Re: get an accidental to not print
%%% BEGIN %%%
\new Staff {
\once \override Accidental #'transparent = ##t
cis'2
}
%%% END %%%
If you instead use
\once \override Accidental #'stencil = ##f
then the invisible accidental will not even take any space.
/Mats
For the record. I understand both of Trevors examples, but looking through the
programmers ref to try and understand Mats' fix... 'stencil' is listed of
type unknown and the doc says it represents the symbol to print. How does
passing it false result in a symbol not being printed? Should the doc be
updated to say something like: The symbol to print, or don't print if false?
Jonathan
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Beaming of two offset musical lines
Hi all, I'm typesetting an organ piece by Reinberger. The LH is the same musical line as the RH (expect for a few notes at the very end), only offset by 1 beat. In my edition it is typeset with the beaming in the LH spanning the bar lines so it is clear it follows the RH. Is there a way to specify that the beaming in the LH should be the same as the RH. I have read the manual on manual beaming and can do it that way if necessary... just looking for a short-cut. Thanks much, Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Documentation: Software architecture overview and details?
Robert I think most of my struggle is because I haven't found a document that explains the flow of information through Lilypond. There is lots of reference material on the individual interfaces and objects, but I haven't found any explanation of what those things actually are. If such information exists, I havn't found it yet (I am experience in C/C++ as well as other languages, but only have brief LISP experience). In fact, I have been chewing over the idea of trying to contribute something. Graham has suggested that it be done by editing/expanding existing chapters (esp. Ch. 9) in the manual which I think is good advice. 1) I envison something that outlines the flow of information from the input file to the output. 2) It would also need to have a section outlining the various components and objects touched along the way. (e.g. engravers, events, objects, properties, interfaces, grobs, translators (trans. props), layout object) 3) I think it would be useful if the section outlining how to extract information from the programmers docs was clarified and expanded. (so far I have found that just going in and mucking around until I find the relevent info works, but it is far from fail safe and I surely don't feel like I know what I am doing). The catch is that I don't understand LP well enough, so I had thought that if I ever got to it, I would solicit the help of the 'wizards' to briefly explain things, then I would try and learn from that base and write up something in plain english. We'll see how time allows, but certainly not before March... On the other hand, this is a major bottle neck on the learning curve for new LP users. I wonder about trying to streamline and standardize the coding format and syntax, (lexicon?) which would make some of this go away. But that is a bigger job and I expect there would be more (justifiable) resistance from people that have learned it and don't want to relearn something else. (e.g. the subtle difference between override, tweak, set, outputProperty, different syntax inside/outside a layout block, are more or less still opaque to me, but I'll get it in time). Good luck and post here if you find what you are looking for. Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: problems with german umlauts
Mats Bengtsson mats.bengtsson at ee.kth.se writes: You are mistaken. ASCII only defines character codes up to 127, see for example http://www.asciitable.com/. What your table shows is probably Latin1 (ISO 8859-1). /Mats Mats: FYI I am using an ascii table in my little black pocket ref. which does not differentiate between standard and extended table. Also I use the one provided in MS Word. It allows you to pick between Unicode (various subsets) ASCII hex and decimal, but it also does not differentiate between extended and basic. What I am hearing hear in the larger context is that the basic ASCII set is only 127 characters while what I am used to using is actually one of a number of extended character sets... The manual is plenty clear about using utf-8 for non-latin alphabets. Where I get confused in the manual is this: PDF version 2.10.0 pg. 112 paragraph 4: To enter lyrics with characters from non-English languages, or with non-ASCII characters (such as the heart symbol or slanted quotes), This could be changed to ... non-English languages, or with extended ASCII characters (accented or special characters such as the heart symbol or slanted quotes), ... However on the same page paragraph 7: A word in Lyrics mode begins with: ... , any 8-bit character with ASCII code over 127, ... This is simply not true (I just tried it and upper ascii codes do not work in lyric mode (10.2.0) even when starting a word. This reference should be deleted if LP is not going to support it. If the docment is UTF-8 encoded then it really isn't an ASCII code over 127 anyway. :) For the sake of completeness other manual references which will need to be updated: pg 158, para. 2: delete ... non-ascii text (such as characters from other languages), ... and insert ... extended ASCII text (such as accented and special characters or characters from other languages), ... pg 227, sec 10.1.7, para 1: delete ... non-ASCII ..., and insert ... extended ascii characters (such as accented and special characters or characters from other languages) ... Do not change the reference on pg 288! as it refers to ABC not LP. The reference on pg 332 seems fine and is part of GNU license. That being said, can anyone answer what happens in LP when upper ascii characters are encountered. Is there any reason they can't just be mapped to whatever the upper ascii table is on that machine (or some standard within the LP community)? It would make it much easier for english speakers who only occasionally use accented characters. I edit using xemacs and am not looking forward to trying to get it save in UTF-8. UTF-8 is the only way to write both in danish AND french on the same text... On my machine I can write a single ascii text document (using the full table) that is in german, spanish, danish, norwegian, french, english. Thanks J ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: problems with german umlauts
David Gippner davidgippner at googlemail.com writes:
I've got problems with german umlauts in Lilypond 2.11.13-1. Wherever
there is one, I just get blanks.
