Swung quaver notation
Dear all, I'd like to get a direction for swung quavers at the top of my score. What I want is: quaver-beam-quaver = triplet[ crotchet quaver ] if that makes sense. I've had a look through the lilypond-user archives and it seems it wasn't possible 5 years ago: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2004-02/msg00273.html have things changed at all since then or am I stuck with no beam between the quavers? Thanks, Philip ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Swung quaver notation
That looks good, thanks! I'll try it out when I get home from work... 2009/11/27 -Eluze : > > > Philip Potter wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> I'd like to get a direction for swung quavers at the top of my score. >> What I want is: >> >> quaver-beam-quaver = triplet[ crotchet quaver ] >> > > http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=204 lsr helps: > http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=204 > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Swung-quaver-notation-tp26539758p26540352.html > Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Swung quaver notation
> 2009/11/27 -Eluze : >> >> >> Philip Potter wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I'd like to get a direction for swung quavers at the top of my score. >>> What I want is: >>> >>> quaver-beam-quaver = triplet[ crotchet quaver ] >>> >> >> http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=204 lsr helps: >> http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=204 Ok I tried this out and it does the job great, thank you very much. I have some questions though: I seem to have to put this markup into a score. I am producing a score and parts: ie one score with all parts shown, and one separate part for each instrument. As a result, each instrument separately needs to include the swung quaver mark, and the score needs it too; but only once. If I put the swung quaver mark into each part, it produces the output I want, but I get warnings from lilypond: warning: Two simultaneous mark events, junking this one warning: Previous mark event here[8][16][24][32] because in the full score, each part is separately specifying a swung quaver markup at the same point. My questions are as follows: * is it possible to specify this markup at the staffgroup or book level, rather than at the score level, to avoid duplicate definition of marks and getting these warnings? * Is there any other way to do this in some more correct way which prevents warnings from being thrown up? It got me thinking about rehearsal marks which are implemented similarly: * If I want rehearsal marks to show up in the score and all parts, do rehearsal marks have to be specified within each part separately? Isn't this an unnecessary and error-prone duplication of information? Shouldn't these things be specified in one place only? I notice that if I put a \mark \default in part #1 at bar 2, but in part #1 at bar 3, then the full score has rehearsal mark A at bar 2 and B at bar 3; but the separate part for part #1 has A at bar 2 and nothing at bar 3, while the separate part for part #2 has A (not B!) at bar 3 and nothing at bar 2. This would happen if I put rehearsal marks in all parts but mistakenly misalign them -- everything suddenly goes totally screwy. Lilypond issues no diagnostics to report a problem here. Of course, to avoid printing the "wrong" rehearsal mark one can specify \mark #1 in both parts, and then you won't get an erroneous B mark; but then you lose the benefits of having the computer do the counting for you. Philip ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: triplet chord
2009/12/2 Hugh Myers :
> Same chord repeated three times.
This works for me:
\relative c' {
\times 2/3 {}
}
For 3 triplets followed by 3 regular notes.
Phil
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: triple stop warnings
2009/12/11 Jay Anderson : > I've done triple-stops like this in the past: > << c4 2.\fermata >> > > I'd prefer to do the triple-stop something more like this to avoid warnings: > <\tweak #'duration-log #2 \tweak #'dot-count #0 c g' e'>2.\fermata | > > Unfortunately I can't make the dot disappear easily (the dot-count > thing I was trying doesn't work). I could probably write a function to > remove the dot for this case (which might not be a bad idea: > \tripleStop 2.\fermata), but if there's a simple tweak to get > rid of the dot I'd be interested to know. Does this fall under the > recent \tweak nested properties changes? Thanks. Is this notation something you've seen other music producers use? It sounds like you want a chord with a crotchet at the bottom and two fermata'd minims at the top; and you want to ignore the warning about the lower crotchet not being the same length as the minims. I'm not convinced that this is the best way to do what you want, but I'm not a string player so I'm not familiar with string music conventions. Something similar is done in "using ties with arpeggios" in the manual: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Writing-rhythms#Ties and it does what you want but it's not quite what you asked for. Another way is to represent the two halves of the chord as two or three voices, and just put rests in each voice while it isn't playing. You could then make the rests invisible to get something like what you were originally asking for. You could represent the double-stop as a tied appoggiatura. I think this is the best way to be explicit about what you want. Or you could just put a full chord in and expect the player to know what that means. Isn't this how triple stops are normally done? Eg Elgar cello concerto, first two chords: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/LookInside/ElgarVc.html Tchaikovsky 6th symphony, third movement ending: http://bennewhouse.berkleemusicblogs.com/2009/09/24/a-tchaikovsky-chord-stops/ Phi ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: triple stop warnings
2009/12/11 Owain Sutton : > On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:20 +0000, Philip Potter wrote: >> 2009/12/11 Jay Anderson : >> > I've done triple-stops like this in the past: >> > << c4 2.\fermata >> >> > >> > I'd prefer to do the triple-stop something more like this to avoid >> > warnings: >> > <\tweak #'duration-log #2 \tweak #'dot-count #0 c g' e'>2.\fermata | >> > >> > Unfortunately I can't make the dot disappear easily (the dot-count >> > thing I was trying doesn't work). I could probably write a function to >> > remove the dot for this case (which might not be a bad idea: >> > \tripleStop 2.\fermata), but if there's a simple tweak to get >> > rid of the dot I'd be interested to know. Does this fall under the >> > recent \tweak nested properties changes? Thanks. >> >> Is this notation something you've seen other music producers use? It >> sounds like you want a chord with a crotchet at the bottom and two >> fermata'd minims at the top; and you want to ignore the warning about >> the lower crotchet not being the same length as the minims. I'm not >> convinced that this is the best way to do what you want, but I'm not a >> string player so I'm not familiar with string music conventions. > > > This kind of thing is perfectly normal notation, as an explicit > instruction to arpeggiate a chord in a certain way - off-hand, examples > I can think of are in the last movement of Tchaik 5, and various points > in the Stravinsky violin concerto. Do you have a graphical example? I still can't picture it, and it would help greatly to understand exactly what is wanted. Phil ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: triple stop warnings
2009/12/11 Owain Sutton :
> I realise now I've checked that the Tchaikovsky does have rests in the
> lower 'voice'. The Stravinsky doesn't, however, - but you can just
> about make it out here, at figure 2:
> http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/look_inside/5867960/image/262798
How about this? First two chords of Elgar cello concerto:
\relative c {
\clef bass
<<
{
\voiceOne
2
2
}
\new Voice {
\voiceTwo
16 s16 s8 s4
16 s16 s8 s4
}
>>
}
Basic idea is using multiple voices to represent the different chord
parts, and hiding rests by using the 's' spacer (invisible) rest. A
little clunky with quite a lot of syntactic cruft; I don't know
lilypond well enough to say if there's a better way of doing it.
