Re: what do you use ragged-bottom for?
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 09:38:20 -0800, Mark Stephen Mrotek carsonm...@ca.rr.com
wrote:
My use of the ragged bottom is very particular. I use Lilypond to set piano
scores for viewing on a tablet (easy page turning!). In a set of variations,
some (if not all) of the variations might not be long enough to fill the
page, and two consecutive variations would be too much.
I would guess that this is a common use. I assume you use scores with
\pageBreak in between
\paper {ragged-bottom = ##t }
n=90
\score { \repeat unfold \n {c'4 d' e'2} } \pageBreak
\score { \repeat unfold \n {c'4 d' e'2} }
When the variation is slightly over one page long (n=130, for example) then the
you get two half-filled pages. The change I was considering to ragged-bottom
would squeeze a bit more on one page, but when two pages are required it would
still evenly distributes the lines.
By the way, in the other email Carl was thinking of setting scores in separate
\bookparts
n=140
\bookpart { \repeat unfold \n {c'4 d' e'2} }
\bookpart { \repeat unfold \n {c'4 d' e'2} }
Each book-part starts on a new page, and the last page of each book-part is set
ragged-bottom by default. This might look nicer to you when the book-parts are
more than one page long. (The header is repeated at the start of each
\bookpart, by default, so you might need to figure out how to change the
title-markup settings if you use this method.)
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what do you use ragged-bottom for?
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 04:42:14 -0800, Jean-Charles Malahieude lily...@orange.fr wrote: Le 17/11/2013 06:52, Werner LEMBERG disait : [...] – and lilypond should also emit the corresponding page number in the warning message. Finding the ideal number of pages... Fitting music on 61 or 62 pages... Drawing systems... warning: cannot fit music on page: overflow is 1.280015 Good point. I moved one similar error message to a place where I can access and print the current page number; I'll try to do the same for the message above. On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 02:15:54 -0800, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote: And btw, i think that it would be good if we had separate stretchability and compressability properties. For example, when i have a SATB choral piece and vertical spacing is cramped, the distances between staves should be compressed more than the distances between systems (because it's very important that the systems remain visually separate). However, when there is a lot of vertical space, it's the distances between systems that should stretch more than distances between staves (as we don't want to have airy systems). So, system-system distances should have high stretchability but low compressability compared to staff-staff distances. LilyPond does have separate stretchability and compressibility. Between lines and systems on the page, compressibility is the difference between basic-distance and minimum-distance. On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 01:04:34 -0800, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote: Maybe ragged-bottom=##t should continue to always under-fill pages, as it does now? It may be useful as a speed-up aid during the data-entry/checking phase in longer pieces, but I don't know what the time saving would be. The current, incompressible, ragged bottoms should save a bit of time because LilyPond will not spend time considering squeezing a bit more on a page, but I couldn't measure any difference. I'm now proposing to keep the current behavior on all pages except the last, the minimum change to fix the reported bug in issue 3281. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
what do you use ragged-bottom for?
I'm fixing a bug involving the ragged-bottom setting (issue 3281). By default,
ragged-last-bottom=##t so the last page can have blank space at the bottom. Currently,
ragged-bottom is implemented to *always* under-fill the page, *never*
compressing to fit one more system.
As a default, that is wrong, because all the other pages are best-fit, while
the last page is under-filled. The situation has caused me quite a lot of
confusion: wondering why LilyPond likes to put the last system on its own page,
decreasing the staff-size, or trying page-turn-breaking -- and then wondering
why so much material moved back to earlier pages, so that the last page is
again the least full.
For now, as a workaround, in these cases we can say \paper {
last-ragged-bottom=##f }, which can go selectively in individual \bookpart s if
need be.
So 'ragged-last-bottom' should allow a gap at the bottom of the last page, but
let the page fill as the others are filled. But I do not know what
'ragged-bottom' should do. This is the option that applies to all pages.
Werner sees some sense in 'ragged-bottom' meaning that pages are neither
stretched nor compressed vertically, but cannot think of an example where this
behavior is useful. (I wrote code with a new option to let us switch the
behavior, but have no idea if the added complexity gives any benefit, or how to
best set the defaults.)
So for what kind of music do you use ragged-bottom=##t ?
The manual (currently) suggests it for scores, where maybe just two systems fit
on a page; but then the systems are closer than they need to be on the looser
pages. To give adaptable space at the bottom of the page, it is better to use
\paper{ last-bottom-spacing #'stretchability = 120 }
Sometimes we do want fixed vertical spacing of the music on the page; we can
make the 'minimum-distance as big as 'basic-distance, in all the spacing
settings, but that user-interface is difficult.
Maybe ragged-bottom=##t should continue to always under-fill pages, as it does
now?
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: review of a Mutopia file (why TabStaff gives error here?)
Federico Bruni fedelogy at gmail.com writes:
I've updated to 2.16 the following piece of Mutopia:
http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=636
Can anyone review it?
I made one pass through, and made potential-corrections as I went. (attached)
Hopefully you can use a 'diff' program to see the changes.
Some string numbers were applied to a whole chord (single-note chords
presumably because fingering to the left only works within chords) so they
didn't print. I put string numbers for the bass notes below the staff.
With a few more fingerings to resolve ambiguity, you could leave the string
numbers un-printed. I suppose LilyPond still needs them in the input to
generate tablature.
The more-usual bar numbering for alternatives is available in 2.16
\set Score.alternativeNumberingStyle = #'numbers
You can put the coda on its own line, and ragged-right, with
\bar || \break
%% Coda
%{ ... the music in the coda ... %}
\bar |. \stopStaff s1
You might not have seen that Nick posted a much nicer formatting for barre
indications.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-11/msg00570.html
It avoids taking apart LilyPond's internal data structures, which makes it
better for mutopiaproject.
You can adjust Nick's function to use it as \barre 3 { %{ music %} } and have
it set minimumFret=3 so you don't need so many string number entries. Scheme
can convert to Roman numerals.
barre = #(define-music-function (parser location
strg music) (number? ly:music?)
#{
\set TabStaff.minimumFret = $strg
\set TabStaff.restrainOpenStrings = ##t
\once\override TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text)
= #(format #f B ~@r strg)
%{ ... Nick's other style settings ...%}
\startTextSpan
$music
\stopTextSpan
\unset TabStaff.minimumFret
\unset TabStaff.restrainOpenStrings
#})
guitar.ly
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: review of a Mutopia file (why TabStaff gives error here?)
Federico Bruni fedelogy at gmail.com writes:
I've updated to 2.16 the following piece of Mutopia:
http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=636
Can anyone review it?
I made one pass through, and made potential-corrections as I went. (attached)
Hopefully you can use a 'diff' program to see the changes.
You could use \open or -0 to indicate open strings.
Some string numbers were applied to a whole chord (single-note chords
presumably because fingering to the left only works within chords) so they
didn't print. I put string numbers for the bass notes below the staff.
With a few more fingerings to resolve ambiguity, you could leave the string
numbers un-printed. I suppose LilyPond still needs them in the input to
generate tablature.