Would something like:
\markup { \override #'(word-space . 0) \line {(f \char #252 r 1 oder 2
Manuale)} }
solve your problem.
BTW I don't understand all this unicode business. Most european characters
can be accessed within ascii. Why should we have to go to unicode to get them?
J
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: problems with german umlauts
Mats Bengtsson mats.bengtsson at ee.kth.se writes: If you search the mailing list archives from the time before we introduced unicode support, you will be surprised how many questions there are related to Russian or Hebrew or Mandarin or ... /Mats It wasn't intended to be a stupid question. I'm all over unicode for languages that use other character sets - cyrillic, hebrew, asian etc. I was just surprised at how difficult it was to put an umlaut on a u for a german peice I was typesetting. Perhaps the problem lies in the documentation. It suggests that if you want to use non-ascii characters you have to save the document as unicode - fair enough. (In fact it implies you can use any 8-bit ascii pg. 112, last paragrph, PDF version 2.10.0) But I wanted to use ascii 252 (presumably similar to David in the original post) and I just inserted it into my document - and it compiled to a space. Here I am trying to use an ascii character and hence expect not to have to do anything special, but would I still have to save it as unicode? When I used \char, I had to find the tweak to get rid of the spaces before and after that character... Because most accented European characters can not be accessed within ascii My ascii table shows all French, Norwegian, Danish characters as well as most spanish, and german (can't profess to be an expert there) see characters 191- 255 (xBF - xff). Are these accessable in a non-unicode document? Thanks, J ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Fermata on final double bar
Mats Bengtsson mats.bengtsson at ee.kth.se writes: One possible trick is to move the mark engraver from the score level to each stave and then include the ordinary rehearsal marks as well as the fermata above the system only in the top stave of the score and the downwards fermata only in the bottom stave of the score. Example: Terrific! Thanks so much, and thanks for the very clear example. It took me a while, but once I noticed the second \override was on Staff.RehearsalMark things went along much faster. For anyone else reading this I also used: \once \override Staff.RehearsalMark #'padding = #-5 to get the fermata the right distance on the bottom (there are some leger lines on that staff and I think that must be what is pushing the fermata down). Thanks to everyone for your help... I like the final solution - I think it's pretty elegant... J ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Fermata on final double bar
I am trying to typeset a piece of music that has a fermata above and below the final double barline. I have come across the \mark command in the manual, but am having difficulty getting it to work when there are no notes after it. Does anyone have any hints on how to typeset this? Does anyone have any idea what this means musically, i.e. maybe I'll just typeset the fermata over the final note! Thanks in advance Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Fermata on final double bar
Graham Percival gpermus at gmail.com writes: Please read section 8.1.3 Text marks. Cheers, - Graham Thanks Graham - sorry to have missed that. The section does not deal with the issue of getting the second fermata under the last double bar though. Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Trouble with voices: unwanted clef time
Rutger rmhelmers at hotmail.com writes: Is there anyone who could give me some help me with the file below? For some reason, Lilypond creates an unwanted clef and time signature (without a staff) above my setting of two voices on one staff. What did I do wrong? Try moving the \autoBeamOff to inside the staff e.g. right after the \clef command. This seems to work under 2.10.0. (Arrived at this using the technique in the manual of successively commenting lines until I found the one that was causing troubles...) Also, would you have any clue why the fermatas in the lower part won't go below the notes? The two lower fermata look below when I compile it. Perhaps you could clarify the problem? Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Upro jelden at gmail.com writes: I admit that not finding the function for a simple line brake was not very smart of me. I have studied the online-manual thouroughly, but it's not easy to find solutions there, and I haven't found them for the descripbed problems. Try the PDF version as it is really easy to search. Also you can search within sites with google (haven't tried this, but imagine it works) Suggestions like condensing a four voiced, polyphonic piece by Bach for an Urtext edition for one of the major publishers seems to me a strange reaction to my query. Also, fake a solution with invisibile notes is not a solution you would like to use in an edition of a 65-page manuscript. I think this comes to a rather important issue. Lilypond has not been what I had expected (read: ideally hoped!) when I first came across it. The reality never is as simple we would like it to be, because the reality has to deal with all the contingencies adressed in this archive. BUT, the question is, is there something better out there? Are you willing to PAY for it? If not, then how can one (you) be part of the solution - i.e. making LP better, easier, clearer, more concise etc. even if that only means generating positive constructive criticism. I agree it isn't perfect, it's a work in progress. Remember LP is made up of volunteers, and is not a money making software venture. I find it grates a bit to start a question by saying the software is deficient because ~ I don't have the time (read: am not willing) to learn how to use it. I am also sure that professional editors etc. are forced to work around their software to get it to do what they want. I have never used a piece of saftware that didn't require this. I don't see anything un-professional about invisible notes, constructing chord in polyphony. Do what it takes - that's what the pro's do. If it isn't good enough for you, try something else. I'm trying to use lilypond for an important publication, so I'd be glad to get some real help here! I'll stand behind Graham. The implication here is that his help is not real. Read above comments on volunteers. The folks writing in are human and benefit from a positive like the rest of us. Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
--- Brett Duncan wrote:
\tuplet 3:2 {c4 c8 c c4}
should be printed as
|- 3 |
__
| | | |
| | | |
X X X X
or as
|- 3 -| |- 3 -|
| |\ |\ |
| | | |
X X X X
If we are going to worry about seperating the music from the typesetting, then
it is worth observing that these two are equivalent musically. It doesn't
matter which way the typesetter chooses as it's default as they are both
valid. If a more advanced user wants to change the default behaviour they can
do so using \setTupletSpanner. The beginner user is going to get something
meaningful and what they had intended musically.
I would propose the default implementation tries to figure it out from the
length of the first note in the tuplet musical expression. It seems there is
president for this approach (although I am to new to remember where I saw
it...). In that case it would probably pick the first example.
Jonathan
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanwen at lilypond.org writes:
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
--- Brett Duncan wrote:
\tuplet 3:2 {c4 c8 c c4}
should be printed as
|- 3 |
__
| | | |
| | | |
X X X X
or as
|- 3 -| |- 3 -|
| |\ |\ |
| | | |
X X X X
If we are going to worry about seperating the music from the typesetting,
then
it is worth observing that these two are equivalent musically. It doesn't
No, they aren't. The stresses fall in different places. In bottom example,
the stress is
on the 2nd 8th note.
True enough, but it will also depend on the time signature. However, we still
need to have a default and it seems deciding based on the value of the first
note is as reasonable a guess as any. It can always be overriden by an
experienced user.
Jonathan
PS. Sorry Han-wen for the double mailing - I'm still not totally comfortable
with this archive interface...
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Stephen Kress wrote:
4. By default, a single number will be engraved in the tuplet bracket.
There is already the text property of the TupletNumber object that can be
tweaked to get the ratio printed if one so desires. In other words, no
changes need to be made to LP in how the single number vs. ratio engraving is
done; LP already does it right.
How exactly will this work. \times 2/3 {c8 d e f g a} does not produce the
output _I_ would expect, which is two standard triplets. Instead it produces
two triplets with a single spanner with the text '3' in it. Do we want to
work on this default notation at the same time?
J
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Mats Bengtsson mats.bengtsson at ee.kth.se writes:
Jonathan Henkelman wrote:
How exactly will this work. \times 2/3 {c8 d e f g a} does not produce
the
output _I_ would expect, which is two standard triplets. Instead it
produces
two triplets with a single spanner with the text '3' in it. Do we want to
work on this default notation at the same time?
