Re: How to generate small example PNGs
Thanks for raising the topic. I've been extracting small examples using
Gimp. I'll have to try -dpreview!
Regards,
Bruys
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Ralf Mattes wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:23:28 +0200, Federico Bruni wrote:
>
> > you are missing the option -dpreview
> > it's explained in Usage manual, chapter 1.2
>
> Yes, -dpreview was it (as I could have found myself
> by using -dhelp ...).
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> RalfD
>
>
> > 2011/6/23 Ralf Mattes
> >
> >> Hello list,
> >>
> >> for a webproject with music examples I need to create PNG files with
> >> small mucic examples. I'm shure I once had some examples but I can't
> >> find them any more. I'm currently invoking lilypond like this:
> >>
> >> lilypond --png --output=cadence_3 94244234-tmp.ly
> >>
> >> The file looks something like this:
> >>
> >> \version "2.11.49"
> >>
> >> \header {
> >> tagline = ##f
> >> }
> >>
> >> \paper {
> >> raggedright = ##t
> >> raggedbottom = ##t
> >> }
> >> \score {
> >> {
> >> <<
> >> \new Staff \relative c' {\clef violin
> >> >> g c> }
> >> \new Staff {\clef bass e f d g c }
> >> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> }
> >> \layout {
> >> indent = 0\mm
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> But the png still displays a whole (almost empty) page. What am I
> >> missing?
> >>
> >> TIA Ralf Mattes
> >>
> >>
> >> ___ lilypond-user mailing
> >> list
> >> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> >>
> > you are missing the option -dpreviewit's explained in Usage
> > manual, chapter 1.22011/6/23 Ralf
> > Mattes < > href="mailto:r...@mh-freiburg.de";>r...@mh-freiburg.de>
> > Hello list,
> > for a webproject with music examples I need to create PNG files with
> > small mucic examples. I'm shure I once had some examples but I
> > can't find them any more. I'm currently invoking lilypond
> > like this:
> > lilypond --png --output=cadence_3 http://94244234-tmp.ly";
> > target="_blank">94244234-tmp.ly
> >
> > The file looks something like this:
> > \version "2.11.49"
> >
> > \header {
> > tagline = ##f
> > }
> >
> > \paper {
> > raggedright = ##t
> > raggedbottom = ##t
> > }
> > \score {
> > {
> > <<
> > \new Staff \relative c' {\clef violin <e g c> <a c d,>
> > <f a c> <f g b> <e g c> } \new Staff {\clef bass
> >e f d g c }
> > >>
> > }
> >
> > }
> > \layout {
> > indent = 0\mm
> > }
> >
> >
> > But the png still displays a whole (almost empty) page. What am I
> > missing?
> > TIA Ralf Mattes
> >
> >
> > ___ lilypond-user
> > mailing list
> > mailto:lilypond-user@gnu.org";>lilypond-user@gnu.org > href="https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user";
> > target="_blank">https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> >
> > ___ lilypond-user mailing
> > list
> > lilypond-user@gnu.org
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why does lily prints both a natural and sharp sign?
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Phil Holmes wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Xavier Scheuer" > To: "Marc Mouries" > Cc: "lilypond-user" > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 2:03 PM > Subject: Re: why does lily prints both a natural and sharp sign? > > > > On 11 June 2011 14:57, Marc Mouries wrote: >> >>> >>> thanks for the info. >>> >>> >>> This is standard typesetting rules. >>>> >>> >>> I have several copies of Debussy clair de lune in D flat and I have never >>> seen a natural sign before the g sharp >>> Here is an example on IMSLP: >>> >>> http://imslp.org/wiki/Suite_Bergamasque_%28Debussy%2C_Claude%29#Clair_de_lune_.28No.3.29_2 >>> Is there a place online where these rules can be looked up? >>> >>> >> I do not know it is "standard typesetting rules" that accidentals _at >> the key signature_ implies extra naturals, though. >> Some people have valuable (books) references, such as Ted Ross or >> Gardner Read, maybe they could check the "rules" concerning key >> signature and extra naturals. >> >> I am not aware of (free) online version of music typesetting rules >> (conventions), but again, maybe other users have advice. >> > > I've looked at Ted Ross, Kurt Stone, Gardner Read and Elaine Gould and > can't find any explicit mention of this. The closest I can find is page 126 > of my Gardner Read, where he shows the double-flat to flat transition as > requiring a natural-flat sign to emphasise that it's a single flat. You > could argue that a sharp on a note which would normally be flat should have > the same natural-sharp notation, to emphasise that you're not sharpening the > note (to natural) but making it a sharp. > > -- > Phil Holmes > > > > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > Howdy, For completeness, I feel I should mention that this issue is discussed with relation to double accidentals in Elaine Gould (p. 81, "Cancelling accidentals"). It is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article titled "Accidental": Note that in a few cases the accidental might change the note by more than a semitone <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitone>: for example, if a G sharp is followed in the same measure by a G flat, the flat sign on the latter note means it will be two semitones lower than if no accidental were present. Thus, the effect of the accidental has to be understood in relation to the "natural" meaning of the note's staff position<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staff_position>. For the sake of clarity, some composers put a natural in front of the accidental. Thus, if in this example the composer actually wanted the note a semitone lower than G-natural, he might put first a natural sign to cancel the previous G-sharp, then the flat. However, under most contexts, an F-sharp could be used instead. In the Notation Reference http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/displaying-pitches#automatic-accidentals under the "modern" style, it would be clearer if the sentence "The modernrule prints the same accidentals as default, with two exceptions..." were amended to "Other than this, the modern rule prints the same accidentals as default, with two further exceptions...", or otherwise rewritten, as the sentence before it has been added explaining that this style also prints fewer natural signs. Regards, Bruys ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Notation convention: dotted notes, duplet or else?
I would have to agree with the other correspondents here, that there is no
one answer.