The more-usual bar numbering for alternatives is available in 2.16
\set Score.alternativeNumberingStyle = #'numbers
You can put the coda on its own line, and ragged-right, with
\bar || \break
%% Coda
%{ ... the music in the coda ... %}
\bar |. \stopStaff s1
You might not have seen that Nick posted a much nicer formatting for barre
indications.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-11/msg00570.html
It avoids taking apart LilyPond's internal data structures, which makes it
better for mutopiaproject.
You can adjust Nick's function to use it as \barre 3 { %{ music %} } and have
it set minimumFret=3 so you don't need so many string number entries. Scheme
can convert to Roman numerals.
barre = #(define-music-function (parser location
strg music) (number? ly:music?)
#{
\set TabStaff.minimumFret = $strg
\set TabStaff.restrainOpenStrings = ##t
\once\override TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text)
= #(format #f B ~@r strg)
%{ ... Nick's other style settings ...%}
\startTextSpan
$music
\stopTextSpan
\unset TabStaff.minimumFret
\unset TabStaff.restrainOpenStrings
#})
guitar.ly
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Three new microtonal snippets in the LSR
These snippets are for people not want to program. They are not yet checked-in and search-able, but you can see them through the links in this message. Arrow notation and transposition for quarter tones http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=784 shows a simple way to keep natural-up-arrow distinct from sharp-down-arrow whenever possible, but substitute an enharmonic equivalent if needed, in cases that come up in common transpositions. (It does not try to handle uncommon transpositions such as from c to ceh.) I wish I had a more realistic example, that still demonstrates the issues that can arise in transpositions. Custom tuning and MIDI http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=785 is similar to Graham's snippet on regular temperaments, but this uses less Scheme and more harmony. One line of the snippet must be changed depending on LilyPond version (2.12 or 2.14). If anybody knows a simple way to make it work under both... Finally, to demonstrate the combination of customized alterations with customized tuning, in sophisticated microtonal music, we turn to Bach http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=786 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: extra staves - help required
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 19:10:06 -0800, Bill Mooney mooney...@aim.com wrote:
\version 2.13.36
[ . . . ]
\override StaffGroup.SystemStartBracket #'collapse-height = #4
%**
\override Score.SystemStartBar #'collapse-height = #4
%**
\new Staff \with { \remove Time_signature_engraver }
\relative c'
{
\set Staff.instrumentName = #Or
'This' Or disappears!! with the use of the code below to achieve
the 'extra-staves'
but if the *-ed lines above are deleted the Or' reappears! but
the brackets go...
I am stumped.
Stable version 2.12.3 *does* print the instrument name in front of the first
staff with the bracket. The development version tries to line up the
instrument names better, in the presence of brackets, so maybe getting fancy
with those brackets confuses the new code.
At some point, when we want something beyond Lilypond's capability, and arguably beyond
her job description, I think we are better off to just place things by hand.
\once\override TextScript #'extra-offset = #'(-15 . -4)g'2^Or
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: extra staves - help required
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:58:31 -0800, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
The .ly file was made using aspects of the 'Adding an extra staff (2)'
snippet in the Snippet Repository, as well as other bits from the
learning and notation manuals.
My 'client' asked for the reduced size bracket at the beginning of the
single staff. (The client is always right) but wants the curly braces at
the beginning of the 'choir' part.
Hi Bill,
I stole from a manual example (Notation Ref, search BreakAlignment) the
method to re-arrange the clef and barline, and remembered how to move the brace.
=Keith
\relative c''{
\key g\major c d e fis
{
\once\override Score.BreakAlignment #'break-align-orders =
#(make-vector 3 '(span-bar staff-bar clef key-signature time-signature) )
g1
}
\new GrandStaff
\new Staff{
\once\override GrandStaff.SystemStartBrace #'X-offset = #0
\key g\major \clef treble c,1
} \new Staff {
\key g\major \clef bass c,1
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Padding behaviour
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:03:53 -0800, James Lowe james.l...@datacore.com wrote: -Original Message- There is a similar example in the notation reference manual (section 4.6.2) but... --- I think this is the example you are referring to That was it. Your new version works great and makes a lot more sense. -Keith ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, spacing ajusments
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 12:35:23 -0700, Jan Warchoł lemniskata.bernoulli...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe our scores differ so much that there are no settings good for all of them. Time to finish this up. I think the attached very short set of overrides are a good compromise, which we can all use until the final stages of tweaking. I'll copy these change, in patch form, and examples for what they do, to lilypond-devel in a moment. The major change is to let more of the extra space on a loose page go *between* systems, and more between staff-groups in an orchestral score, for readability. Compare the Stretched and Nice images, from the most severe example I found. This was suggested independently for Piano (by me) Orchestral (Reinhold in 2009) and Choral (Janek) music. In case it piques anyone's interest or questions, I put below a list of scores I looked at today to check for problems, with my notes on where 2.13.38 needed adjustment. = Keith Piano: Scriabin Prelude Op11 N1 If set on two pages, staves stretch too much Chopin Prelude Op28 N1 Mendelssohn Leider ohne Worte Op85 N1 Staves stretch un-necessarily, though by conicidence, the stretching makes the PianoStaffs more uniform height. Debussy 1ère Arabesque Severe stretching of staves Debussy Clair de Lune Severe stretching of staves Chopin Impromptu Op 66 Chopin Prelude Op45 Last page shows best example found for issue 1290 Single Voice: Hymns from Fr. Gilmary Needs the extra stretchability between \score s Four fiddle tunes set for a fakebook String Quintet with Figured Bass: Vivaldi Winter, score and parts Needed separation between systems for readability SATB: Bębenek Witaj Pokarmie Wants to have centered lyrics, as opposed to centered baseline but we do not see how to make that default (earlier email) Handel Cara Sposa Monteverdi la Maddelena Reveals an inconvenience of the new system: Additional verses below one score, and the title of the next score, are placed close to each other because they are consecutive pieces of markup. Any extra gap must be inserted by hand. Handel Messiah Chorus Needed more space between systems Needed padding between lyric and unreleated dynamics Full Orchestra: Dvorák Symphony from the New World Op85, score and parts The score badly needed separation between systems, and space at the bottom of single-system pages. 2 pages (out of 54) are overfilled by the new page-breaker, in a way that page-breaking-system-system-spacing could fix, but wait to see what 2.13.39 does. Parts are unevenly filled, due to page-turn considerations, but ragged-bottom = ##f still works Orchestral staves from Reinhold's emails to the 2009 thread RFC: new vertical layout engine layout_adjustments.ily Description: Binary data paper_adjustments.ily Description: Binary data attachment: ClairStretch.jpgattachment: ClairNice.jpg___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, spacing ajusments
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 12:35:23 -0700, Jan Warchoł
lemniskata.bernoulli...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/11/3 Keith E OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
I don't fully understand... Are you refering to the lyricsStaff.png picture?
Yes. You understood correctly. (I confused th order of the pictures)
[ . . . ] In this case
they should be centered (because they apply to both staves) and i told
LilyPond to do so:
\new Lyrics \with { \override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-affinity = #CENTER }
but the result was wrong.