That's an example where you need to set the tupletSpannerDuration property:
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {c8 d e f g a}
/Mats
I understand from the manual and the archives that \set tupletSpanner... etc.
will do what I am expecting, but in the interest of making the language more
intuitive, esp. for new users, it is worth considering having the default
behaviour as follows:
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e f g a} yielding:
__3__ __3__
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
X X X X X X
which is what I would expect from an instruction told to parse a musical
stream such that 3 notes take the space of two. Instead, what I do get is
rather meaningless:
+---3---+
_ _
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
X X X X X X
It means a new user has to set an internal variable to get the behaviour they
expect. It would make more sense to have an experienced user, who might want
the latter, setting the internal variable to get the more unusal behaviour.
Jonathan
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Summary of \tuplet debate
OK, I'm starting to have a hard time keeping all the pieces together. I'll
try and summarize the discussion so far.
There seems to be general consensus:
- that having both \times and \tuplet is unnecessary and confusing. It should
be one _or_ the other.
- that \tuplet is clearer than \times due to the similarity with \time (?)
- there is not much support for the \triplet construct.
- There is not much support for \tuplet 3 {...} due to it's ambiguous nature.
Can we agree on that much as a start?
So items currently in debate are:
1) What will happen in the case \tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e f g a}
- currently with \times it prints two beamed groups of notes with a '3'
spanner over the whole affair (is this rather unintuitive to anyone else?)
- We need debate on what the default behaviour here would be (i.e. as it
stands or producing two standard triplets as would be expected by \tuplet) -
I'll keep my personal opinions out of this summary.
- I would assert that getting the default behaviour as close to what
the median musician might want is going to simplify the learning curve.
Leave the scheme programming to those who are more advanced.
- From the programmers and others who like to think about these things - What
would be the ramifications for other musical constructs in the case we change
the default behaviou? i.e. are we digging ourselves into a hole somewhere
else?
2) To what extent is simplicity of grammer going to define the functionality.
- There seems to be a general trend that both \tuplet 3:2 and \tuplet 2/3 are
wanted. Others feel that trimming the grammer is going to be a good thing in
the long run.
- Han-Wen has proposed a compromise (well to change the idea a bit) the those
who want the old \times 2/3 functionality could get it through a macro and the
new specification could stand alone.
- We need more debate (or concensus) on the final form. I think it is good to
keep this discussion outside personal preference. We should also discuss how
this fits into the current language context. (e.g. Mats' assertion that we
should keep the music semantics seperate from the typesetting).
3) If the tuplet command ends up just being the same as times except with
a ':' notation (meaning divide) instade of '/' have we accomplished anything?
- There is a growing voice suggesting not.
- If we make the syntax optional perhaps so.
Jonathan
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Work around for using the internal docs locally
Does anyone have a work around for using the internal documentation on the local machine. I have downloaded the tarball, but the links are all broken (both on IE and Firefox) because they do not include filename suffixes. I'm going away over the break and would like to be able to reference them. Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Work around for using the internal docs locally
John Mandereau john.mandereau at free.fr writes: I've just submitted a patch on lilypond-devel which should fix that. Until its commit and the next releases, you can browse the docs online, or try to the download the 2.10.1 docball, which should be OK: http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/binaries/documentation/lilypond- 2.10.1-1.documentation.tar.bz2 If you want to know a bit more, this problem has been so since 2.10.2 for the sake of content negotiation, which brings 'automatic language selection'. It's been added to allow any person reading lilypond.org to directly get a page in the language he prefers, depending on his browser's settings. For that purpose, .html extensions are stripped in all links, which make the docs difficult to browse locally. Beautiful. Thanks much. That will be plenty good enough for me. Thanks also for an explaination as to the problem. I'm good to go... J ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: SATB with automatic piano reduction - dynamics?
Mats Bengtsson mats.bengtsson at ee.kth.se writes:
[snip override solution]
However, do you really need \partcombine? Often you can get very far with
\new PianoStaff
\new Staff { \clef treble \Key \Time
\sopranoMusic \\ \altoMusic
} % Staff
...
