Glissando notation?
It seems in Lilypond (v2.10.14) the default notation for glissandos is a straight line. I've never seen that notation used for glissando before so I have no idea why it's the default, but that's OK because everything can be changed, right? So I tried "\override Glissando #'style = #'zigzag", thinking it would give me the right thing. But it gives me a very thin, light zig-zag line -- yet another notation that I have never seen used for glissando. The most common, correct notation for glissando looks like a trill mark. It's a wavy line of varying thickness. A statement in the on-line reference documentation suggests that "\override Glissando #'style = #'trill" might help: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.10/Documentation/user/lilypond-internals/line_002dspanner_002dinterface#line_002dspanner_002dinterface But unfortunately it doesn't work. I still get a light, straight line. How do I get correct glissando notation? -- Robert P.S. I really *love* the output I get from Lilypond but even (dare I say it?) Finale gets this particular piece of notation more or less right. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Glissando notation?
Dear Robert, I've seen a number of glissando notations, generally depending on period and style of composition. I know the notation you want, though, and would suggest experimenting with the #'thickness property of the Glissando object (listed under line-interface) with #'style set to #'zigzag . You could also try playing with #'zigzag-width and #'zigzag-length (listed under the line-spanner-interface.) Hope this helps, Vivian. - Original Message From: Robert Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Wednesday, 31 January, 2007 6:39:10 AM Subject: Glissando notation? It seems in Lilypond (v2.10.14) the default notation for glissandos is a straight line. I've never seen that notation used for glissando before so I have no idea why it's the default, but that's OK because everything can be changed, right? So I tried "\override Glissando #'style = #'zigzag", thinking it would give me the right thing. But it gives me a very thin, light zig-zag line -- yet another notation that I have never seen used for glissando. The most common, correct notation for glissando looks like a trill mark. It's a wavy line of varying thickness. A statement in the on-line reference documentation suggests that "\override Glissando #'style = #'trill" might help: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.10/Documentation/user/lilypond-internals/line_002dspanner_002dinterface#line_002dspanner_002dinterface But unfortunately it doesn't work. I still get a light, straight line. How do I get correct glissando notation? -- Robert P.S. I really *love* the output I get from Lilypond but even (dare I say it?) Finale gets this particular piece of notation more or less right. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Glissando notation?
On 1/30/07, Robert Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems in Lilypond (v2.10.14) the default notation for glissandos is
a straight line. I've never seen that notation used for glissando
before so I have no idea why it's the default, but that's OK because
everything can be changed, right?
So I tried "\override Glissando #'style = #'zigzag", thinking it would
give me the right thing. But it gives me a very thin, light zig-zag
line -- yet another notation that I have never seen used for
glissando.
The most common, correct notation for glissando looks like a trill
mark. It's a wavy line of varying thickness.
A statement in the on-line reference documentation suggests that
"\override Glissando #'style = #'trill" might help:
Hi Robert,
Are you looking for the notation at the top of the 2.11 NEWS file?
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.11/Documentation/topdocs/NEWS.html
This tests OK in 2.11.14:
%%% BEGIN %%%
\version "2.11.14"
\new Staff {
\override Glissando #'style = #'trill
c'4 \glissando
g'4
}
%%% END %%%
If you're not getting what you expect, here are a couple of things to
check in your input:
1. Make sure to include the \override just before the glissando start point
2. Make sure you include the \glissando command itself between the
glissando start point and end point
3. Watch the apostrophes; Glissando (with a capital letter) is a
"grob" (or graphic object) whose style "property" gets overriden to
the value of the *string* trill. It's not always this way with all
overrides. For example, you might later wish to write
\override Glissando #'color = #red
Here red is not a string but a constant, meaning that red takes only a
hash mark and does not take an apostrophe. (Constants in LilyPond are
happily limited to numbers, the directions up and down, and names of
colors ... for the most part.) Make sure to watch for these things as
you're learning the program and you'll save yourself some heartache
wondering why an override that was just working isn't working any
more.