I think I see. Lilypond centers the *baseline* of the text between the staves,
which puts the 'center' of the lyrics too high.
To get visually-centered lyrics, the user has to decide what height of text he
wants to center, and request that the baseline be one text-height closer to the
lower staff than to the upper, with balanced stretchability :
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'inter-staff-spacing = #'(
(space . 4.5) (stretchability . 9) (padding . 0.8))
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'non-affinity-spacing = #'(
(space . 3.6) (stretchability . 9) (padding . 1.6))
We could enhance the relevant snippet (http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=356)
so that the Lyrics remain centered when the staff is stretched, after 2.14 is
stable.
So, as I understand the last two messages, it is not always required to keep
lyrics closer to their associated staff than to the other neighbor staff. It
is sufficient to provide enough 'padding to keep lyrics away from
non-associated notes and dynamics. That can be done with minor adjustments to
the overrides already in the Lyrics section of engraver-init.ly
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'inter-staff-spacing = #'(
(minimum-distance . 5.5) (padding . 0.5))
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'non-affinity-spacing #'padding = #1.5
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rests in polyphonic music - 'stems down, rests up'
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:01:03 -0700, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
K == Keith E OHara writes:
K It is less clear if the use of Stem 'direction to place rests, in
K the notes-plus-rests case, was intentional.
Shouldn't the rests by default be placed where the voice goes in the
column - odds up, evens down - regardless of stem-direction?
When there is a difference between the stem direction and the order of the
voice, {\voiceOne \stemDown ...} then yes, it seems that Lilypond should place
the rests according to the \voiceOne instruction. I do not know if it is
practical to change the behavior, but if you send a short example and desired
behavior as a bug report, it can be fixed if practical the next time somebody
revises that part of the program.
K and since rest-collision.cc insists on asking your rests what is
K their Stem direction, and since un-pitched rests in a stemNeutral
K voice answer based on neutral-direction :
I hadn't noticed this clause about un-pitched rests in stemNeutral
voices. Is their behaviour vs. 'neutral-direction documented anywhere?
I should have explained how I determined this. I found the brief description
of 'neutral-direction in the manual, and discovered the rest by experiment.
(Which is fine with me, because experiment is faster than reading and
understanding English for these detailed points.)
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, spacing ajusments
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:19:32 -0700, Jan Warchoł lemniskata.bernoulli...@gmail.com wrote: As for me the attached settings work quite well. In particular your Lyric spacing settings didn't produce good results when lyrics were centered between two staves, so I changed them. Good. I was expecting that you would increase the 'padding between individual words in Lyrics and individual notes or dynamics on the lower staff. This keeps the lyrics away from dynamics for lower vocal staff (image). But you made smaller the 'minimum-distance between a Lyrics line and the next lower staff. If there is a staff below the lyrics with no notes or dynamics, the lyrics could get very close (second image). I think we still want enough 'minimum-distance to the lower staff so that Lyrics are always a little closer to the Staff they are associated with, than they are to the next lower staff. Is that what you intended, or do people reading choral music like to have lyrics centered between the two staves? My other question is about your reduction in the stretchability between systems. Was the goal to let the staves separate more (maybe to have more space around the Lyrics) or was the goal to keep the gap between systems small? I suggested the higher stretchability so that orchestral scores did not change spread out excessively, but they still look okay with your lower stretchability suggestion (third image, and the conductors among us might comment on the spacing of the whole score http://k-ohara.oco.net/Lilypond/score.pdf) -Keithattachment: lyricsStaff.pngattachment: lyricsDynamics.pngattachment: score.jpg___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rests in polyphonic music - 'stems down, rests up'
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:19:53 -0700, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
Yes, thanks. The problem is getting at the automatic behaviour which is
already available.
I beleive its a bug, that \stemDown obstructs explicit coming later.
\override Rest #'direction = #UP
Anders,
LilyPond does obey a simultaneous \stemDown and Rest'direction=#UP, when
deciding how to arrange a column where there are only rests,
but when there are both notes and rests, the rests act as if they had the Stem
direction.
If you are interested in the code, rest-collision.cc makes the placement
decisions based on the various 'directions. The distinction between columns of
rests, and columns with both notes and rests, is clearly intentional. It is
less clear if the use of Stem 'direction to place rests, in the
notes-plus-rests case, was intentional.
For Rachmaninoff's Prelude in C-sharp minor, the voices are separated so far in
pitch, that distinct stem directions are not required. You could let the stems
take their natural direction, and since rest-collision.cc insists on asking
your rests what is their Stem direction, and since un-pitched rests in a
stemNeutral voice answer based on neutral-direction :
\new Staff
\new Voice {\voiceOne \stemNeutral
\override Stem #'neutral-direction = #UP
r8 c'' d'' e'' r b' r d''}
\new Voice {\voiceTwo \stemNeutral
c2 d4 r4}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: rests in polyphonic music - 'stems down, rests up'
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:25:12 -0700, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
Q: How Can i separate handling of rests from stem-directions in polyphonic
voice-handling?
Hello Anders,
I would also have expected Rest 'direction to do what you asked. It does
change the placement of rests in columns with only rests, but when there are
both notes and rests, the rests act as if they had the Stem direction.
This could be a bug, or there could be some non-obvious reason Lilypond needs
to behave this way. If it still looks like a bug after you set the Prelude,
would you consider making a bug report ?
I recommend that you continue as you are with Rest 'direction, and whenever
Lilypond puts the rests in the wrong places, use pitched rests {f''\rest c''
f''\rest c'' }
To let LilyPond do default voicing, leave out \new Voice :{r8 c'' r c''} \\ {c4
c}
I get very confused trying to figure out what happens when \new Voice and \\
are used together.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: extra spacing between staves and verses
Hi, Bill. On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:30:17 -0700, Bill wrote: And it will require a fairly complex explanation in the docs to make it really clear, particularly to those users such as myself who need a good bit of hand-holding! I wouldn't say that. If not for the unfortunate timing, Oops, should add some text here just to be more clear. Send., I'll bet you would have found the same bit on score-markup-spacing in the draft 2.13 manuals, quicker than I did. -Keith ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: extra spacing between staves and verses
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:04:58 -0700, Fr Gilmary wrote:
As it is, the suggestion the other day from Patrick Karl works,i.e., to use:\markup {
}
in between the scores to spread them out more or less ... only it seems like
a temporary type fix, no?
Father Michael,
I would consider Patrick's suggestion to be a good permanent method. If want more space at a few
particular places, putting a space there seems clear in its purpose, so you will
remember what it is for if you revise this year from now. You can adjust the gap by lowering the
space with \markup\lower #7 . (When version 2.14 comes out, we can simplify this to
\markup\vspace#6 to get exactly six staff-spaces.)
Just to make sure that you know, the 2.13.x versions are the experimental
versions to be used for testing new features that will go into the next usable
version 2.14. (By convention the versions odd numbers after the decimal are
trials for the even numbers.) That means there will be bugs, but 2.13.37
appears very close to stable so it should be reasonably usable.