Conventionally, your 4th example is likely to be used, as it keeps the 3
beats in the measure clear. Generally, dotted notes don't start on the weak
part of a beat and extend into the next beat.
However, if the part were playing a consistent cross-rhythm, playing 2 beats
against 3 beats in the other parts, then your 1st example (or 3rd, depending
on your notation) would be the usual way to do it, as this would make your
intentions clear, in this case. This may be related to your idea of there
being a tempo relationship.
Your 2nd example is not likely to be used often, as the two ties are fussy
without introducing any extra clarity to the beat. But, I can imagine it
might be used to visually make a parallel to another part, in rare
circumstances.
Regards,
Bruys
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Xavier Scheuer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question not about LilyPond itself but about notational
> conventions (rules). Maybe you know better or I know some have great
> references such as Ted Ross or Gardner Read.
>
> In 3/4 times, what would be the recommended notation of the following
> rhythm?
>
> \time 3/4
> % proposal 1: dotted notes
> c4. c4. |
> % proposal 2: tied notes
> c4~ c8 c8~ c4 |
> % proposal 3: duplet
> \times 3/2 { c4 c4 } |
> % proposal 4: mix (not "symmetric")
> c4. c8~ c4 |
>
>
> Does it depend on the tempo (fast = one beat (2.)
> or slow = 3 beats (4 4 4))?
> I would say that duplet is better for fast (one beat) tempo, but maybe
> dotted notes are better at slow (3 beats) tempo?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Cheers,
> Xavier
>
> --
> Xavier Scheuer
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tuplet bracket length
Dear Janek,
Thanks for the reply. Please see comments, below.
Regards,
Bruys
2011/4/18 Janek Warchoł
> Dear Bruce,
>
> 2011/4/16 bruys . :
> > I've read this thread. It seems to be mainly concerned with making the
> > brackets extend to the full duration of the notes, like it is shown in
> the
> > snippets, but that is not what I want to do here. I've added a couple of
> > '\overrides' ('shorten-pair' was mentioned in the thread) which achieve
> the
> > desired outcome (see below), but the solution seems terribly fragile. A
> > different manual '\override' will need to be put in place for each
> different
> > tuplet.
> >
> > It is not clear what units 'shorten-pair' uses (I just used trial and
> > error);
>
> I'd guess it uses staffspaces (the distance between staff lines), it's
> a commonly used Lily unit.
>
> > or why putting a value of 0.0 in the first position actually
> > shortens the bracket on the left-hand end.
>
> Very often 0.0 isn't the default value. Here 0.0 means flush with the
> stem (i suppose), see attached.
>
Ah yes, I think that is it. The line is centred on the stem, rather than the
inside edge of the line (as I was expecting).
>
> > Lilypond seems to be doing what I want for the upper bracket - how to
> make
> > it automatically do it for the other?
>
> If no property to control this is mentioned in the documentation, then
> probably you have to either write a cheme function doing this, or
> modify Lily code itself so this option would become available.
>
> Could you please write a feature request describing what you'd like
> LilyPond to do in detail (with examples from some published scores if
> possible) and send it to bug-lilyp...@gnu.org? Hopefully someone would
> implement this, but i don't have any idea when.
> Or if you know some c++ go ahead and add it yourself! Contributor's
> Guide (http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/index.html)
> tells you how to start. If you need any help, ask :)
>
Thanks for your suggestion, I'll send a feature request, which will be a new
experience. I don't have a scanner, so I'll just have to include some
Lilypond examples, and maybe a quote from Elaine Gould. I'd love to be able
to say I'd that I'd write some C++ code, but I'm a long way from being able
to do that now. I have only an extremely rudimentary grasp of what the
Scheme interface does. I'm guessing that it is possible to do it using a
Scheme function, but I'll need to devote some serious time to reading
through the Scheme source files.
You advised earlier that the clashing numerals is a bug that still exists. I
had some difficulty finding the bug reference, but it's covered by "Issue
509 <http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=509>: collision
nested tuplet numbers".
>
> cheers,
> Janek
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Baroque slash ornament
Dear Edward,
Thanks for sharing your solution. This is something I'm likely to use.
Regards,
Bruys
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Edward Neeman wrote:
> Here's the solution I came up with. I just copy/pasted the Scheme code and
> edited it a little, I don't understand how it works.
>
> Edward
>
> \version "2.12.3"
>
> slideNotes = {
>\override NoteHead #'stencil = #(ly:make-stencil
> (list 'draw-line 0.15 -0.5 -0.4 2 0.4)
> '(-0.1 . 0.1) '(0.1 . 1))
>\override Stem #'stencil = ##f }
>
> \new Staff \relative c' {
> \key e \minor
> \time 3/4
> \partial 4
>
> << { \voiceOne g'8. g16 g4}
> \new Voice { \voiceTwo 4
> \stemUp \once \override Slur #'extra-offset = #'(0 . 1)
> \appoggiatura b8 \stemDown 4 }
> \new Voice = "slides" { \slideNotes 4 fis }
>
>
> >>
> }
>
> On 4/17/11 12:57 AM, Edward Neeman wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to have slashes between notes of a chord (a Baroque ornament
>> that indicates that the lower neighbor notes should be struck almost
>> simultaneously in a light arpeggio). I've attached an example. What would
>> be the best way to do this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Edward
>>
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tuplet bracket length
Thanks, Carl, I've added some notes, below. Regards, Bruys On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > > > On 4/15/11 11:55 PM, "bruys ." wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > I would like the alter the length of the tuplet bracket so it extends > from the > > left-hand edge of the first notehead, to the right-hand edge of the last > > notehead. > > > > Lilypond seems to default to making the bracket go from the left-most > stem to > > the right-most stem. See the attached example. > > > > In the attached example, there is also a problem with the nested > triplets. The > > two numerals '3' collide.Could this be a bug that has since been > corrected? In > > the final group of notes, where the inner triplet bracket is printed in > the > > upper position, it is interesting to note that Lilypond draws the bracket > > enclosing the noteheads, not just the stems. > > I believe that the behavior is different depending on whether the bracket > is > on the stem side or the note head side. The notation references are > inconsistent about handling tuplet brackets on the stem side. > Granted, one sees it done in different ways. It would be desirable to be able to decide how to treat the tuplet brackets on the stem side. As Lilypond does it that way on the notehead side, it should be possible to do it on the stem side, without a manual adjustment in every case? > Your example also shows a bug in the number location. The number should be > centered on the center time value, rather than the geometric center, > according to Read. So both 3's should be at the same horizontal location. > This is a point that I didn't mention; thanks for raising it. Certainly, the numerals should align in the example under discussion. Again, the placement of the numeral should be something which it is possible to choose. The following quote from Elaine Gould (p. 194) indicates that neither way is necessarily appropriate for the whole score: " *When one part of a beat is disproportionately long visually, traditionally the numeral remains at the visual centre of the group. However, where there are complex groups of tuplets, it is more helpful if the numeral moves to the rhythmic centre of the group, even if this is visually off-centre*" ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Tuplet bracket length
Dear Janek,
Thanks for the reply. I've more questions , see below.
