Re: First time Voices user
chubb.wattle.id.au> writes: > As an aside, dutch note names and \relative make data entry MUCH > faster. See below (part 2). FWIW, English note names are shorter if you use "f" for flat and "s" for sharp: cs vs cis is 33% more efficient. I understand why some prefer the Dutch names, as you can read "cis" as one syllable. I have a repetitive strain injury dating back from college. It's manageable, but it does mean that redundant keystrokes are more objectionable to me than they would be for most people. (I doubt I could go for long in LilyPond without Frescobaldi's excellent autocompletion.) That, and being a Yank, lead me to prefer the English names. hjh ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: First time Voices user
On 2014-12-21 4:30 PM, Urs Liska wrote: Your irritation originates in the fact that you want to produce a score that*looks* like chords but is structurally a polyphonic setting. There's nothing wrong with this but it implies expecting some "uncommon" behaviour. Concretely you have to hide the articulations in one voice. OTOH when you set it as chords you have to force the direction of the articulations. That's not a shortcoming or inconvenience of LilyPond but a side-effect of doing something beside the conventions. I guess this stems from the fact that I'm so unfamiliar with musical conventions. Not having a huge amount of formal training, I can't recognize when something is "unconventional" and thus warrants some pretzel twisting. However, now that I know this, it makes sense to me that I have to hide the articulations from the harmony to achieve the look I want. Further, with the \omit statement down in the Voice, I've accomplished the separation of music from presentation (part of the goal of this exercise). On 2014-12-21 4:43 PM, pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au wrote: Yes, articulations are per-voice --- otherwise you can't have a tenuto tenor against a staccato cantus or similar. I figured something like this was a possibility, even if it didn't figure into the piece I was working on. Something like http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=372 might help. Or try removing the Script_engraver from one of the voices. Or if you really want to be able to merge the articulations, put them all in a single voice, using partcombine: In this case the \omit statement is enough, but I'll keep both of those solutions in mind should I get a more complicated piece. Thanks Peter, Urs, and Kevin for your help. I feel like I've got a better understanding of what Lilypond expects (and what I should be doing) now. ✝ Br. Samuel, OSB (R. Padraic Springuel) PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: First time Voices user
> "Br" == Br Samuel Springuel writes:
Br> On 2014-12-21 12:20 AM, pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au wrote:
>> As both cases have the same stem direction one has to be shifted.
>> Usually if you want two voices you either give them separate
>> staves, or give one the \voiceOne and the other the \voiceTwo
>> appellations.
Br> Ah! I didn't notice this because I'm reproducing a chant without
Br> any note stems.
Br> However, even after adding \voiceOne and \voiceTwo I'm still
Br> seeing the double articulation. It's harder to see (because the
Br> articulation on the lower note tends to collide with the higher
Br> note) but it's still there (see first articulated note below in
Br> voiced staff).
Yes, articulations are per-voice --- otherwise you can't have a
tenuto tenor against a staccato cantus or similar.
Something like http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=372 might help.
Or try removing the Script_engraver from one of the voices.
But if you're never going to split the voices into staves, then it's
easiest to add the articulation to only a single voice.