% Piano Staff
or even
\new PianoStaff
\new Staff { \clef treble \Key \Time
\new Voice \sopranoMusic \altoMusic
} % Staff
...
% Piano Staff
Then, you can easily remove the Dynamic engraver, for example in the
first case you can do:
\new PianoStaff
\new Staff { \clef treble \Key \Time
\new Voice \with {\remove Dynamic_engraver } \sopranoMusic \\
\altoMusic
} % Staff
...
% Piano Staff
Thanks much. This worked very elegantly. I applyed the \voiceOne, Two etc.
keyword to get the stems the right way. I can apply the tweak in the piano
score section of the manual to get the dynamics centred vertically between the
staves.
It seems to me that this is an easier way to tackle the problem than the
template provided in the manual?
Thanks much,
Jonathan
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Graham Percival gpermus at gmail.com writes: Jonathan Henkelman wrote: In terms of making it easier, I don't know if it would be straight forward or not, but if the PDF version of the manual had chapter numbers in the table on contents that showed on the bookmark pane (to the left) it would make it much easier to bounce around and find one's way back again. I'm sure that this can be done by adding a few words to some part of the doc and/or makefiles; the problem is simply finding the right place and figuring out the words. I'll look into this. Thanks much. Is there a copy of the so called programmers documentation in a suitable format to download i.e. PDF (I know it would be long) or a few large HTML files, or an archive (tarball - whatever) of the current HTML documentation. I was hoping to do a bit more work on this over the break, but will have very limited web access... There _is_ a documentation tarball, but I'm not certain if it includes the program reference. I have downloaded the tarball and it had the internals, but the links are broken apparently because the file extensions are not explicitly in the links. I am running IE 6.0. on Win XP. Perhaps it is a configuration problem in IE on my part. Some type of doc. that oulined the lexical construction of Lilypond would be helpful. I am not used to the level on confusion I am experiencing now, when learning a language. As with all open-source projects, documentation depends on interested people writing material. I don't have the time to pursue such a project, but if you (or somebody else) wrote this material, I'd be more than happy to add it to the manual. Ay - I hear you there. I have been considering taking on this project, and I still need to figure out if I have time before I get myself in over my head and unable to keep up with the commitment others might have made to me. A couple of questions I have been pondering in this regard: 1) Since I am fairly new to Lilypond, are there folks out there that would be willing to aid me in the likely event of confusion (I assume this group will do). 2) If/when inconsistencies in the language turn up - as I'm sure they will - is there an interest amoung the programmers to correct these? 3) A complaint I have seen both commonly on this archive and also on the todo list of the co-ordinators for lilypond, is to try and make the learning curve a bit less steep. One logical outcome of a document of this type is that it can be used to clean up the language - i.e. fulfilling this last goal. Is there any interest on the part of the programmers/organizers to undertake this task should I ever get this doc completed. I envision a process whereby the basic notation of lilypond stays the same (obviously), but: - perhaps some command forms would be dropped, - perhaps users would be forced into less freedom in the syntax - perhaps come commands would be morphed to fit into a framework that more closely matches other commands. - any changes would idealy be changeable in input scripts using some sed/diff routines to update routines would be automated (no point in unnecessarily agravating the end user) Some examples: As I can see it now, there are numerous ways to create contexts. In fact if I understand correctly, most commands create contexts. One example I saw in the archive explicly used the context command in all (most?) of these cases. Perhaps either forcing the use of context everywhere a context is being created, or eliminating its use altogether as it is basically implied everywhere would be helpful I have been banging my head against the \combineparts routine. Mats suggested a different form using polyphonic notation which does the task just as nicely. \combineParts does not (to my naive eyes seem to fit the same form as the other commands (e.g. \new Staff, \new Voice etc.) Differences such as this make the learning curve steeper. I think in the end Lilypond would be a cleaner language, but as always happens when trying to eliminate legacy code there is always someones toes being stepped on... What do people think about this... [snip established and reported error] Finally, is the web interface for posting to this archive the most straight forward method? I tried posting this yesterday, but it got lost in the ether. Is there perhaps an email address I can send the post to, where it will get sent back for validation etc. I believe the email address is at the bottom of every message on the list: lilypond-user at gnu.org Not on my web based threaded client (Loom?). I feel like such a newbie, but I can't find it on the FAQ or anywhere else... I can post to gmane.test, but how would I post to followup without using the web interface (i.e. to avoid the top-post checking in cases when I am not actually top-posting...) Thanks, Jonathan