Regards,
Bruce
2011/4/16 Janek Warchoł
> 2011/4/16 bruys . :
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I would like the alter the length of the tuplet bracket so it extends
> from
> > the left-hand edge of the first notehead, to the right-hand edge of the
> last
> > notehead.
>
> Search mailing list for
> First page completed; tweaking questions
> and see if that thread will help you.
I've read this thread. It seems to be mainly concerned with making the
brackets extend to the full duration of the notes, like it is shown in the
snippets, but that is not what I want to do here. I've added a couple of
'\overrides' ('shorten-pair' was mentioned in the thread) which achieve the
desired outcome (see below), but the solution seems terribly fragile. A
different manual '\override' will need to be put in place for each different
tuplet.
It is not clear what units 'shorten-pair' uses (I just used trial and
error); or why putting a value of 0.0 in the first position actually
shortens the bracket on the left-hand end.
Lilypond seems to be doing what I want for the upper bracket - how to make
it automatically do it for the other?
> > In the attached example, there is also a problem with the nested
> triplets.
> > The two numerals '3' collide.Could this be a bug that has since been
> > corrected?
>
> It is a known bug and unfortunately it still exists in 2.13.59.
>
Ah, thanks.
\version "2.12.3"
\header {
title = "Tuplets"
}
notes = {
%% To make tuplet bracket extend to the end of the
% duration of the final note
% \set tupletFullLength = ##t
% \times 2/3 { aes'4 beses'4 aes'4 }
% \times 4/5 { b'8 d''8 r8 f''8 c''8 }
% \times 4/7 { e'16[ a'16 g'16 b'16 c''16 d''16] }
%% nb '3's clash in the following
\times 2/3 { b'8[
\times 2/3 { b'16 b' b' }
b'8]
}
%% To force tuplet bracket visibility
\override TupletBracket #'bracket-visibility = ##t
\times 2/3 { b'8[
\times 2/3 { b'16 b' b' }
b'8]
}
%% To change positioning of inner tuplet bracket
\times 2/3 { b'8[
\once \override TupletBracket #'direction = #UP
\times 2/3 { b'16 b' b' }
b'8]
}
%% Manually change the bracket length
\times 2/3 { \once \override Voice.TupletBracket #'shorten-pair = #'(-0.2
. -1.5)
b'8[
\once \override TupletBracket #'direction = #UP
\times 2/3 { b'16 b' b' }
b'8]
}
%% Adjust the vertical position of the tuplet bracket
\times 2/3 { \once \override Voice.TupletBracket #'shorten-pair = #'(-0.2
. -1.5)
\once \override Voice.TupletBracket #'positions = #'(-5 . -5)
b'8[
\once \override TupletBracket #'direction = #UP
\times 2/3 { b'16 b' b' }
b'8]
}
}
\score {
\notes
}
<>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Tuplet bracket length
Greetings,
I would like the alter the length of the tuplet bracket so it extends from
the left-hand edge of the first notehead, to the right-hand edge of the last
notehead.
Lilypond seems to default to making the bracket go from the left-most stem
to the right-most stem. See the attached example.
In the attached example, there is also a problem with the nested triplets.
The two numerals '3' collide.Could this be a bug that has since been
corrected? In the final group of notes, where the inner triplet bracket is
printed in the upper position, it is interesting to note that Lilypond draws
the bracket enclosing the noteheads, not just the stems.
Thanks,
Bruys
%% tuplets
\version "2.12.3"
\header {
title = "Tuplets"
}
notes = {
%% nb. '3's clash in the following
\times 2/3 { b'8[
\times 2/3 { b'16 b' b' }
b'8]
}
%% To force drawing of both tuplet brackets
\override TupletBracket #'bracket-visibility = ##t
\times 2/3 { b'8[
\times 2/3 { b'16 b' b' }
b'8]
}
%% To change positioning of inner tuplet bracket
\times 2/3 { b'8[
\once \override TupletBracket #'direction = #UP
\times 2/3 { b'16 b' b' }
b'8]
}
}
\score {
\notes
}
<>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Spacing lyrics and markup
Dear Jan-Peter,
Which version are you using? This doesn't work with 2.12.3, an '(n)' appears
above the extender line in the second bar.
Regards,
Bruys
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Jan-Peter Voigt wrote:
> Hello Phil,
>
> I think you can't move TextScript elements beyond lyrics with
> outside-staff-priority - the lyrics don't belong to a staff but are probably
> associated to a voice within. So you probably have to move the markup with
> \translate or the TextScript with extra-offset.
> If it is possible to get the vertical position of a lyrics context from
> within a staff/voice context, it should be possible to move something beyond
> that point. That would make some other things possible:
>
> If I place a closing "(n)" on an extender line, I do it with these two
> functions:
>
> %%% start snip
> freetext = #(define-music-function (parser location dx dy text)(number?