Actually, I'm trying to help clean up bugs in the spacing system, so I
investigated this:
I've tried your sample file and still there is no
change whatsoever with the score-system-spacing values. I don't know why ---
The score-system-spacing settings handle the case when there is no markup text
between scores. (If there is markup text, the LilyPond uses
markup-system-spacing instead.)
Bill's helpful comment (with my minor correction)
piece=score-system-spacing affects spacing between 'scores' - but not between
[markup like title, piece, etc.] and the score
was itself markup text, so adding it caused LilyPond to refer to
markup-system-spacing instead.
We have to appreciate the irony in that.
--
Keith
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Controlling between-system-padding for specific systems
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:33:30 -0700, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote: I know it is possible to control the between-system-padding of an entire score, but I want to know if it is possible to do that for specific systems instead? For practical purposes, Richie, I would so 'no'. There is a snippet http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=227 that does what you ask, but I would not recommend it, because the particular aspect of LilyPond that this snippet uses will change significantly in 2.14, so you would then have to learn something different. (I can only speaking for myself, but I am unable to adapt that snippet to work on the development version 2.13.37) I do not hesitate to tell LilyPond to treat a particular item as if were bigger, especially if that item is associated with the reason that I want the extra space : % I want a 30-staff-line gap above the line where this tempo-change falls \once\override Score.RehearsalMark #'minimum-Y-extent = #'(0 . 30) \mark Allegro Molto ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, spacing ajusments
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:25:31 -0700, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net
wrote:
... However, I don't like the resulting look of the
output, as the space between the bottom stave on each page and the foot
of the page varies too much for my taste.
The simplest way to ask LilyPond to stretch big orchestral systems a little less, was to
tell her to consider the space between systems, and the space at the bottom of the page,
to be *very* stretchable. These adjustments are in paper_adjustments.ily
attached.
I worried that this adjustment would make Nick's problem even worse, *but* on
my parts the extra space at the bottom remains uniform, 1 to 1.5 staff spaces,
even though the staves are quite uneven due to page-turn considerations.
We should get the bottom staves to be perfectly even across pages, if we sets
the bottom stretchability to zero:
\paper { last-bottom-spacing = #'(
(space . 1) (padding . 1) (minimum-distance . 0) (stretchability . 0)
)}
I set the full list of parameters above, even though I changed only one of
them, to work-around recently-reported bug 1338.
My first draft of adjustments is attached, and the toy score below shows how I
use them. The files are mostly comment, with just a few overrides. While
experimenting, I found it helpful to prevent the number of pages from changing,
using \paper{page-count=#5}
Jan and choral folk, maybe a little more #'non-affinity-spacing is needed to
keep the Lyrics from being confused with the next staff? You know that I have
no experience with vocal music, but these files make Jan's setting of the
Messiah look good to my eyes.
I will be quiet for a couple days over the weekend, but will not forget this.
==
Keith
==8==
\version 2.13.37
\paper {
\include paper_adjustments.ily
}
\pointAndClickOff
m = { \repeat unfold 20 c''1 \repeat unfold 60 s1 \repeat unfold 20 c''1 }
o = { \repeat unfold 100 c''1 }
\score {
\new PianoStaff
\new Staff \m
\new Staff \m
%{%}
\new Staff \m \new Staff \m
\new Staff \o \new Staff \o \new Staff \o
\new Staff \o
\new StaffGroup
\new Staff \o \new Staff \o
%{%}
%{%}
\layout {
\context {\Staff \RemoveEmptyStaves }
\include layout_adjustments.ily
}
}
layout_adjustments.ily
Description: Binary data
paper_adjustments.ily
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, spacing ajusments
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:48:06 -0700, Keith E OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
1) The systems (that is, the sets of staffs that are being played at the same
time)are stretched too much compared to the space between the systems. If
there is only one system on the page, it is stretched to fill the page.
(attached pictures)
I made a toy. You all may play with my toy, if you tell me what values for the
stretchabilities make professional-looking scores.
\version 2.13.37
\paper {
% \include ../paper_adjustments.ily
% To reduce excessive stretching of systems, especially with one system per
page
% increase stretchability. Other parameters left at -.37 defaults
% (stretchability was 5 staff-spaces)
last-bottom-spacing = #'((space . 1) (padding . 1) (minimum-distance . 0)
(stretchability . 200))
% (stretchability was unset: docs infer that it defaults to space; not
confirmed)
system-system-spacing = #'((space . 12) (minimum-distance . 8) (padding . 1)
(stretchability . 800))
}
m = { \repeat unfold 40 c''1 \repeat unfold 90 s1}
o = { \repeat unfold 130 c''1 }
\score {
\new PianoStaff
\new Staff \m
\new Staff \m
\new Staff \m \new Staff \m \new Staff \m
\new Staff \m
\new Staff \o \new Staff \o \new Staff \o
\new StaffGroup
\new Staff \o \new Staff \o
\layout {
\context {\Staff \RemoveEmptyStaves }
% \include ../layout_adjustments.ily
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, spacing ajusments
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:01:26 -0700, Nick wrote: Actually, the vertical layout problem I reported a few weeks ago (http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1252) still exists with 2.13.37. The information in the bug tracker indicates that, when LilyPond plans how many systems to put on each page, she sometimes misunderestimates the space needed by rehearsal marks, and other such things that are logically outside the Staff context. So we would expect sometimes the spacing algorithm will sometimes be asked to fit more on a page than is possible, especially in single-staff parts with volta repeats and marks. If we restrict our efforts to cases where .37 simply does a bad job arranging staves that *could* fit nicely on the page, such efforts should not be wasted. Now, a user might be pro-active and think, Let me just tell LilyPond that I don't need her to try to pack so many staves on each page in this particular score: system-system-spacing #'space = 20 % staff spaces (or between-system-space = 25\mm in stable 2.12) Alas! LilyPond does not change her page-break decisions based on our requested space (with any of the page-breaking algorithms) (though she does layout pages differently in response to between-system-padding). Nick, Since it seems you actually let LilyPond choose page breaks for you, do you have any ideas for how to set defaults so that issue 1252 appears as rarely as a sunny day in Glasgow ? (I gave up on page-breaking-system-system-spacing because it seems to affect the page breaker in the same ineffective way as system-system-spacing.) No lack of confidence in the developers, of course, but it could happen that the only true repair for issue 1252 is LilyPond will just have to do a detailed trial layout in the planning phase, no more guessing, taking about twice as long to set scores. - Keith ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
alpha test, spacing ajusments
Friends of the forthcoming Lilypond 2.14,
The third alpha version, 2.13.37, has resolved the obvious problems in the
spacing mechanism. The default spacing, though, could use some adjustment.
Now is our opportunity to recommend good defaults.
I have been having fun testing the alpha version on a selection of well-known
scores, both mine and some from mutopiaproject.org : Chopin's Preludes,
Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Debussy's Clair de Lune, Dvorák's New World Symphony.
Jan Warchoł has been trying it on choral music.