Or if you really want to be able to merge the articulations, put them
all in a single voice, using partcombine:
%%%
\version "2.18.2"
\language "english"
mel = {bflat'2 bflat'4-- a'-- a'--}
harm = {g'2 g'4-- c'-- f'--}
global = { \key f \major }
\new Staff \with { \remove "Time_signature_engraver" }
\partcombine {\global \mel } \harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: First time Voices user
Am 21. Dezember 2014 21:09:23 MEZ, schrieb "Br. Samuel Springuel" : >The piece I'm typesetting is a modern chant "Our Father" that we use in > >our morning office. It's sung acapella and has a melody and harmony >line. The lyrics, dynamics, and articulations are always in sync >between the two parts, it's just that the harmony has a different note >(effectively, the choir sings a chord, hence my first representation). >Hollow note heads correspond to phrases on the same note, solid ones to > >single syllables. > >I've been able to get a satisfactory visual output using chords, but >decided to try and recast it using voices. Since the same person can't > >sing both notes, I thought this would be a more accurate representation > >of the structure of the piece. That's correct. Imagine you'd want to print out individual parts one day,then you'd have the music organized semantically already. >Also, I needed the practice using >Lilypond this way. As a result, you might say that this is mostly an >exercise in using Lilypond. Perfectly valid :-) >Below is a link to a Dropbox folder with >the project files for the full piece for those interested. > >https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lsccob1w3hdnqgj/AACdcqz1W0x1GDSTw2oeO8mla?dl=0 > >> If you want to have distinct voices (for whatever reason) but want >them to be printed with only one (upper) articulation, then either >write the articulations to the upper voice only or (if you need them >for MIDI) hide them in the lower voice. > >I'm not producing a midi file, so I can put the articulations in just >one voice as suggested, but something about this strikes me as wrong >(which may just be my relative inexperience showing). My thinking is >that both voices are articulated; putting marks in just one voice >implies otherwise. The hiding of simultaneous, identical articulation >marks (leave just one showing) is kind of like the hiding of >accidentals >which appear in the key signature, a choice of presentation separate >from the musical content. In F major I still have to write "bflat'", >even though the flat sign isn't printed, because that's the note to be >sung. Likewise, the articulation is "sung" and should be included in >the musical content, even when it need not be printed. > >Is this thinking wrong? No, that's completely accurate. Your irritation originates in the fact that you want to produce a score that *looks* like chords but is structurally a polyphonic setting. There's nothing wrong with this but it implies expecting some "uncommon" behaviour. Concretely you have to hide the articulations in one voice. OTOH when you set it as chords you have to force the direction of the articulations. That's not a shortcoming or inconvenience of LilyPond but a side-effect of doing something beside the conventions. Urs > >As for hiding the articulations, how would I go about doing that? I >assume that I'll need an \omit statement, similar to how I get rid of >the stems, but only in the second voice. What would I be omitting? I >tried "\omit Articulation" and that didn't work (raised an error about >"bad grob property path"). > >✝ >Br. Samuel, OSB >(R. Padraic Springuel) > >PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ > >___ >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: First time Voices user
Am 21. Dezember 2014 21:57:37 MEZ, schrieb "Br. Samuel Springuel" : >On 2014-12-21 3:27 PM, Kevin Barry wrote: >> Does the piece you are reproducing have two sets of articulations, >> both above the staff? I can't remember ever having seen that kind of >> notation before. > >No, it has only one set of articulations, but they apply to >both parts when they appear. > >> If you want to remove the articulations from one voice you can add >> the following line to it (place it in the same block as the music, >> before the point where you want the articulations to not appear): >> \override Script.stencil = ##f > >That worked nicely. I found that I could also shorten this to "\omit >Script". Yes. \omit is a new way to set the stencil to ##f. And Script is what you were looking for. > >✝ >Br. Samuel, OSB >(R. Padraic Springuel) > >PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ > >___ >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: First time Voices user
On 2014-12-21 3:27 PM, Kevin Barry wrote: Does the piece you are reproducing have two sets of articulations, both above the staff? I can't remember ever having seen that kind of notation before. No, it has only one set of articulations, but they apply to both parts when they appear. If you want to remove the articulations from one voice you can add the following line to it (place it in the same block as the music, before the point where you want the articulations to not appear): \override Script.stencil = ##f That worked nicely. I found that I could also shorten this to "\omit Script". ✝ Br. Samuel, OSB (R. Padraic Springuel) PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: First time Voices user