Constructive Criticism and a Question
First, since this post contains constructive criticism I want to start by saying that I think Lilypond is a pretty nice piece of software. A bit steep on the learning curve maybe, but excellent all the same. In terms of making it easier, I don't know if it would be straight forward or not, but if the PDF version of the manual had chapter numbers in the table on contents that showed on the bookmark pane (to the left) it would make it much easier to bounce around and find one's way back again. Is there a copy of the so called programmers documentation in a suitable format to download i.e. PDF (I know it would be long) or a few large HTML files, or an archive (tarball - whatever) of the current HTML documentation. I was hoping to do a bit more work on this over the break, but will have very limited web access... Another comment: to reiterate a post by Joe Ferguson (2005-02-03). I am an ex- programmer and an amateur musician. Some type of doc. that oulined the lexical construction of Lilypond would be helpful. I am not used to the level on confusion I am experiencing now, when learning a language. I am not even sure the manual is totally consistent on this point, e.g. (pg 209) [I have reformated it so it easier to read here]: ### Begin Quote ### The third command for creating contexts is: \context type music This is similar to \context with = id, but matches any context of type type, regardless of its given name. This variant is used with music expressions that can be interpreted at several levels. For example, the \applyOutput command (see Section 12.5.2 [Running a function on all layout objects], page 264). Without an explicit \context, it is usually applied to Voice: \applyOutput #'context #function % apply to Voice To have it interpreted at the Score or Staff level use these forms \context \applyOutput #'Score #function \context \applyOutput #'Staff #function ### End Quote ### To me the first line implies I should expect a \context followed by a type then some music. The final examples indicate a \context followed by a (?) command then a context then a function, with music to follow? I assume I am not fully understanding the context word, or the apply Output word, but it isn't immediately clear to me. Finally, is the web interface for posting to this archive the most straight forward method? I tried posting this yesterday, but it got lost in the ether. Is there perhaps an email address I can send the post to, where it will get sent back for validation etc. Thanks much all for both the software and this archive. It makes it much easier to climb a learning curve when people leave ladders lying around... Jonathan henkelstone at yahoo.ca ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: SATB with automatic piano reduction - dynamics?
Assume we know about sopranoMusic, sopranoWords, etc. alto, tenor, bass and that the choirstaff has been defined (basically as done in the template). \new PianoStaff \new Staff \clef treble \set Staff.printPartCombineTexts = ##f \partcombine \Key \Time \sopranoMusic \Key \Time \altoMusic % Staff \new Staff \clef bass \set Staff.printPartCombineTexts = ##f \partcombine \Key \Time \tenorMusic \Key \Time \bassMusic % Staff % Piano Staff % Score Here is the example code (sorry about the inconvenience - if anyone knows a way around this I'd appreciate hearing about it...). I had to cut out most of the code as it still won't let me post... J ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Unable to get Lilypond-mode working for Xemacs
Jonathan Henkelman henkelstone at yahoo.ca writes: FYI anyone else with similar problems. I seem to have fixed the problem by re- installing xemacs from the xemacs page rather than from the cygwin page. Still some problems, but at least the lilypond-major mode works. J ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Unable to get Lilypond-mode working for Xemacs
I have been trying to get the Lilypond major mode working in xemacs (under cygwin - latest release of both as I updated them this morning). When I try to start the Lilypond mode (using Meta-x Lilypond-mode) I get the following error: Cannot open load file: compile. When I comment out the line: (require 'compile) I get the following errro: Wrong type argument: stringp, nil Not sure what is wrong and any help would be appreciated. Could this be linked to the warning I get when I run xemacs: WARNING: Couldn't find an obvious default for the root of the XEmacs hierarchy. Any advice on how to fix this would be appreciated too! Thanks much, Jonathan Henkelman ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Unable to get Lilypond-mode working for Xemacs
Thanks Geoff, Your instructions are very similar to others I have come across on the web. I worked through them to no avail, however, your comments on liem are useful. Thanks, J ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