Concentrating first on vertical spacing, two aspects are ugly :
1) The systems (that is, the sets of staffs that are being played at the same
time) are stretched too much compared to the space between the systems. If
there is only one system on the page, it is stretched to fill the page.
(attached pictures)
2) Lyrics do not get enough space between their neighboring staffs, as noted earlier
in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2010-10/msg00427.html
What else?
What do you need to adjust in the vertical spacing that 2.13.37 does to your
scores?
How do you do it?
We can talk horizontal spacing when we get bored with the vertical.
Keith
P.S. on what I am doing with this input.
I am starting to collect a short list of adjustments in a form that can be
included in a score :
\paper {
\include paper_adjustments.ily
}
\score {
a c e
\layout {
\include layout_adjustments.ily
}
}
The layout_adjustments file is, so far, mostly a big comment block listing what
complaints we might (or might not) be able to resolve. I'll attach it,
although it only fixes a couple rare problems so far. (paper_adjustments is
only comment so far)
-Keith
layout_adjustments.ily
Description: Binary data
attachment: score12.jpgattachment: score13.jpg___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Parallel dynamics, markup, sponsor, etc.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:13:49 -0700, Valentin Villenave wrote: the goal would be to improve LilyPond's *default* behaviour, not to require users to change the syntax they use. Now, if power-users happen to want to modify the new behavior (and even possibly disable it), they should *also* have be presented with the ability to do it. What is wrong with that? Well, that would be spiffy (c'est a dire, super). Your entry in the tracker looks reasonable. I might have been over-reacting after my recent difficulties trying to use CueVoice for purposes formerly recommended in the manual. Or, it may just be that old people always caution against new things; it's part of our job. Werner wrote : % tieDynamic to the next dynamic mark, so that they are placed as a % group tieDynamic = #(make-music 'CrescendoEvent 'span-direction START 'span-type 'text 'span-text ) Hmm, using 2.13.37, this has nasty side effects and doesn't yield the expected result... Hmm, wondering what side effect Werner considered nasty ... guessing what result he might have expected ... Giving up and making a nice lunch. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Parallel dynamics, markup, sponsor, etc.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:14:42 -0700, Werner LEMBERG wrote: it looks like `dynamic-gap.png' (attached), and the huge gap between the crescendo and decrescendo hairpin is not what I expect. Additionally, I get a nasty warning programming error: Improbable offset for stencil: -nan staff space Setting to zero. Now I see. My favorite feature in the alpha-version is the new post-fix text crescendo/diminuendo. Blank text in a spanning dynamic seemed like the natural way to indicate that dynamics are logically connected, even though they have a horizontal gap. Maybe the underlying support for the new \cresc will allow a non-hackish way to do what you expected, after we learn how to use it. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Parallel dynamics, markup, sponsor, etc.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:20:27 -0700, Valentin Villenave valen...@villenave.net wrote: You're right. I think I'm gonna suggest a patch for our 2.14 Documentation. (attached) No, Wait! Trevor and I already worked out a revision . . . Ah. Very funny. Where were you when I was defending the need for doc changes? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Levelling sustain-pedal indications
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:51:11 -0700, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
In a piano page chock full of bracket-style pedalling for chords at
widely different pitch levels, I've managed to align the horizontal
pedalling lines vertically, via a zillion little paragraphs like
Pete,
You can put the pedal indications in their own separate row, which is placed as
if it were a third staff. One of the snippets,
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=357, defines an analog of Staff called
Dynamics that can hold dynamics and pedaling, but does not print staff lines. The
essence of it is below, plus a \remove statement to remove the pedaling indications
from the regular Staffs, so you can try this out without much retyping. The leftHand
part is included twice in the score block; the Staff prints the notes, while Dynamics
just prints the pedal indications.
People like this Dynamics context well enough that it will come standard in
the next version of LilyPond. I like it for pedaling, but actually don't use
it myself for dynamics, because putting dynamics all on the same horizontal
line forces the left and right-hand staves too far apart for my taste.
leftHand = \relative c {
c4\sustainOn b g\sustainOff e
c4\sustainOn b g\sustainOff e
c4\sustainOn b g\sustainOff e
c4\sustainOn b g\sustainOff e
}
\score {
\new PianoStaff
\new Staff { s1*4 }
\new Staff {
\clef bass
\leftHand
}
\new Dynamics {
\set Dynamics.pedalSustainStyle = #'bracket
\leftHand
}
%{%}
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\remove Piano_pedal_engraver
}
\context {
\PianoStaff
\accepts Dynamics
}
\context {
\type Engraver_group
\name Dynamics
\consists Piano_pedal_engraver
\consists Axis_group_engraver
}
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Colliding whole notes in a default 4 voices (2x2) piece. Files attached
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:04:01 -0700, Nils Gey wrote:
The notes are misaligned verticaly, lilypond does know this and informs me of
this while making the pdf.
[...]Why does this happen?
The .ly file is very long and appears to be automatically-generated code, so
let's ignore that.
The image looks like
\new Staff
\new Voice \relative c'' {
c a c b c c c b
}
\new Voice \relative c'' {
g f g g g a g g
}
except with whole notes in place of quarter notes. The whole notes are displaced in
the same way as notes with stems would need to be displaced so that the stems do not
collide. The warning comes not for the notes that are displaced, but for the f
a combination that has both stems in the same direction.
If you are using Lilypond, use \\ to setup the two voices automatically. Using
\new Voice explicitly, you need to specify yourself which voice is 'VoiceOne'
(see the Lilypond manuals) to set the stem directions. If you want to use
denemo, though, you'll have to look at its docs are ask its developers how to
get what you want.attachment: s.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Parallel dynamics, markup, sponsor, etc.
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:17:05 -0700, Valentin Villenave wrote:
I could imagine a way of making LilyPond aware of nearly-adjacent
dynamics. Something like a 'neighborhood property, that would take a
ly:moment as argument... If anyone else wants to help write a feature
request, I'll add it to the tracker.
Dynamics already align if they are adjacent in time; I realized this quite
quickly as a new user.
Please don't ask the poor users to learn another new concept, if we can extend
what they have learned already.
In 2.14 we should be able to do this (because we already can in the development
version) :
% tieDynamic to the next dynamic mark, so that they are placed as a group
tieDynamic = #(make-music 'CrescendoEvent 'span-direction START 'span-type 'text
'span-text )
{
d'16 \ d'' d''\! \tieDynamic d'' \ d''
d''\! c\ c'' c''\!
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: MIDI playback lacks polyphony
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:42:09 -0700, Jan wrote:
2010/10/21 Javier Ruiz-Alma
Hello Dear Gurus,
Lilypond is correctly engraving this score in .pdf, which has some
sections of single-staff polyphony. However, the MIDI playback on my PC
plays one voice only. I'm ignorant to where the problem is. Is
my lilypond syntax incorrect? Is my PC (Win7/WMP10) not able to play
multivoice MIDI? Is lilypond not adding the 2nd voice to the MIDI file?
Thank You, Javier
Looks like only the notes that are repeated are
lost (i.e. in measure 4 there is still ees2 from lower voice sounding while
ees8 in upper voice appears, and this ees from upper voice is missing).