Phil
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: acciaccatura: multiple notes with line drawn through the stem
2009/12/11 stefankaegi :
> Hi
>
> I have a litte problem with acciaccatura. I have something like this:
>
>
> \acciaccatura { c16 [ d16 e16 ]}
>
>
>
> Now I'd like to have this line drawn through the stem like I would have
> it when it would be a single note.
I see you didn't get a response to this the first time. I'm afraid I
can't help you except to note that the Grace Notes section of the
manual
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Special-rhythmic-concerns#Grace-notes
has this to say:
"Known issues and warnings
A multi-note beamed acciaccatura is printed without a slash, and looks
exactly the same as a multi-note beamed appoggiatura. "
IOW, it's a known bug. Can't say if/when it might be fixed though.
Perhaps the problem is that a slash on one note is standardised
notation, but a slash on multiple grace notes is not, particularly
since the notes can have arbitrary relative vertical position, so
getting a slash to go through them all might be tricky.
I don't think you necessarily have a problem here. When you see
multiple grace notes, they are normally interpreted acciaccatura -- as
short as possible -- not appoggiatura -- taking a fixed fraction of
the note they're attached to. See for example Schmuyle's theme from
Pictures at an Exhibition:
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/images/first_pages/BIG/Mussorgsky/Pictures2First_BIG.gif
[passages starts after |: repeat bar.]
The single acciaccatura is slashed, the multiple grace notes are not
slashed, but they are all played as short as possible.
[IMO the appoggiatura is a stupid notation which should be consigned
to the dustbin. If you meant a quaver, write a quaver! Without the
appoggiatura we wouldn't have this stupid mess.]
Phil
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: triple stop warnings
2009/12/12 David Kastrup :
> "Robin Bannister" writes:
>
>>> << c4*3 2. >>
>>
>> Mmm, that was where you started. Sorry for the noise.
>
> You can get a better-looking result at the cost of quadrupling the
> number of warnings.
>
> {
> \clef "G" \relative c' {
> \once \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t
> <2.>> }
> }
>
> This appears to do the right thing. Now if one finds some tweaks that
> will also reassure Lilypond that this is the right thing, that might be
> perfect.
It might be worth writing a specialist function for this; it's the
kind of notation that normally you want to disallow because the note
values don't all add up properly. In this special case, it is allowed
and has a particular meaning.
Phil
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Documentation on collision resolution
I'm confused by the docs for collision resolution: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Multiple-voices#Multiple-voices In the example, the c2 and c8 are not merged because they have different note-heads. But in the second bar, the e2 and e8 *are* merged, despite having different note-heads. Worse, they are given a filled note-head, not an open minim-style notehead. I tried it out on my install (2.12.2) and got the same result as the example. What causes this seeming inconsistency? Why is one merged and the other not? Phil ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: No Work!
Robert, are you clicking "Reply" instead of "Reply all"? I haven't seen any of your messages since the first one, and they aren't appearing in the archives. This can happen if you send replies just to one person and not to the whole list. Please keep all discussion on list - the easiest way to do this is to click "Reply All" and ensure that lilypond-user@gnu.org is in the To: or Cc: list. If the people here can't read your messages, we cannot possibly help you. If you make us work harder to read your messages (by having to check other people's replies for quoted text) then it makes us less likely to help you. Phil 2009/12/15 James Lowe : > Robert, >> On 15.12.2009, at 00:54, Robert Ley wrote: >> >>> Well, with v 2.13.9 I now have the full menu bar and all the >>> commands, but the first open page doesn't compile, no .pdf format >>> reader appears. I've tried saving the file several different ways and >>> re-opening it; doesn't compile. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: hymns: chords vs. voices
2010/1/8 Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) : > >> Why not spend a minute to find an authoritative answer before sending >> speculations to the list? > > Because my memory works like a hash map, so I can find data in it constant > time, while looking in the manual or the archive is in O(nlogn) where n is > the size of the information source. Eeek that's horribly inefficient! Even reading the manual cover-to-cover is O(n)! ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