> number? markup?)
> #{
>\once \override TextScript #'X-extent = #'(0 . 0)
>\once \override TextScript #'Y-extent = #'(0 . 0)
>\once \override TextScript #'self-alignment-X = #CENTER
>s1*0_\markup { \translate #(cons $dx $dy) $text }
> #})
> closeN = #(define-music-function (parser location dy)(number?)
> #{
>\freetext #0 #$dy \markup { "(n)" }
> #})
> closeNx = #(define-music-function (parser location dx dy)(number? number?)
> #{
>\freetext #$dx #$dy \markup { "(n)" }
> #})
> %%% end snip
> %%% example:
> \relative c' { \partial 4 e4 ~ << e1 ~ \closeN #-3.7 >> | e }
> \addlyrics { A __ }
>
> So I set x- and y-extent to 0, so that lily doesn't see a collision. Then I
> move it down. I could of course move it beyond any lyrics assigned to this
> voice, but I have to trial and error to find the right value. It would be
> nice to get the vertical position of the Lyrics and attach/align the text to
> it.
> This might lead (again) to a hen-and-egg-problem, where the vertical
> position of the lyrics is not known until the textscript is positioned.
>
> Cheers,
> Jan-Peter
>
>
>
> On 15.04.2011 13:29, Phil Holmes wrote:
>
>> Can anyone give me pointers as to how to put markup text outside Lyric
>> text? I've tried overriding the Staff.TextScript outside-staff-priority, and
>> that shifts markup outside tempo marks, for instance, but does nothing wrt
>> Lyrics.
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>> --
>> Phil Holmes
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Forced Tie between non-equal notes?
Sorry, I've gone off half-cocked. I can't get this to work when the second
note in the tie has an accidental. I thought I could get it to work, as
follows, but the tie doesn't print, and the accidental I'm trying not to
print gets printed.
Bruys
\version "2.12.3"
\score {
{ ces''2 ~ ces''2
ces''2 ~ \set Staff.middleCPosition = #-7
ces''2
\set Staff.middleCPosition = #-6
b''2 ~ b''2
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t
des''2 ~ \set Staff.middleCPosition = #-7
\override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t
<< {}
\\
{ \override Voice.Accidental #'stencil = ##f
\override Voice.AccidentalCautionary #'stencil = ##f
des''2
\revert Voice.Accidental #'stencil
\revert Voice.AccidentalCautionary #'stencil
}
\\
{ \once \override NoteHead #'transparent = ##t
\once \override Stem #'transparent = ##t
dis''2
}
>>
\oneVoice
\set Staff.middleCPosition = #-6
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Forced Tie between non-equal notes?
David came up with an interesting observation, but it didn't seem to help
with Nils's problem.
But, there's more than one way to skin the cat: using David's observation,
and the fact that changing the "middleCPosition" property doesn't make the
clef get re-drawn, we can trick Lilypond into drawing a tie between notes
which appear to be different enharmonic spellings.
Do you prefer this way, Nils? You don't have to muck around the changing the
shape of a slur.
Regards,
Bruys
\version "2.12.3"
% ties work between notes with same name, even though the position
% has changed, e.g. { c'2~ \clef bass c'2 }
\score {
{ ces''2 ~ ces''2
ces''2 ~ \set Staff.middleCPosition = #-7
ces''2
\set Staff.middleCPosition = #-6
b''2 ~ b''2
}
}
<>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Forced Tie between non-equal notes?
P.S. Sorry, the closing brace '}' was missing.
>
>
> \version "2.12.3"
> % enharmonic ties
>
> \score {
> { ces''2 ~ ces''2
> ces''2( b'2)
> <<
> { ces''2( ces''2)
> }
> \\
> { s2.
>\once \override Stem #'transparent = ##t
>\once \override NoteHead #'font-size = #-3 % nb \tweak does
> % not work here
>\parenthesize b'4
> }
> >>
> \oneVoice
> des''2 ~ des''2
> cis''2( des''2)
>
> }
>
> }
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: status of release (was: status of mutopia project)
Dear Keith, Thank you, your reply is appreciated. It seems like there a bit of a hole in the documentation with respect to the Scheme interface, but no doubt a difficult one to fill. Apart from knowing what an S-expression is, and what cons means, I don't know much Scheme. One day, I'll have to try and dig through those source files. Regards, Bruys On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Keith OHara wrote: > bruys . gmail.com> writes: > > > I wondered if > > \partcombine is supposed to work with more than two parts. The > > documentation refers to combining "several" parts, but only shows > > examples with two parts. > > \partcombine does not try to combine more than two parts. > > > P.S. As an aside, the Scheme function context-spec-music is referred > > Many of the less-used Scheme functions are not documented in the manual. > The Scheme source files come with the binary distribution, so users who can > read > Lisp-like code can usually understand them that way. > > > ___ > 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: Forced Tie between non-equal notes?
Dear Nils,
A Google search for ''ties Lilypond enharmonic" shows that this topic has
come up a number of times in the past.
Even though ties between enharmonic notes are sometimes used by composers,
and that an example is given in Gardner Read's book, the answer seems to be
that, for Lilypond, a tie must go between two notes placed on the same
vertical height on the staff.
But, no matter, a slur is virtually the same thing as a tie except that it
is usually placed further away from the noteheads. But you can tweak the
shape of a slur, using a similar method to that shown in the recent
correspondence concerning my question about divided ties.
A tie between enharmonic notes is often going to have to contend with
accidentals, so its shape may be a bit awkward, anyway. In vocal writing, a
tiny cue note is preferable.
The following example shows ties, slurs, and the cue note method.
Regards,
Bruys
\version "2.12.3"
% enharmonic ties
\score {
{ ces''2 ~ ces''2
ces''2( b'2)
<<
{ ces''2( ces''2)
}
\\
{ s2.