There is a lot of stuff going on in your example, Javier, but it looks like Jan
narrowed it down to the thing that was bothering you.
Lilypond chooses to omit repeated notes from the MIDI file, if the earlier note
in the same MIDI channel and if the earlier note would continue sounding
through the new note. (Arguably, this is not the very best thing for Lilypond
to do. If I put the repeated notes in by hand-editing the .midi file, they
happen to play on windows media player, but I've heard people argue about
whether such notes are legal MIDI.)
If you have several voices on each staff, but less than 16 voices total, then you
probably want to use the method in the Snippet: Changing MIDI output to one channel
per voice
\score {
\new Staff \relative c''
c e g1 {c,8 e g c e g c e}
\layout{}
%\midi {}
\midi {
\context {
\Staff
\remove Staff_performer
}
\context {
\Voice
\consists Staff_performer
}
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beam slope
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:08:51 -0700, Ralph wrote:
I'm currently using version 2.12.3. I've noticed that sometimes Lilypond
uses sloped beams, and sometimes uses level beams, in places that appear to
be almost identical. Specifically, see the snippet in the Learning Manual,
Section 1.1 Background = What symbols to engrave,
I think you are noticing that the beam is level when the inner notes have the
shorter stems :
\relative c' {d16 g g g g d d d }
This is on purpose, and you might enjoy looking at the regression tests called
beam-concave*.ly. These might be in your installation
install-directory/source/input/regression/, otherwise at
lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/input/
regression/collated-files.html
(Line break in the link because it's too big a file to fetch accidentally)
-Keith
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
how-to break lines before grace notes
I hesitate to admit this, but when I noticed that explicit line-breaks before grace notes
were failing with should you be using bar checks?, I searched the mailing
list archives more thoroughly than I searched the manual. The archives had nothing
helpful, so I made up a solution . . . which seemed somehow familiar.
The friendly advice about grace notes and bar lines, applies to line breaks as
well :
Notation Reference 1.2.6 Special rhythmic concerns - Grace notes, Acciaccatura,
Appoggiatura
Staff notation . . . are also synchronized [to grace notes]. Take care when you
mix staves with grace notes and staves without . . . This can be remedied by inserting
grace skips of the corresponding durations in the other staves.
Either put the \break s in the staff with the grace notes, or put a
synchronizing spacer grace in the voice with the \break s.
\relative c''{
\new Staff { e1\grace c16 d1 }
\new Staff { s1 \break \grace s16 s1 }
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: orchestral template, please comment
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:00:55 -0700, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote: While all these suggestions are perfectly reasonable, let's not forget after all this is a *template*. Yep. If any clear need comes to light from this discussion of the new spacing, let's make it an enhancement request to adjust the defaults. My submission to LSR will not override the default spacing.y I'm quite happy to have a point of interest that gets people looking at http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719 and hopefully taking a moment to think if it would have helped them when they were new users. (For a while there I though I might need to start a \transpose \transposition flame-war.) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Parallel dynamics, markup, sponsor, etc.
LilyPond where one could add a tag to certain dynamics to make them
parallel: e.g.
a'\p?var1 c' d' b'\mf?var1 f'\markup{asdf}?var1 d''2\?var2 e''4\!
c''\?var2 b'\!
James wrote:
If I understand correctly, is this similar to the (rather hackish, imo) lsr
snippet? http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=450
I don't think so. What I mean is with multiple notes so that the dynamics
above each note (not the same note) are the same height above the staff.
Cordilow,
I strongly encourage you to try that snippet.
Lilypond already places the dynamics above different notes at the same height above the staff,
unless the notes push the dynamics too far from the staff. The snippet shows how to
choose how far is too far by adjusting #'staff-padding in units of staff-spaces. (I
think James was joking to call this 'hackish'.)
Something close to the tagging concept that you mention already exists. Any group of
dynamics that are immediately consecutive in time are placed as a group at the same
height. The asdf in your example can be put in a dynamic mark, and you can
fill in any gaps in time with an invisible crescendo (which would be hackish). Try this :
\paper {ragged-right=##t}
asdf = #(make-dynamic-script (markup #:normal-text asdf))
% let the next crescendo be invisible, just to tie Dynamics
tD = { \once \override Hairpin #'stencil = ##f }
{ \dynamicUp % because you said 'above' the notes
\tD a'4\p\ c' d' \tD b'\mf\ f'\asdf
d''2\ \tD e''4\!\ c''\ b'\! r2
\break
\override DynamicLineSpanner #'staff-padding = #4
a'4\p c' d' b'\mf f'\asdf
d''2\ e''4\! c''\ b'\! r2
}
Some people like to put all dynamics at exactly the same height:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=357
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: negative distance between systems
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:01:22 -0700, zbigb wrote:
I tried modifying all of the vertical spacing snippets I could find, but
didn't get any closer,
The link in your message was to the manual for the development version 2.13, and the
vertical spacing system is changing in that version. Instead,
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Vertical-spacing-between-systems#Vertical-spacing-between-systems
I do not understand why doubling between-system-space quadruples the spacing,
but by trial and error :
\version 2.12.3
\paper {
between-system-space = 16 % I want exactly 4 staff-spaces
between-system-padding = #-9
}
{ \repeat unfold 80 { c' d' e' f' } ]
(The development version looks more sane in this area, so this should become
easier in the forthcoming version 2.14 )
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: orchestral template, please comment
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:18:52 +0100 Trevor Daniels wrote: Shouldn't the music for the Horn in F be printed in D major? I will add a comment % Key signature is often omitted for horns. As a user, I can easily insert it if I want it. The previous version omitted this key sig (showing off a nice feature of Lilypond) but with the piece in C-major it was hard to notice. On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 03:25:50 -0700, David Santamauro wrote: there should be visual 'space' in addition to the grouping itself. Agreed, but... Do know a way to do this, in the stable 2.12 version of LilyPond, that we can recommend to new users? The forthcoming 2.14 will have a variable to adjust the space between groups : \override StaffGrouper #'after-last-staff-spacing #'padding = #12 (I think the variable names will be revised on the next alpha-test version.) Once we figure out how to use this feature in the alpha-version, we need to recommend good defaults for the spacing variables. Then we would get good spacing by default, and not need to put an override in this snippet. P.S. Thanks Phil and Reinhold for letting people actually see the snippet http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Re:orchestral template, please comment
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:15:21 -0700, Keith E OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:20:48 -0700, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
All,
How about the other proposed changes?
Do they help to give new users a starting point for the types of scores you
write?
Do they steer new users away from issues and traps?
2) Change the key signature to something other than C.
3) Enter notes as written on parts, as opposed to concert pitch.
[ . . . ]
5) Add \midi{}.
6) Remove redundant parts
Having heard no complaints, a snippet with these changes is in the LSR awaiting
approval.
4) Add some introductory text
Short comments in the snippet itself point out the specifics, so the
introductory text is again very brief:
This template demonstrates the use of nested @code{StaffGroup} and
@code{GrandStaff} contexts to sub-group instruments of the same type together, and a way
to use @code{\transpose} so that variables hold music for transposing instruments at
concert pitch.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: anybody understand the instrumentCueName docs?