Hi, Does the piece you are reproducing have two sets of articulations, both above the staff? I can't remember ever having seen that kind of notation before. If you want to remove the articulations from one voice you can add the following line to it (place it in the same block as the music, before the point where you want the articulations to not appear): \override Script.stencil = ##f Also I second what was said before about the use of Dutch note names and relative entry: if you stick with lilypond those two things will save you a lot of time... Kevin On Sun Dec 21 2014 at 8:09:58 PM Br. Samuel Springuel wrote: > The piece I'm typesetting is a modern chant "Our Father" that we use in > our morning office. It's sung acapella and has a melody and harmony > line. The lyrics, dynamics, and articulations are always in sync > between the two parts, it's just that the harmony has a different note > (effectively, the choir sings a chord, hence my first representation). > Hollow note heads correspond to phrases on the same note, solid ones to > single syllables. > > I've been able to get a satisfactory visual output using chords, but > decided to try and recast it using voices. Since the same person can't > sing both notes, I thought this would be a more accurate representation > of the structure of the piece. Also, I needed the practice using > Lilypond this way. As a result, you might say that this is mostly an > exercise in using Lilypond. Below is a link to a Dropbox folder with > the project files for the full piece for those interested. > > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lsccob1w3hdnqgj/AACdcqz1W0x1GDSTw2oeO8mla?dl=0 > > > If you want to have distinct voices (for whatever reason) but want them > to be printed with only one (upper) articulation, then either write the > articulations to the upper voice only or (if you need them for MIDI) hide > them in the lower voice. > > I'm not producing a midi file, so I can put the articulations in just > one voice as suggested, but something about this strikes me as wrong > (which may just be my relative inexperience showing). My thinking is > that both voices are articulated; putting marks in just one voice > implies otherwise. The hiding of simultaneous, identical articulation > marks (leave just one showing) is kind of like the hiding of accidentals > which appear in the key signature, a choice of presentation separate > from the musical content. In F major I still have to write "bflat'", > even though the flat sign isn't printed, because that's the note to be > sung. Likewise, the articulation is "sung" and should be included in > the musical content, even when it need not be printed. > > Is this thinking wrong? > > As for hiding the articulations, how would I go about doing that? I > assume that I'll need an \omit statement, similar to how I get rid of > the stems, but only in the second voice. What would I be omitting? I > tried "\omit Articulation" and that didn't work (raised an error about > "bad grob property path"). > > ✝ > Br. Samuel, OSB > (R. Padraic Springuel) > > PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ > > ___ > 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: First time Voices user
The piece I'm typesetting is a modern chant "Our Father" that we use in our morning office. It's sung acapella and has a melody and harmony line. The lyrics, dynamics, and articulations are always in sync between the two parts, it's just that the harmony has a different note (effectively, the choir sings a chord, hence my first representation). Hollow note heads correspond to phrases on the same note, solid ones to single syllables. I've been able to get a satisfactory visual output using chords, but decided to try and recast it using voices. Since the same person can't sing both notes, I thought this would be a more accurate representation of the structure of the piece. Also, I needed the practice using Lilypond this way. As a result, you might say that this is mostly an exercise in using Lilypond. Below is a link to a Dropbox folder with the project files for the full piece for those interested. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lsccob1w3hdnqgj/AACdcqz1W0x1GDSTw2oeO8mla?dl=0 If you want to have distinct voices (for whatever reason) but want them to be printed with only one (upper) articulation, then either write the articulations to the upper voice only or (if you need them for MIDI) hide them in the lower voice. I'm not producing a midi file, so I can put the articulations in just one voice as suggested, but something about this strikes me as wrong (which may just be my relative inexperience showing). My thinking is that both voices are articulated; putting marks in just one voice implies otherwise. The hiding of simultaneous, identical articulation marks (leave just one showing) is kind of like the hiding of accidentals which appear in the key signature, a choice of presentation separate from the musical content. In F major I still have to write "bflat'", even though the flat sign isn't printed, because that's the note to be sung. Likewise, the articulation is "sung" and should be included in the musical content, even when it need not be printed. Is this thinking wrong? As for hiding the articulations, how would I go about doing that? I assume that I'll need an \omit statement, similar to how I get rid of the stems, but only in the second voice. What would I be omitting? I tried "\omit Articulation" and that didn't work (raised an error about "bad grob property path"). ✝ Br. Samuel, OSB (R. Padraic Springuel) PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: First time Voices user
Am 21.12.2014 um 18:00 schrieb Br. Samuel Springuel:
On 2014-12-21 12:20 AM, pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au wrote:
As both cases have the same stem direction one has to be shifted.
Usually if you want two voices you either give them separate staves,
or give one the \voiceOne and the other the \voiceTwo appellations.
Ah! I didn't notice this because I'm reproducing a chant without any
note stems.
Hi,
I've now had the chance to compile your example and have a look.
I think the first thing for you to do is to get clear about what you
actually want to achieve.
I'm not really sure why you chose to try out separate voices.
From the looks of it your original chorder version seems to be right
what you need.
