A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics
May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms used it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might disagree). As did some other, lesser, composers (one of whose music I am currently engraving). A far as I can see, it just needs adding rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz") to dynamic-scripts-init.ly There's an easy workaround of course - just put that line somewhere in your own music, but to me it seems as though it's common enough to build it into LilyPond. Regards, Peter mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com www.ptoye.com
Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics
Hi Peter, > May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms used > it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might disagree). Is f the same as fz? > A far as I can see, it just needs adding > rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz") > to dynamic-scripts-init.ly You could always submit a patch! =) Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his) ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics
Saturday, December 21, 2019, 1:04:09 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Peter, >> May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms >> used it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might >> disagree). > Is f the same as fz? f=forte, fz=forzando or sforzando.. rf=rfz=rinforzando (Source: The New Oxford Companion to Music) >> A far as I can see, it just needs adding >> rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz") >> to dynamic-scripts-init.ly > You could always submit a patch! =) When I've worked out how to do it. Also, the documentation will have to be upgraded. I'm windows-based which, looking at the CG, is not a good starting place for patching. > Cheers, > Kieren. > > Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his) > ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info > ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info All the best, Peter
Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics
Am 21.12.19 um 13:42 schrieb Peter Toye: May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms used it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might disagree). As did some other, lesser, composers (one of whose music I am currently engraving). A far as I can see, it just needs adding rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz") to dynamic-scripts-init.ly Should LilyPond support other dynamics that are not present yet? Looking at https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/tables/dynamics.html I’d propose \pp \ff \sfzp \sffz \pf I have never seen the last one but I’ve also never seen LilyPond’s \sp and \spp. However, I have seen \mfp and \ffp for accents weaker/stronger than \fp. So maybe one could add them too?
Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics
Hi Peter, Well I have a library file with over 150 custom dynamics, for use with engraving new complexity school scores. It's a big file, with all sorts of rare dynamics. I see no need to push non-standard or rare dynamics on everybody. Just make an include file for your score and add 'rf'. One could argue that the original composers are in error, or it's an obsolete convention, and perhaps this would mislead modern players anyway (the infinite discussion of the urtext!). I don't see a need for rf to be added to the core set. [And amusingly I have all the ones Malte suggested. and lots of marks like 'f (poco)' and similar which is actually commonly found, and yet does not need to be in the core.] Andrew On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 23:42, Peter Toye wrote: > > May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms used > it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might disagree). > As did some other, lesser, composers (one of whose music I am currently > engraving). > > A far as I can see, it just needs adding > > rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz") > > to dynamic-scripts-init.ly > > There's an easy workaround of course - just put that line somewhere in your > own music, but to me it seems as though it's common enough to build it into > LilyPond. > > > Regards, > > Peter > mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com > www.ptoye.com
Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics
Andrew, Malte,
Thanks for the opposing views!
Andrew, my point was that if two extremely well-known composers use a dynamic
symbol, it's hardly non-standard, which is why I think it should be included
even if it is a synonym for rfz.
Malte, I think I've seen all of these (but I can't remember where I saw pf -
was it Mozart somewhere?) but extremely rarely. Schubert has fffz - how he
managed that on an 1820s piano without breaking it I can't imagine. I wouldn’t
suggest adding this though as it's very rare. I agree about \sp and \spp - what
on earth are they meant to mean - a sudden quiet note in the middle of louder
ones? Not a common musical gesture.
Best regards,
Peter
mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
www.ptoye.com
-
Sunday, December 22, 2019, 6:06:01 AM, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
> Send lilypond-user mailing list submissions to
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lilypond-user-ow...@gnu.org
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of lilypond-user digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: convert-ly problems (Knute Snortum)
>2. Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in
> dynamics (Andrew Bernard)
>3. Re: Notes or chords sustained with a pedal (David R)
>4. Re: Notes or chords sustained with a pedal (Aaron Hill)
> --
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 14:45:06 -0800
> From: Knute Snortum
> To: peter.gen...@sunscales.co.uk
> Cc: Lilypond Users
> Subject: Re: convert-ly problems
> Message-ID:
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
-->>C:\"Program Files (x86)"\LilyPond\usr\bin\python.exe<--
> This looks like the quotes are in the wrong place.
> ---
> Knute Snortum
> (via Gmail)
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 4:32 AM Peter Gentry
> wrote:
>> I spoke too soon.
>> C:\WINDOWS\system32>convert-ly
>> C:\WINDOWS\system32>C:\"Program Files (x86)"\LilyPond\usr\bin\python.exe
>> C:\"Program Files (x86)"\LilyPond\usr\bin\convert-ly.py
>> C:\Program Files (x86)\LilyPond\usr\bin\python.exe: can't open file
>> 'C:"Program': [Errno 22] Invalid argument
>> C:\WINDOWS\system32>
>> This did work first time but now another wonderful windows surprise.
>> From: Peter Gentry
>> Sent: 21 December 2019 12:02
>> To: Lilypond Users (lilypond-user@gnu.org)
>> Cc: 'ksnor...@gmail.com'
>> Subject: convert-ly problems
>> Thanks Knute
>> However the problem for windows (as usual) is more difficult. In addition
>> to the PATH I needed the following to set up the association.
>> First get check the associated name of the python file type.
>> In an admin command prompt run the following
>> assoc {Python} result “no association……”
>> I created one
>> Python="C:\Program Files (x86)\LilyPond\usr\bin\python.exe" "%1"
>> Now I look in Default Apps and there is PYTHON
>> SUCCESS!
>> Now convert-ly.py works
>> I could have use something Lily specific as the association PYTHONLILY say
>> maybe I will later.
>> I expect I will have to do something similar if I go back to PYTHON proper.
>> Isn’t Windows wonderful
>> Regards Peter
> --
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 10:23:46 +1100
> From: Andrew Bernard
> To: lilypond-user Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics
> Message-ID:
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Hi Peter,
> Well I have a library file with over 150 custom dynamics, for use with
> engraving new complexity school scores. It's a big file, with all
> sorts of rare dynamics. I see no need to push non-standard or rare
> dynamics on everybody. Just make an include file for your score and
> add 'rf'. One could argue that the original
> composers are in error, or
> it's an obsolete convention, and perhaps this would mislead modern
> players anyway (the infinite discussion of the urtext!).
> I don't see a need for rf to be added to the core set.
> [And amusingly I have all the ones Malte
> suggested. and lots of marks
> like 'f (poco)' and similar which is actually
Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics
Am 22.12.19 um 13:23 schrieb Peter Toye: I agree about \sp and \spp - what on earth are they meant to mean - a sudden quiet note in the middle of louder ones? Not a common musical gesture. Maybe they mean “subito piano” and “subito pianissimo”? Then they would not be for only a single not like an accent (fz, sf, …) but for all future notes like a regular “piano”, just with an additional “don’t decresc. before this”. But that’s only me guessing …
Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics
Sunday, December 22, 2019, 4:12:42 PM, Malte Meyn wrote: > Am 22.12.19 um 13:23 schrieb Peter Toye: >> I >> agree about \sp and \spp - what on earth are they meant to mean - a >> sudden quiet note in the middle of louder ones? Not a common musical >> gesture. > Maybe they mean “subito piano” and “subito > pianissimo”? Then they would > not be for only a single not like an accent > (fz, sf, …) but for all > future notes like a regular “piano”, just with an additional “don’t > decresc. before this”. But that’s only me guessing … Possible. New Oxford hasn't heard of them. The point about sf, fz, sfz, rf, rfz is that they are abbreviations of normal words according to my Italian dictionary (not a language I speak).