Welcome to Lily, BTW. You'll wind up being amazed, as you're already
starting to see with the quality of the output. There are projects on
the list ranging from 17th-century full operas to contemporary pieces
by composers working in many countries, and there are settings --
somewhere -- to accommodate all of these.
WRT to your previous mail asking about an architectural overview, what
you're looking for doesn't truly exist yet. That said, make sure to
read chapter 3 in the manual in its entirety, especially 3.2 "How
LilyPond files work". And my list of the top 6 things I wish someone
had told me the first (or maybe second) day I started using Lily is
here for your enjoyment:
1. The heavy lifting of the program implemented in (compiled) C++ code
with tweaks being made in (interpreted, dynamic) Scheme code.
Capitalized names in lily input generally refer to the C++ guts while
other properties in overrides talk directly to the Scheme code. Beyond
that, you never need to think about the division of labor between the
compiled and interpreted parts of the program, even though parts of
the docs and the archives might make you think otherwise.
2. A LilyPond "context" is, intuitively, a horizontal stratum of music.
3. Marking up text with markup is really a LOT more powerful (and
complicated) than you would think from your experience with any other
programs (except possibly LaTeX). There's a reason that something as
straightforward as text is placed in the "Advanced" section of our
manual. In practice this doesn't wind up being a problem, but make
*sure* to allow yourself some time to read the manual the morning that
you decide to go sprinkle text indications all over your first score.
4. \relative works great for music of the common practice; if you've
got a lot of disjunct intervals in your own music, avoid \relative
completely. Likewise, instantiate context explicitly with \new Staff
or \new Score or \new Voice or whatever. This is probably a religious
issue, but I never input a naked expression into a file ... Lily wraps
up naked expressions inside of a contexts for you, so why not just
instantiate explicitly yourself?
5. *ALL* the duration stuff works, no matter whether you're wanting
15th-century, 19-century or 21st-century rhythms. But learn about the
multiplication * operator for spacing tweaks.
6. And, possibly the most important thing, keep a copy of the LilyPond
equivalent of test.c (or test.py or whatever), open with you the
entire time you're working. For me this file is
\version "2.11.14"
\new Staff {
c'4
}
That one testfile right there is a good enough starting point to test
well over 90% of all the tweaks you'll ever want to test. Keep it
handy and get used to flipping over to test out things in the middle
of doing your note input.
Enjoy.
--
Trevor Bača
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailma
Re: Glissando notation?
Trevor Bača escreveu: > 1. The heavy lifting of the program implemented in (compiled) C++ code > with tweaks being made in (interpreted, dynamic) Scheme code. > Capitalized names in lily input generally refer to the C++ guts while > other properties in overrides talk directly to the Scheme code. Beyond do you mean \consists "Foo_engraver" ? It might make sense to mangle those names, so we have uniform, scheme style naming for that too. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Music Notation http://www.lilypond-design.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Glissando notation?
On 1/31/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Trevor Bača escreveu: > 1. The heavy lifting of the program implemented in (compiled) C++ code > with tweaks being made in (interpreted, dynamic) Scheme code. > Capitalized names in lily input generally refer to the C++ guts while > other properties in overrides talk directly to the Scheme code. Beyond do you mean \consists "Foo_engraver" ? Yup. It might make sense to mangle those names, so we have uniform, scheme style naming for that too. Agreed. -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Glissando notation?
In my experience, having played a number of pieces with glissandi, "rips"
to us horn players, the straight line notation is quite common. I've seen
both.
I input some pieces with glissandi and tried the zigzag option but it
didn't look right to me, as I'm not used to to seeing it done that way, so
I went back to the default.
If I had seen the trill option, and I had tried it and it worked, I might
have left it in, but the straight line option is OK.
Tim Reeves
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:39:10 -0800
> From: Robert Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Glissando notation?