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:05:00 -0700, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
wrote:
Moving the \set instrumentCueName into the Voice
context,
as you suggest, will change the time when the CueVoice context is
created
and this may be why it then works. But that is not the root cause
of the
problem, so I would not want to change the documentation until this
is
properly understood.
I no longer see any reason to use instrumentCueName for the labels that identify the
instrument playing cue notes. Doing so makes it easy to make subtle errors, and offers
no advantage over \tag '#part s4*0^\markup\tinyoboe
The instrumentCueName is not preserved for re-use next time we cue that
instrument; we have to re-\set it each time.
It is not automatically placed according to the CueVoice direction; one needs
to manually override the #'direction, of the InstrumentSwitch grob.
It is not always placed near the first cue note, but rather at the moment where
it is \set.
It is printed even where killCues remove the cue notes; one needs to \tag it to
keep it off the score.
It seems instrumentCueName is primarily intended for labeling the instrument a
player switches to, on that player's part. ('CueName' does seem an odd think to
call this particular label.) You store it once with \addInstrumentDefinition
along with the other things that should change at the same time, and re-use it
every time the player needs to pick up that instrument. Using
instrumentCueName to label cue notes is a perversion of its intended purpose.
Now, maybe it would be nice if addQuote stored a label, like
addInstrumentDefinition does, to be printed on each \cueDuring and supressed by
\killCues, but things don't work that way now.
Unless somebody points out redeeming value to using instrumentCueName, I'll
sleep on it a couple days then suggest to Trevor specific cuts from the
documentation. My motivation is to save some new users from the confusion I
went through.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
anybody understand the instrumentCueName docs?
Hello,
I cannot find a way to use the documentation examples for cueDuring with
instrumentCueName in a real score.
I'm thinking of writing up and submitting replacement examples, based on a
snippet from the LSR. First I'd like to see if I just missed the point of the
existing examples.
1) The third example in Formatting cue notes seems to try to create a Voice
inside a CueVoice:
\new CueVoice \with {
instrumentCueName = ob.
} \new Voice {
\cueDuring #oboe #UP { R1 }
g4. b8 d2
}
First, the Internals Ref says CueVoice is not supposed to enclose other Contexts
Second, I cannot figure out how to extend this to longer music with more parts.
For example, I tried to let a third voice quote a longer sequence of music
containing the segment above (attached CueName.ly) and cannot see a way to
structure the changing voices to allow quoting from anywhere in the sequence.
2) Later, in Opera and Stage Musicals the example in Musical Cues does
something similar, but without the \new Voices :
pianoRH = {
c''4 g'
\set CueVoice.instrumentCueName = Flute
\cueDuring flute #UP { g' bes' }
}
Probably we should not be setting a property in a CueVoice before creating a
CueVoice.
If I quote the piano (another attached .ly) lilypond 2.12.3 crashes in
lily-library.scm, while 2.13.35 survives, but fails to quote the piano notes.
The next manual section defines a function \cueWhile, that uses the same
method, making it a bit more convenient to produce the same crash.
I think the solution is found in LSR snippet Adding instrument name and clef change
to cue notes:
Set the instrumentCueName property in the Voice context, not CueVoice.
This seems completely sensible and has worked perfectly for me so far, but is
found nowhere in the manuals. I'll make revised manual examples, as time
allows, unless somebody can explain how the existing ones are supposed to work
in real life.
Given that CueVoices are created behind-the scenes, I think that we users have
no business touching them.
--
Keith
CueName.ly
Description: Binary data
Opera.ly
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: anybody understand the instrumentCueName docs?
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:05:00 -0700, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Keith E OHara wrote Tuesday, October 05, 2010 7:18 AM
\new CueVoice \with {
instrumentCueName = ob.
} \new Voice {
[ . . . ]
this example does not create a new Voice _within_ the CueVoice - it
creates it in parallel with it, both within a Staff context.
Yep. But from the grammar alone, one would think it works like
\new Staff \with {instrumentName=#oboe}
\new Voice { a b c d }
Trevor Daniels wrote:
If voice or cuevoice contexts are created, explicitly or implicitly,
in music which is passed to \addQuote the cue notes are not extracted
correctly. A \set command will implicitly create a voice.
But, just for the record, we may safely \set properties in the *existing* Voice,
within a music expression that we intend to quote.
You can get round this by using tags.
[ . . . ]
\tag #'cue \set CueVoice.instrumentCueName = ob.
Now that should work, scaled to a full score. We need to tag this anyway to clean ob.
and the like from the score. (killCues lets the labels live.) The snippet I said I liked does the
same, except using Voice.instrumentCueName=ob.
It is a long way, however, from the examples in the documentation, to these
solutions.
I am leaning toward suggesting dropping instrumentCueName in favor of simple
\markup, once I check a few things.
-Keith
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re:orchestral template, please comment
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:20:48 -0700, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
1) Remove the outermost \GrandStaff{}
Someone had already made this change in an unapproved snippet. I've
nowapproved it
Thank you, Phil.
Someone was me; I didn't want to let that one problem be forgotten if I got
distracted.
All,
How about the other proposed changes?
Do they help to give new users a starting point for the types of scores you
write?
Do they steer new users away from issues and traps?
2) Change the key signature to something other than C.
3) Enter notes as written on parts, as opposed to concert pitch.
4) Add some the introductory text5) Add \midi{}.
6) Remove redundant parts
my current suggestion for the introductory text being:
This template demonstrates the use of nested @code{StaffGroup} and
@code{GrandStaff} contexts to sub-group instruments of the same
type together, and a way to use @code{\transpose} to handle music
for transposing instruments more conveniently.
The pitches for the clarinet are entered as written on a
manuscript for clarinet in A. The command @code{\transpose c' a}
converts this music expression to concert pitch before it is
stored in @code{clarinetMusic}. In the score, @code{\transpose
bes c' clarinetMusic} produces the pitches to be printed for a
B-flat clarinet. A single application of @\code{\transpose bes a}
would have produced the same output, but consistently storing
music in variables at concert pitch simplifies the mental task
when making new arrangements.
The @code{\transposition bes} statement tells LilyPond that a
printed middle-C in the following music represents the sound of
concert B-flat. This information is used when the sounded pitch
is needed, such as in the MIDI output.
From here, people who want a concert-pitch score can remove the \transpose
operations and \transposition events from the score block. People can
\addQuote the concert-pitch variables and get cue notes with the correct
pitches. People using MIDI output have a playground for experimentation to
learn how \transpose and \transposition function.
People writing for horns that change transposition mid-symphony can put
\transposition events into the music expressions for the horns, and maintain
correctly pitched MIDI and cue notes. (If the music given to \addQuote is
either in concert pitch, or preceded with the correct \transposition event,
then we get the right quoted pitches.)
--
Keith
orchestra_template.ly
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming to rests over system breaks
Mike,
My plan A was to specify the beam positions. However, the beam insists on
staying horizontal regardless of the position override (probably for the same
reason that it didn't work to simply giving the rest a pitch).