\once \override Stem #'transparent = ##t
\once \override NoteHead #'font-size = #-3 % nb \tweak does
% not work here
\parenthesize b'4
}
>>
\oneVoice
des''2 ~ des''2
cis''2( des''2)
}
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Nils wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> for some reasons, mostly educational and theoretic, I want to create a tie
between two different notes: enharmonic siblings. Between dis and ees for
example. This seems to be not possible with a default Lilypond Tie (which is
a very good setting!). Is there a way to force a tie to the next note or at
least get the graphics without creating an svg curve through coordinates?
>
> Nils
>
> ___
> 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: Dividing ties and adjusting ties in an arpeggiated chord
Hello James, No, I never got around to trying the white-box method. It looks pretty fiddly, but I also needed to change the shape of the ties, so I first tried to separate the parts (believing this was necessary) and came to a dead-end (see previous e-mails). I am satisfied that it is possible to get the desired result using Eluze's method (I've just got to update to the "unstable" version). The use of dash-definition appears to be less fiddly than the white box method. I'd still be interested in experimenting with the white-box method, as it may be useful in other situations, but it sounds, from your experience, like it is hard to get a good result. Using \tieDown [sic], didn't produce a satisfactory result in this situation, in my opinion. I never got around to nutting out madMuze/David's method of determining the X-offset of the right endpoint. I'm not really sure how to use his snippet. If you have an example, that would be appreciated. Regards, Bruys On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM, James Lowe wrote: >>> The problem is that in this example, there is a collision with the >>> tie, second from the top (d'') and the f# (fis''). Ms. Gould's >>> solution is to "divide" the tie leaving a gap in the tie, so that it >>> doesn't collide. How does one divide a tie with Lilypond? > > sorry for the delayed response. Did you try simply to make a White box and > then put it over the tie but behind the note? > > I looked at doing that for a piece recently. it worked but I thought it > looked awful. So I used \slurDown and that looked better. It was for some > single very high flute part, so didn't use chords or other voices. > > sorry if this was irrelevant. > > James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Slurs are better than ties at automatically avoiding collisions
Dear Nick,
Looks like a good thing to try, when in difficulty.
There isn't any collision avoidance occurring, of course; slurs are
usually placed further away from the notes than ties.
If you make the middle voices vacant, you can see this.
Regards,
bruys
\version "2.12.3"
\relative c'' {
<< { g'2 ~ g }
%\\ { s1 }
\\ {}
% \\ { b,8 g a b ~ b a b a }
\\ {}
\\ { g,2 g }
>>
}
\relative c'' {
<< { g'2( g) }
% \\ { s1 }
\\ {}
% \\ { b,8 g a b ~ b a b a }
\\ {}
\\ { g,2 g }
>>
}
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Nick Payne wrote:
> See below. If I have a tie between the two Gs in the top voice, it collides
> with the beam. If I fake the tie with a slur, it automatically avoids the
> beam.
>
> \version "2.13.58"
>
> \relative c'' {
> << { g'2 ~ g }
> \\ { s1 }
> \\ { b,8 g a b ~ b a b a }
> \\ { g,2 g }
>>>
> }
>
> \relative c'' {
> << { g'2( g) }
> \\ { s1 }
> \\ { b,8 g a b ~ b a b a }
> \\ { g,2 g }
>>>
> }
>
> ___
> 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: Dividing ties and adjusting ties in an arpeggiated chord
Thanks for your persistence, Eluze, You're right, I'm using version 2.12.3. It's good to know that when I upgrade to the new version, I should be able to get it to work. In version 2.12.3, it's not really bad, but the tie clips the bottom of the sharp sign. Remember, I started by wanting to reproduce a figure from a book, which looks just fine with the divided tie. Although, I think you're probably right: if I was going with the divided tie option, I suspect I would have to increase the distance between the first two grace notes, because otherwise there's no much of the tie before it disappears behind the sharp sign. Best wishes, bruys On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM, -Eluze wrote: > > hi bruys > > bruys . wrote: >> >> The one disappointing aspect is that (with version 2.13), I get a >> warning that Lilypond couldn't "find the property type-check for >> 'dash-definition'". And, if I comment this line out, the result is >> basically unchanged. Actually, if I leave this line in, it messes up >> the control-points adjustment on the second tie. It would be great if >> this did work. Does anyone know if this is a bug? >> > did you mean 2.12 ? in fact i was using 2.13.58 and i would recommend to > upgrade occasionally since there are many new features in the (nearly > stable) development release! > > > >> (By the way, it seems the snippet you pointed me to last time, could >> be used to divide the tie in this instance, as there is an accidental >> involved. But, that would be a bit of a hack, as this wouldn't >> generally be the case.) >> > i don't think hiding away a part of the tie is satisfying because the tie > will always look like coming out of the fis - unless you change the > direction, but then it collides with the next lower note. > > Eluze > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Dividing-ties-and-adjusting-ties-in-an-arpeggiated-chord-tp31299849p31362814.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: Dividing ties and adjusting ties in an arpeggiated chord
Hello Eluze,
This is quite exciting. You have produced a decent result. Your method
promises the ability to tweak away to get the exact result required
(but see below).
It looks like you have shown that the part of the manual that I quoted
is misleading, it seems that setting control-points will work in this
setting, albeit with a lot of experimentation to find appropriate
parameters. I tried also adjusting one of the other ties with
control-points, and this seemed to work. It's also possible that the
manual is right, as the parameters I need to use don't make much sense
to me, however it is possible to rig up a solution.
The one disappointing aspect is that (with version 2.13), I get a
warning that Lilypond couldn't "find the property type-check for
'dash-definition'". And, if I comment this line out, the result is
basically unchanged. Actually, if I leave this line in, it messes up
the control-points adjustment on the second tie. It would be great if
this did work. Does anyone know if this is a bug?
(By the way, it seems the snippet you pointed me to last time, could
be used to divide the tie in this instance, as there is an accidental
involved. But, that would be a bit of a hack, as this wouldn't
generally be the case.)