You need voices when you *do* have voices, that is either different
"instruments" or "voices" or virtual instruments like in polyphonic
keyboard writing, where you really want to show that there are layers of
notes that belong together.
But if you use independent voices it's natural that each voice has its
own set of articulations and dynamics.
I'd say:
If you want to have distinct voices (for whatever reason) but want them
to be printed with only one (upper) articulation, then either write the
articulations to the upper voice only or (if you need them for MIDI)
hide them in the lower voice.
If that doesn't help you it'd be good to know still more about the
instrumental context.
Urs
However, even after adding \voiceOne and \voiceTwo I'm still seeing
the double articulation. It's harder to see (because the articulation
on the lower note tends to collide with the higher note) but it's
still there (see first articulated note below in voiced staff).
Changes are to use the `natural' articulation direction (- instead of
^)
I forced the up direction on the articulations because when I used the
natural articulation direction in chord construction the articulations
appeared below the chord (see third articulated note below in chorded
staff). In the piece I'm reproducing, however, the articulations were
above the notes. Further, this switch still results in double
articulations: one above and one below (see second and third
articulated note below in voiced staff).
To reproduce the articulations I've got, I need it to always appear
over the top note (the piece doesn't have any notes higher than bflat').
As an aside, dutch note names and \relative make data entry MUCH
faster.
I tried both of these before and found the resulting code much harder
to read. I don't speak Dutch and so the Dutch note names don't seem
natural to me ("is" and "es" are too similar to stay distinct). Also,
in relative mode I had lots of trouble telling just exactly which note
I was entering (I'd often have to go back and reset the score because
I'd made a mistake and entered the note in the wrong octave). As a
result I've made a deliberate choice for clarity over speed. It's
purely a personal preference, but this is what makes my life easier.
And I prefer to have bars present in a
longer piece, to allow line breaking and to allow bar checks to be
added in the source, so as to not lose myself when making amendments.
I don't disagree, but I'm working on a non-metrical piece with
arbitrary bar lines. As a result I can't depend on the normal bar
checking mechanisms and have to introduce them manually. Stripping
down to a tiny example hides this (as I've only included a single
"measure" in the example).
%%
\version "2.18.2"
\language "english"
mel = {bflat'2 bflat'4^- a'-- a'--}
harm = {g'2 g'4^- c'-- f'--}
chorded = {2 4-- -- ^-}
global = { \key f \major
\set Score.timing = ##f
\omit Stem }
\new Staff \with {
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
}
<<
\global
\new Voice = "melody" {\voiceOne \global \mel}
\new Voice = "harmony" {\voiceTwo \global \harm}
>>
\new Staff \with {
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
}
{
\global
\chorded
}
✝
Br. Samuel, OSB
(R. Padraic Springuel)
PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ
___
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: First time Voices user
On 2014-12-21 12:20 AM, pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au wrote:
As both cases have the same stem direction one has to be shifted.
Usually if you want two voices you either give them separate staves,
or give one the \voiceOne and the other the \voiceTwo appellations.
Ah! I didn't notice this because I'm reproducing a chant without any
note stems.
However, even after adding \voiceOne and \voiceTwo I'm still seeing the
double articulation. It's harder to see (because the articulation on
the lower note tends to collide with the higher note) but it's still
there (see first articulated note below in voiced staff).
Changes are to use the `natural' articulation direction (- instead of
^)
I forced the up direction on the articulations because when I used the
natural articulation direction in chord construction the articulations
appeared below the chord (see third articulated note below in chorded
staff). In the piece I'm reproducing, however, the articulations were
above the notes. Further, this switch still results in double
articulations: one above and one below (see second and third articulated
note below in voiced staff).
To reproduce the articulations I've got, I need it to always appear over
the top note (the piece doesn't have any notes higher than bflat').
As an aside, dutch note names and \relative make data entry MUCH
faster.
I tried both of these before and found the resulting code much harder to
read. I don't speak Dutch and so the Dutch note names don't seem
natural to me ("is" and "es" are too similar to stay distinct). Also,
in relative mode I had lots of trouble telling just exactly which note I
was entering (I'd often have to go back and reset the score because I'd
made a mistake and entered the note in the wrong octave). As a result
I've made a deliberate choice for clarity over speed. It's purely a
personal preference, but this is what makes my life easier.