Plan B would be to use hidden notes. If we put them a bit earlier in time
than the rest, there are no warnings, and the pitch of the hidden note can
slope the beam appropriately. Plan B opens up some horizontal space, but that
might be a good thing around unusual notation.
I also made the first rest a r16*2/3 to squarely fill the first measure.
--
Keith
{ \override Staff.Stem #'stemlet-length = #0.60
\override Beam #'breakable = ##t
\relative c' {
r16*2/3 \repeat unfold 40
\times 2/3 {
%% plan A
% \once\override Beam #'positions = #'(2 . 2)
% f8[ g16\rest]
%% plan B
f8[ \hideNotes a16*1/2 \unHideNotes a\rest]
%%
}
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
orchestral template, please comment
Dear orchestral writers,
I don't use LilyPond for orchestral scores very often, which means that I
need to refer to the template in Appendix 5.1 of the Learning Manual.
There is one bug with the template, and five other changes that I suggest to
help it meet the goals set in its introduction. Would those of you who set
orchestral scores please comment on these?
In one or two weeks I plan to put those changes on which there is consensus
into the LSR, and ask for approval to incorporate the revised snipped into the
docs.
-Keith
1) Remove the outermost \GrandStaff{}
According to the Internals Reference, GrandStaff does not accept any of the
StaffGroup/RhythmicStaff/ChoirStaff contexts that were placed inside it. A new
Staff (which _is_ accepted in GrandStaff) inserted into the current template
will appear at the very top of the printed score, regardless of where it lay in
the input.
2) Change the key signature to something other than C.
Make visible that the french horn part was written without a key signature.
3) Enter notes as written on the instrument parts, as opposed to concert pitch.
The introductory text says that one can, so show how.
4) Revise the introductory text (the block comment at the front of the attached
.ly).h
a) Say 'in concert pitch' rather than 'in C'
b) Point out how we use \transpose as a tool for our convenience
c) State that \transposition gives information to LilyPond
5) Add \midi{}.
Make it easy to experiment with \transposition, and show that a default midi
output is produced, even without \set midiInstrument.
6) Remove Oboe Bassoon HornII and Trombone parts.
Reduce clutter, without removing any pedagogical value.
orchestra_template.ly
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: orchestral template, please comment
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:54:23 -0700, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote: Have you looked at Reinhold's OrchestralLily package? The documentation, yes, but I have not used the package. I was a bit curious to compare the plain .ly score that Reinhold's package would create to the template in A.5.1. However, his package does not seem to generate an intermediate text file; it seems to go from the OrchestraLily input file directly to scheme objects. The models I found most useful were Jay Alexander's scores on mutopia. -Keith ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
alpha test autobeaming
In First impressions of alpha test I wrote:
The auto-beaming seems to beam a little less often than the
old system.
My old scores had two situations with missing beams, neither one is a
simple
regression:
1) swung triplets in 2/8 are not beamed. Both 2.12 and 2.13 are missing
beams, but in different ways. My intention is to report on bug-lilypond
after giving a bit of time to hear from other users.
\relative c'' {
\time 6/16
c16 c c c8 c16
\time 2/8
\times 2/3 {c16 c c} \times 2/3 {c8 c16}
\scaleDurations #'(2 . 3) {c16 c c c8 c16}
}
2) Both 2.12 and 2.13 miss beams in the middle of a particular cadenza.
But my minimal example is
{ \override Fingering #'add-stem-support = ##t
\cadenzaOn
\repeat unfold 4 {c8 c c c \bar}
\cadenzaOff
}
Removing the stem-support (!) removes the problem, on the Win32 builds.
Actually, 2.12 drew all the beams in the actual score
(http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=1776) but started
to drop beams as I simplified.
Number 2 does not seem to be worthwhile to chase, so I will only report at
bug-lilypond if some other user has suffered this bug, or if developers
want the info in bug-report form.
P.S. My advice to users using the new autobeaming: Read the manual
backwards, seriously.
In the Notation Reference, 1.2.4 Setting-Automatic-Beam-Behaviour, read
1) snippet with the measure grouping signs to learn beatStructure, simple
use of baseMoment (p74)
2) snippet with all the 32nd notes (demisemiquavers) to learn
subdivideBeams (p73)
3) section on how to apply autobeaming rules to individual voices (starts
bottom p71)
4) section on how autobeaming makes exceptions to the basic beatStructure
(p71)
5) finally, if you want, the talk-through of the code (p70)attachment: A12.pngattachment: A13.pngattachment: cadenza.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
First impressions of alpha test
What are everyone's first impressions of 2.13.34, the alpha test? I remembered to run convert-ly (which worked for me, but I don't have MacOS 10.4, where James W ran into trouble) but it made very few changes to scores written for 2.12. The change that jumped out at me was the spacing, both of notes and staves. Where 2.12 was too timid in trying to fit staves on a page, 2.13 sometimes tries to fit too many. I had some between-system-spacing/padding assignments in the paper blocks, put there to encourage tighter spacing from 2.12. The docs indicate that the vertical spacing variables have changed their structure (I'll have to see if convert-ly flagged them for me) so I removed them, and was much happier with the output. The horizontal spacing now quite aggressively tucks notes under/over the accidentals of the following notes. Maybe I will not need to reduce shortest-duration-space any more. The space between the first or last note in a measure, and the neighboring barline, seems occasionally too tight -- but maybe I'll like that, once I get used to it. The auto-beaming has changed, and seems to beam a little less often than the old system. The differences I saw were in tuplets, so I cannot yet say if there are any standard beams missing. So I'm hopeful that the eventual 2.14 will have equivalently pretty output to 2.12, with less need to override. (Okay, more pretty; the lined-up instrument names at the left of the score are very nice.) My hunch is that the default parameters, for the new spacing and auto-beaming systems, will get some adjustment after we find clean examples where adjustment is needed. -Keith ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: visual problem on two triplets in 4/4 time
My mother found a problem when I write continuous triplets. For example,
\time 4/4 c'4 c' \times 2/3 { c'8 d' e' } \times 2/3 { f' g' a' }
The two triplets are grouped like one sextupplet, but with two 3's. What's the
problem? Is it a wrong practice in notation convention? Is it controlled by
beam settings?
There must be something else in your score that changes the grouping. The
lines below give me two separately-beamed triplets.
\version 2.12.3 % and 2.13 gives the same output
{ \time 4/4 c'4 c' \times 2/3 { c'8 d' e' } \times 2/3 { f' g' a' }
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: First impressions of alpha test
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:41:24 -0700, Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Keith E OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: The horizontal spacing now quite aggressively tucks notes under/over the accidentals of the following notes. Do you consider this desirable? There are a couple bug reports about related things (eg. 1229) Personally, I have a neutral opinion on the aggressive tucking. The related issues I see in the tracker are about clearly-undesirable effects. I intended to avoid saying anything that sounded like a bug report. I'll need time to get used to 2.13, and separate bugs from issues I caused myself, before complaining on bug-lilypond about anything. -Keith ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