Regards,
bruys
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:07 PM, -Eluze wrote:
>
>
> bruys . wrote:
>>
>> Hello Again,
>>
>> Part 2: If I put each part into a separate voice context, the ties are
>> in the right direction, but otherwise it's a real mess.
>>
>>
> i tried another approach starting from your original code:
>
> since the tie of the d'' goes thru the fis'' it looks a bit funny if you
> just hide the part colliding with the note - rather it is more appropriate
> to start the tie under the fis'' on the correct pitch level.
>
> my solution:
>
> arpeggiatedchord = {
> \set tieWaitForNote = ##t % as notes intervene before the ties end
> \once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0) % raise beam to avoid
> \grace {
> \once \override Tie #'control-points = #'((1 . 1) (2 . 1) (5 . 2) (9.5 .
> 1.2))
> \once \override Tie #'dash-definition = #'((0.0 0.3 0 0) (0.3 1.0 1 1))
> d''16_~ [
> fis''16~
> b'16^~
> d'16_~
> \once \override Tie #'minimum-length = #2.5
> gis'16~
> ]
> }
> \once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0
> 4
> }
>
> \score {
> \arpeggiatedchord
> }
> http://old.nabble.com/file/p31358219/test.png
>
> of course there is a lot of manual work behind this!
> Eluze
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Dividing-ties-and-adjusting-ties-in-an-arpeggiated-chord-tp31299849p31358219.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: Difficulty in jedit with LilyPondTools
Hello Michael, I know next to nothing about JEdit, except that it installed on my (Windows) system without any difficulty. No-one else has replied, so I thought I'd mention that a few more details are probably required before anyone can help. It would appear that JEdit is not finding a necessary file, which indicates that something might have gone wrong with installation, prerequisite files are missing or not on the path searched by JEdit. I would think that the operating system you are using, what instructions you followed to install the software, and at what stage you get the error would all be relevant. Perhaps it is something as simple as needing to configure JEdit to find your pdf reader or Lilypond: http://lilypondtool.blogspot.com/p/install-configure.html Regards, bruys On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Michael Dykes wrote: > I just started using JEdit and the LilypondTools provided as a plug-in for > that editor. Everytime I use it though, I keep getting the follwoing error: > java.io IOException:error=2, No such file or directory - Any help > resolving this would be appreciated. Thanks. > > -- > In Christ, > Michael D > > ___ > 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: status of release (was: status of mutopia project)
Hello, I'm curious (and I'm using version 2.13), and I wondered if \partcombine is supposed to work with more than two parts. The documentation refers to combining "several" parts, but only shows examples with two parts. I was unsuccessful trying to use more than two parts (in my pathetic attempts to resolve the problem in my previous post). Thanks to all you people working on bug fixes - Lilypond is an impressive achievement. Regards, bruys P.S. As an aside, the Scheme function context-spec-music is referred to in the snippets, without giving any details of what it does exactly. I expected I would be able to find information in the internals manual, but it doesn't appear to be mentioned. On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 06:02:01PM +, Keith OHara wrote: >> A recent stable LilyPond version would also help. I converted the scores I >> was working on from 2.12 to 2.13, to avoid difficulties with \partcombine, >> but then 2.13 kept changing so I've abandoned the 2.13 versions and now have >> pretty much quit using LilyPond. > > Ouch. When a developer as skilled and active as you says this, it > really emphasizes the magnitude of the problem. > > Looking over the past few weeks, I don't think the problem is the > programmers. They've been fixing bugs quickly; a few times they > added regressions, but those are also fixed without a long delay. > > I think the biggest problem at the moment is communication between > users and programmers. > - some users are not following the guidelines: > http://lilypond.org/bug-reports > Bug reports should go to bug-lilypond, not the users list! If > you think it's of general interest, then CC it to both lists. > > - the Bug Squad is still losing some issues. This is extremely > unfortunate, and it will hopefully improve over the next few > weeks. > However, this is something that users can help with: > if you have not heard back from a Bug Squad member within > ** 48 hours ** > then please assume that your bug report has been > ** LOST ** > and send the email again. > > It gives me no pleasure to make this announcement, and I really > hope that things will improve. But for the forseeable future, > please follow that policy. > > - users could help each other supply good bug reports. If a > bug report has been rejected because it does not have a > Tiny example: > http://lilypond.org/tiny-examples.html > then an experienced user could spend a few minutes creating > such an example. This would be very appreciated by > everybody involved, especially if the initial bug reporter > is a bit uncertain about lilypond, has some difficulty with > English, etc. > > It would be nice if the Bug Squad had sufficient resources > to do this as well, but that unfortunately is not the case. > > > Honestly, if we keep on going at the current rate, then I don't > think we can get 2.14 out before June. But if a few users helped > out the bug process by actively creating Tiny examples, and > resending bug reports to bug-lilypond when they get lost, then I > really think that we can get 2.14 out in May. > > Cheers, > - Graham > > ___ > 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
Dividing ties and adjusting ties in an arpeggiated chord
Hello Again,
Part 2: If I put each part into a separate voice context, the ties are
in the right direction, but otherwise it's a real mess.
