = "sopVerse" { } % voice for verse melody and combined alto
> \new Voice = "altoVerse" { } % voice for verse alto lines that
> require separate stem, such as "days" on line 2
> >>
> << \new Voice = "sopChorus" { } % voice for chorus melody and combined
> alto
> \new Voice = "altoChorus" { } % voice for chorus alto lines that
> require separate stem, particularly "gently home" at end
> >>
> }
> \new Staff = "bottom" {
> << \new Voice = "tenVerse" { } % voice for verse tenor lines requiring
> separate stems
> \new Voice = "bassVerse" { } % voice for verse bass and combined
> tenor stems
> >>
> << \new Voice = "tenChorus" { } % voice for chorus tenor lines requiring
> separate stems
> \new Voice = "bassChorus" { } % voice for chorus bass and combined
> tenor stems
> >>
> }
> }
>
> You'll then associate your lyrics with the proper voices. Since the tenor
> requires no separate lyrics (the final "gently home" can be attached to the
> altoChorus voice), the mmr is not a huge issue here. You may need to do some
> manual positioning to put it up high enough.
>
I am so very grateful for your help. I have taken some time to study your
answer and do some practicing. I'm sorry to say that I'm still stuck. Where I
am getting confused is how to make a partial line (such as a note here or there
in the Voice "altoVerse") come in and out next to a continuous running line (as
the mixed soprano/alto Voice "sopVerse"). Here's what I tried that I thought
made sense, although it also seemed like doing it the hard way. In any case, it
did not work:
womenVerse = \relative c' {
\global
\keyTime
\new Voice = "sopVerse" {
4. 8 4 |
2 4 |
4. 8 4 |
2. r4 |
4. 8 4 |
2 4 |
4.
}
<<
\new Voice = "sopVerse" { f8 }
\new Voice = "altoVerse" { f8 }
>>
\new Voice = "sopVerse" {
4 |
2. r4 |
4. 8 4 |
2 4 r |
4. 8 4 |
2. r4 |
4 4. 8 |
4|
\set doubleSlurs = ##t
8( 4) 8 4 |
\unset doubleSlurs
}
<<
\new Voice = "sopVerse" { ef2 }
\new Voice = "altoVerse" { ef2 }
>>
\new Voice = "sopVerse" {
r4 \bar "."
}
}
Then I tried to plug in my variable to a score block after your model, but I
didn't have any luck. I figure somehow I'm not using the variable right. Do you
have a hymn you have done that you wouldn't mind sending the file so I could
study it? Or perhaps the hacked version is different so it wouldn't work on my
end?
> P.S.: nice scan from Wiegand's _Praise for the Lord_
Good catch! So was that a Google search or are you familiar with that hymnal? I
was really excited that you recognized it. I think it's my favorite of the
current hymnals.
Thanks again for your kind help.
PS. For anyone: is it proper etiquette to reply to all or just the person who
responded?
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
New User Frescobaldi Setup for Mac
I have tried thus far unsuccessfully to get Frescobaldi to work on my Mac, and I am wondering if any of you Mac Frescobaldi users could help me. I have followed the instructions from this link: https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/wiki/Frescobaldi-Mac-OS-X-install-guide After all of those instructions, I have successfully gotten Frescobaldi to launch, but it seems to have trouble pairing with LilyPond. When I go into the Preferences -> LilyPond Preferences, and set the "LilyPond version to use", I click add, point it to the LilyPond app, and then it says, "Running LilyPond, this can take some time..." Indeed it does: I can let it go for hours (I tried about three hours yesterday), and it will keep going forever. Now when the box with the above message first pops up, LilyPond itself launches. It's as though Frescobaldi can't hear back from LilyPond. Does that problem sound familiar to anyone? I sure will appreciate your help. -Garrett ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