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It seems in Lilypond (v2.10.14) the default notation for glissandos is
> a straight line. I've never seen that notation used for glissando
> before so I have no idea why it's the default, but that's OK because
> everything can be changed, right?
>
> So I tried "\override Glissando #'style = #'zigzag", thinking it would
> give me the right thing. But it gives me a very thin, light zig-zag
> line -- yet another notation that I have never seen used for
> glissando.
>
> The most common, correct notation for glissando looks like a trill
> mark. It's a wavy line of varying thickness.
>
> A statement in the on-line reference documentation suggests that
> "\override Glissando #'style = #'trill" might help:
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.10/Documentation/user/lilypond-
> internals/line_002dspanner_002dinterface#line_002dspanner_002dinterface
>
> But unfortunately it doesn't work. I still get a light, straight
> line. How do I get correct glissando notation?
>
>-- Robert
>
> P.S. I really *love* the output I get from Lilypond but even (dare I
> say it?) Finale gets this particular piece of notation more or less
> right.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:52:56 -0600
> From: "Daniel Tonda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Guitar fingering and string numbers
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Message-ID:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi, from a fellow guitarist!
>
>
> 2007/1/30, Martin Nopola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > \version "2.8.8" on Suse Linux 10
> >
> > I have been making beautiful copies of classical guitar music for
> > my 8 string guitar. Everything works fine as long as I can copy
> > a template such as
> > \set Score.skipTypesetting = ##t
> > s4*8
> >
> > And this works for string number spacing if I enter them as text
> > \once \override TextScript #'staff-padding = #3.0
> > b4^"2" e a2-3
> > But the numbers are twice as large as default string numbers.
> >
> > However, when I try changing variables on my own nothing works.
> > This is one of my numerous failures
> > \once \override StringNumberOrientations #' Stringnumber = down
> > 4-1 fis e
> For fingerings and such I always put them between brackets:
>
> 4 fis e %...
>
> If the fingering is outside the brackets, the fingering orientations
> may not work properly.
> >
> > How do I set
> > fingeringOrientation (up,down,left.right)
>
> \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
>
> > StringNumberOrientations (up, down)
> \set stringNumberOrientation = #'(up)
> > StringNumber #'staff-padding = #2.0
>
> \override StringNumber #'padding = #2.0
>
> > fingerNumber #'staff-padding
> >
> > Someday this will all make sense.
> >
> > Marty
> >
>
> This is an idea that may work for you.
>
> I have a settings file where I define certain items, such as fingering
> positions, string number positions, etc, and I include it in every
> guitar-oriented score I typeset.
>
> for example:
>
> rhu = { \set strokeFingerOrientation = #'(up) }
> rhd = { \set strokeFingerOrientation = #'(down) }
> rhuonce = { \once \set strokeFingerOrientation = #'(up) }
> % ...etc
>
> I include it in the new ly score, such as:
>
> \version "2.11.14"
>
> \include "/home/danton67/lib/ly/mydefs.ly"
>
> % Whenever I need an upward stroke fingering overall I just put:
> \rhu
>
> % If i only need it occassionally, I just put:
> \rhuonce
>
> If you're interested in the "library", ask and I'll send it to your
> mail. So as not to burden the list.
>
> >
>
> > _
Re: Glissando notation?
> In my experience, having played a number of pieces with glissandi, "rips" > to us horn players, the straight line notation is quite common. I've seen > both. Thanks for your input on this. I have seen the straight-line option in horn charts, but only in handwritten ones. Most horn charts (even handwritten ones) use a wavy line in my experience. The straight line looks too much like a tremolo or something unknown to me as a piano player. I've never seen an engraved piano score use that notation. > I input some pieces with glissandi and tried the zigzag option but it > didn't look right to me, as I'm not used to to seeing it done that way, so > I went back to the default. Yeah, I prefer the straight-line option over the zigzag, too. Many thanks again! -- Robert ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