Thanks,
bruys
partOne = {
\voiceOne
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t % for arpeggiated ties
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0) % raise beam to avoid
% collision with top tie
\grace {
\tieUp d''16[~ s16 s16 s16 s16]
}
\once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0 % lengthen stem to match height of
% grace notes - don't know why this
% needs to be 6.0 instead of 5.0
\stemUp
d''4
}
% voiceTwo not used
partTwo = {
\voiceThree
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t % for arpeggiated ties
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0)
\grace {
s16[ \tieUp fis''16~ s16 s16 s16]
}
\once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0
\stemUp
fis''4
}
% voiceFour not used
voiceFive = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 4) 'Voice)
partThree = {
\voiceFive
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t % for arpeggiated ties
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0) % raise beam to avoid
% collision with top tie
\grace {
s16[ s16 \tieUp b'16~ s16 s16]
}
\once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0 % lengthen stem to match height of
% grace notes - don't know why this
% needs to be 6.0 instead of 5.0
\stemUp
b'4
}
voiceSix = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 5) 'Voice)
% voiceSix not used
voiceSeven = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 6) 'Voice)
partFour = {
\voiceSeven
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t % for arpeggiated ties
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0) % raise beam to avoid
% collision with top tie
\grace {
s16[ s16 s16 \tieDown d'16~ s16]
}
\once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0 % lengthen stem to match height of
% grace notes - don't know why this
% needs to be 6.0 instead of 5.0
\stemUp
d'4
}
voiceEight = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 7) 'Voice)
% voiceEight not used
voiceNine = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 8) 'Voice)
partFive = {
\voiceNine
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t % for arpeggiated ties
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0) % raise beam to avoid
% collision with top tie
\grace {
s16[ s16 s16 s16 \tieDown gis'16~]
}
\once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0 % lengthen stem to match height of
% grace notes - don't know why this
% needs to be 6.0 instead of 5.0
\stemUp
gis'4
}
ignore = \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t
revertIgnore = \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##f
\score {
{
\ignore
<<
\partOne
\\
\partTwo
\\
\partThree
\\
\partFour
\\
\partFive
>>
\revertIgnore
\tieNeutral
}
}
<>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Dividing ties and adjusting ties in an arpeggiated chord
Hello again,
I'm sorry to have to make further enquiries, but I'm flailing around here.
It seems that I need to divide the arpeggiated chord into separate
parts, so I can apply tweaks to each part separately.
Sorry about the length of the following code. It is for only one
arpeggiated chord, and I haven't been able to apply the tweaks yet.
When I put all the parts in the one voice context, I can get the notes
to line up, hooray. But, Lilypond ignores my explicit request to
direct the tie on the note d (d'') up (/tieUp), even though a major
collision results.
Part 2 to follow!
Thanks,
bruys
\version "2.12.3"
partOne = {
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t % for arpeggiated ties
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0) % raise beam to avoid
% collision with top tie
\grace {
\tieUp d''16[~ s16 s16 s16 s16]
}
\once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0 % lengthen stem to match height of
% grace notes - don't know why this
% needs to be 6.0 instead of 5.0
\stemUp
d''4
}
partTwo = {
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t % for arpeggiated ties
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0)
\grace {
s16[ \tieUp fis''16~ s16 s16 s16]
}
\once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0
\stemUp
fis''4
}
partThree = {
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t % for arpeggiated ties
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0) % raise beam to avoid
% collision with top tie
\grace {
s16[ s16 \tieUp b'16~ s16 s16]
}
\once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0 % lengthen stem to match height of
% grace notes - don't know why this
% needs to be 6.0 instead of 5.0
\stemUp
b'4
}
partFour = {
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t % for arpeggiated ties
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0) % raise beam to avoid
% collision with top tie
\grace {
s16[ s16 s16 \tieDown d'16~ s16]
}
\once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0 % lengthen stem to match height of
% grace notes - don't know why this
% needs to be 6.0 instead of 5.0
\stemUp
d'4
}
partFive = {
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t % for arpeggiated ties
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0) % raise beam to avoid
% collision with top tie
\grace {
s16[ s16 s16 s16 \tieDown gis'16~]
}
\once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0 % lengthen stem to match height of
% grace notes - don't know why this
% needs to be 6.0 instead of 5.0
\stemUp
gis'4
}
ignore = \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t
revertIgnore = \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##f
\score {
{ \ignore
<<
\partOne
\partTwo
\partThree
\partFour
\partFive
>>
\revertIgnore
\tieNeutral
}
}
<>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Fwd: Dividing ties and adjusting ties in an arpeggiated chord
Holy Moley, madMuze, You're right, I'm feeling rather queasy right now. It's going to take some patience to get to the bottom of this. Your suggestion of separating the notes into separate voices and then combining them might be the way to go (it seems to be the only way to go, if I going to use the "difficult tweaks" control-points property method). One possibility would be to do this, and then use slurs instead of ties, because I notice that Lilypondtool has a "slur tweak tool" which you could presumably use to change the slurs to look like ties in the shape wanted. Using the snippet that Eluze pointed me to (\hideCurvesFrom) seems to nicely avoid the accidental if I use the grob Staff.Accidental, however Staff.NoteHead or Staff.NoteColumn doesn't seem to have any effect. When I use Voice.NoteHead, it avoids the notehead, but it stuffs the accidentals up (they now overlap the noteheads). I notice that there is also a snippet called "Altering the shape of a default slur with a list of offsets" which could probably be adapted to ties and used where there are separate voices. It would be useful to have a variant of this function which allowed you to specify the height, in staff spaces, of the curve of the tie. It would certainly require some study on Bezier curves. That's do-able, but I don't know whether I'll ever get to the level of competence with the Scheme interface to work this one out, but I'm not giving up yet. Your white box idea is yet another avenue for exploration. Thanks for your help! Regards, bruys On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:49 PM, madMuze wrote: > >>It will be interesting to see if it works >>in this example where there is more than one tie at a time. >>That potentially answers half my question. I wonder if anyone knows >>how to alter the curve of the ties in this situation. > > Oh dear, but you are asking for it ! > If one is adept with scheme, some or even much of the following can be > automated. Even so, it's quite a trip down the rabbit hole and only you can > decide if it is worth