And I prefer to have bars present in a
longer piece, to allow line breaking and to allow bar checks to be
added in the source, so as to not lose myself when making amendments.
I don't disagree, but I'm working on a non-metrical piece with arbitrary
bar lines. As a result I can't depend on the normal bar checking
mechanisms and have to introduce them manually. Stripping down to a
tiny example hides this (as I've only included a single "measure" in the
example).
%%
\version "2.18.2"
\language "english"
mel = {bflat'2 bflat'4^- a'-- a'--}
harm = {g'2 g'4^- c'-- f'--}
chorded = {2 4-- -- ^-}
global = { \key f \major
\set Score.timing = ##f
\omit Stem }
\new Staff \with {
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
}
<<
\global
\new Voice = "melody" {\voiceOne \global \mel}
\new Voice = "harmony" {\voiceTwo \global \harm}
>>
\new Staff \with {
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
}
{
\global
\chorded
}
✝
Br. Samuel, OSB
(R. Padraic Springuel)
PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: First time Voices user
> "Br" == Br Samuel Springuel writes:
Br> 1) Some notes that don't collide (to my eye), are getting shifted
Br> as if they did. When the same pair of notes are set as a chord,
Br> there is no shift. Clearly there's a difference between what
Br> lilypond considers a collision between notes in separate voices
Br> and within a chord. Can some one explain that to me?
As both cases have the same stem direction one has to be shifted.
Usually if you want two voices you either give them separate staves,
or give one the \voiceOne and the other the \voiceTwo appellations.
This also fixes your articulation problem.
Changes are to use the `natural' articulation direction (- instead of
^) and add \voiceOne and \voiceTwo for standard short score notation.
As an aside, dutch note names and \relative make data entry MUCH
faster. See below (part 2). And I prefer to have bars present in a
longer piece, to allow line breaking and to allow bar checks to be
added in the source, so as to not lose myself when making amendments.
\version "2.18.2"
\language "english"
mel = {bflat'2 bflat'4-- a'-- a'--}
harm = {g'2 g'4-- c'-- f'--}
global = { \key f \major }
\new Staff \with { \remove "Time_signature_engraver" }
<< \global
\new Voice = "melody" {\voiceOne \global \mel}
\new Voice = "harmony" {\voiceTwo \global \harm}
>>
%%%
\version "2.18.2"
mel = \relative c'' {
bes2 bes4-- a-- a--
}
harm = \relative c'' {
g2 g4-- c,-- f--
}
global = {\key f \major}
\score {
\new Staff <<
\global
\context Voice = "melody" {\voiceOne \mel}
\context Voice = "harmony" {\voiceTwo \harm}
>>
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
}
\context {
\Score
defaultBarType = ""
}
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
First time Voices user
So, I'm trying out voices for the first time, switching a piece I had
written using chords for single staff polyphony to using voices. In the
process I have run into a couple of things I don't understand:
1) Some notes that don't collide (to my eye), are getting shifted as if
they did. When the same pair of notes are set as a chord, there is no
shift. Clearly there's a difference between what lilypond considers a
collision between notes in separate voices and within a chord. Can some
one explain that to me?
2) When simultaneous notes from separate voices have the same
articulation, the articulation is printed twice (once for each note).
Obviously, this is desirable behavior if the notes are articulated
differently, but is there some way for simultaneous identical
articulations to be printed only once? The identical articulations tend
to make the notes look crowded.
Below is a snippet which creates two staffs showing examples of my
confusions: the first is my test using voices, the second is the same
music typeset using chords.
\version "2.18.2"
\language "english"
mel = {bflat'2 bflat'4^- a'^- a'^-}
harm = {g'2 g'4^- c'^- f'^-}
chorded = {2 4^- ^- ^-}
global = { \key f \major
\set Score.timing = ##f
\omit Stem }
\new Staff \with {
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
}
<<
\global
\new Voice = "melody" {\global \mel}
\new Voice = "harmony" {\global \harm}
>>
\new Staff \with {
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
}
{
\global
\chorded
}
--
✝
Br. Samuel, OSB
(R. Padraic Springuel)
PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