the grief. > > You can, of course, write your own code to shape and position ties and place > it in your style file. The example code in the notation reference under > "difficult tweaks" is the model to follow. This could include any number of > conditions and calculations. However, although the left endpoint and the > inner control points can be determined from the first note of the tie > (X-offset = 0, Y-offset = position on the staff), I know of no way to access > the second note's position directly. Fortunately, the X-offset of the right > endpoint as determined by LilyPond (which varies in relation to the note) > can be retrieved: > > \override Score.Tie #'after-line-breaking = #(lambda (grob) > (let* ( > (noteL (ly:grob-parent (ly:grob-original grob) X)) % > left notehead > (endX (car (cadddr (ly:tie::calc-control-points > grob % right endpoint > of tie > (dotX (ly:duration-dot-count (ly:event-property > (event-cause noteL) > 'duration))) > % number of dots on left notehead > (noteY (ly:grob-property noteL 'Y-offset)) % vertical > position of > notehead > (taiDir (ly:tie::calc-direction grob)) % tie direction > according to > LilyPond > % … … … many, many things would follow to account for > most, > % if not all, possibilities > > I know almost nothing of scheme and have gleaned these bits from the very > nice and intelligent people on this forum. You'll need a good bit of scheme, > a deep understanding of the Bezier function (in order to quantize the hump > and avoid staff-line collisions), and a couple hours/days/months to > experiment, if you plan to go this route. A similar routine could be created > incorporating variables along with "\once \override…" for adjusting > occasional, rather than default, behavior. > > % freak not, remember to breathe % > > You can also separate the chord into different voices and use: > > \override Staff.NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t % and afterwards, > ##f > > to allow the notes to line up vertically. (You would have to manually offset > seconds.) Then, each voice can have its own command, allowing you to realize > your dream of controlling the ties independently: > > \once \override Voice.Tie #'control-points = … > > You can, of course, create definitions and shortcuts to simplify the > process. You may need more than four voices: > voiceFive = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props
Fwd: Beyond bars, book by Elaine Gould
-- Forwarded message -- From: bruys . Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Beyond bars, book by Elaine Gould To: flup2 Dear Philippe, Behind Bars is published by Faber Music (Elaine Gould is an editor with Faber), so it is more likely to be available with a print music supplier than a book shop. I just happened to find it on the internet, and it made me interested in really getting to grips with Lilypond. I haven't read Kurt Stone, but I have read Gardner Read. In comparison to Gardner Read, I'd say Elaine Gould is more precise about type-setting details. For instance, she seems to spend more time on alignment of various figures, whereas Read concentrates more on the notation alone. For instance, for brackets over a triplet, she shows them going from the edge of the notehead; whereas Read shows them going from the middle of the notehead or from the stem of a beamed group. Elaine Gould is explicit about placement, Gardner Read not. It is a more recent book, so it has the benefit of hind-sight. Her perspective is one of an editor who needs to point out corrections to the way of music has been set, whereas Gardner Read is more from the perspective of a composer who needs to pick the most effective way of writing music (one that performers will understand). I definitely recommend this book, to anyone interested in the subject. Regards, bruys On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 4:54 PM, flup2 wrote: > > Hello, > > In a recent message, I discovered the reference to Elaine Gould's book > "Beyond Bars". I never read about it before (I only knew Gardner Read and > Kurt Stone books) and would like to know more about it from people who own > and use it. > > Is it more complete than Read and Stone, are some aspects different from > rules followed by Lilypond ? > > In other words, is that book interesting when owning one of its predecessors > ? > > Thanks, > > Philippe > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Beyond-bars%2C-book-by-Elaine-Gould-tp31301350p31301350.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
Fwd: Dividing ties and adjusting ties in an arpeggiated chord
-- Forwarded message -- From: bruys . Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:14 AM Subject: Re: Dividing ties and adjusting ties in an arpeggiated chord To: -Eluze Dear Eluze, Thank you very much for that, it looks like just what I need. The link didn't work, but knowing the title I was able to Google it. I'll need to play around with it a bit - it's going to take a while to understand what's going on. It will be interesting to see if it works in this example where there is more than one tie at a time. That potentially answers half my question. I wonder if anyone knows how to alter the curve of the ties in this situation. Regards, bruys On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM, -Eluze wrote: > > > bruys . wrote: >> >> >> The problem is that in this example, there is a collision with the >> tie, second from the top (d'') and the f# (fis''). Ms. Gould's >> solution is to "divide" the tie leaving a gap in the tie, so that it >> doesn't collide. How does one divide a tie with Lilypond? >> > this snippet might be of help: http:// Hiding parts of slurs to avoid > collisions with other objects (althou i don't know it it works with all > objects) > > Eluze > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Dividing-ties-and-adjusting-ties-in-an-arpeggiated-chord-tp31299849p31301359.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
Dividing ties and adjusting ties in an arpeggiated chord
I'd like some help on how to adjust ties. The following example comes
from Behind Bars: The Definitive Guide to Music Notation by Elaine
Gould, p.133; or it would do, if I could get it to work.
The problem is that in this example, there is a collision with the
tie, second from the top (d'') and the f# (fis''). Ms. Gould's
solution is to "divide" the tie leaving a gap in the tie, so that it
doesn't collide. How does one divide a tie with Lilypond?
(By the way, I have been able encode a suggested alternative of using
"laissez vibrer" ties, although I don't think it looks as good.)
I would also like to know how to adjust the curve of ties in such a
situation. In the Lilypond manual, 5.5.4, Modifying Shapes, it states
that "it is not possible to modify the shapes of ties or slurs by
changing the control-points property if there are more than one at the
same musical moment". The same tie intersects the top staff line. One
would like to make the curve shallower to avoid this. One would also
like a shallower curve for the uppermost tie, so the beam on the grace
notes didn't have to be raised as much.
(The tie on the g# also seems to be too short, but I imagine this
could be changed by introducing some padding between the grace notes
and the chord.)
\version "2.12.3"
arpeggiatedchord = {
\set tieWaitForNote = ##t % as notes intervene before the ties end
\once \override Beam #'positions = #'(5.0 . 5.0) % raise beam to avoid
% collision with top tie
\grace {
d''16[~ fis''16~ b'16^~ d'16_~ gis'16]~
}
\once \override Stem #'length = #'6.0 % lengthen stem to match height of
% grace notes - this seems to require
% 6.0 instead of 5.0, which isn't clear
% in the manual
4
}
\score {
\arpeggiatedchord
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
