Re: How to get a polymeter with time signature 89888449/5199909 against 742739/45045
Am 07.11.2016 um 10:49 schrieb mclaren: > Yes, I think you're right that an svg file is superior to a png file. In the > svg file, all the objects are resolution-independent. So the score and its > components can be scaled arbitrarily without raterizing degradation. > > It's remarkably easy to enter these kinds of scores using a MIDI sequencer, > and remarkably difficult to generate these kinds of scores using > conventional computer notation programs. That's why Lilypond is such a > godsend there. At least Lilypond make it possible to generate these kinds of > score. > > (To enter these kinds of things using a MIDI sequencer, you just figure out > the number of ticks per quarter-note for each tuplet and enter it. If we're > using a timebase of 480 ticks per quarter-note, then an 12:11 quarter-note > has 11/13(480) ticks, or 406.15 ticks. This means that every 7 13:11 > quarter-notes you add one tick. To enter notes of these length in any MIDI > sequencer, you merely choose STEP ENTRY and then pick the note-length, 406 > ticks, and enter the note. It's trivial.) You should be aware that this approach will only *really* work as long as your ticks relate to rational numbers. Approximation and quantizing will not work when the handling is actually about *equal* values. This holds for your "should be close enough" comments as well in irrational meter issues. This is probably the better answer to your question "why can't moments be just floating point numbers?". They can't because we have to deal with the question whether two moments are equal or not, and floating point numbers don't provide that really. Urs > > Since the function of the score is for analysis rather than performance, > it's unimportant whether Lilypond crashes as long as we can generate > something that can be patched together as a png or svg file and then > printed. > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/How-to-get-a-polymeter-with-time-signature-89888449-5199909-against-742739-45045-tp196205p196251.html > Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ___ > 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: How to get a polymeter with time signature 89888449/5199909 against 742739/45045
Yes, I think you're right that an svg file is superior to a png file. In the svg file, all the objects are resolution-independent. So the score and its components can be scaled arbitrarily without raterizing degradation. It's remarkably easy to enter these kinds of scores using a MIDI sequencer, and remarkably difficult to generate these kinds of scores using conventional computer notation programs. That's why Lilypond is such a godsend there. At least Lilypond make it possible to generate these kinds of score. (To enter these kinds of things using a MIDI sequencer, you just figure out the number of ticks per quarter-note for each tuplet and enter it. If we're using a timebase of 480 ticks per quarter-note, then an 12:11 quarter-note has 11/13(480) ticks, or 406.15 ticks. This means that every 7 13:11 quarter-notes you add one tick. To enter notes of these length in any MIDI sequencer, you merely choose STEP ENTRY and then pick the note-length, 406 ticks, and enter the note. It's trivial.) Since the function of the score is for analysis rather than performance, it's unimportant whether Lilypond crashes as long as we can generate something that can be patched together as a png or svg file and then printed. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/How-to-get-a-polymeter-with-time-signature-89888449-5199909-against-742739-45045-tp196205p196251.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: How to get a polymeter with time signature 89888449/5199909 against 742739/45045
eter crashed Lilypond,
> % but the meter below is OK and Lilypond produced engraved output.
> \time 2956/171
> \override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
> \override Staff.TimeSignature.text =
> \markup \override #'(baseline-skip . 0) \center-column \number {
> \concat {
> "89888449"
>
> }
> "5199909"
> }
>
>
>
>
> {
>
>
> \relative c''
>
> {\tuplet 17/13 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/9 {c8[ c8]} c8
> \tuplet 31/29 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 }
>
> \relative c''
>
> { \tuplet 13/8 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/5 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 23/19
> {c8[ c8]} c8 }
> %\bar "|"
> \relative c''
>
> {\tuplet 17/13 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/9 {c8[ c8]} c8
> \tuplet 31/29 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 }
>
> \relative c''
>
> { \tuplet 13/8 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/5 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 23/19
> {c8[ c8]} c8 }
> %\breaks
> \relative c''
>
> {\tuplet 17/13 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/9 {c8[ c8]} c8
> \tuplet 31/29 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 }
>
> \relative c''
>
> { \tuplet 13/8 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/5 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 23/19
> {c8[ c8]} c8 }
> %\bar "|"
> \relative c''
>
> {\tuplet 17/13 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/9 {c8[ c8]} c8
> \tuplet 31/29 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 }
>
> \relative c''
>
> { \tuplet 13/8 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/5 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 23/19
> {c8[ c8]} c8 }
>
> }
> %\bar "|"
>
> }
>
>
>
>
>
> \new Staff { \clef "treble"
> % \time 742739/45045
> \once \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f
> %\time 5161/313
> % The above time signature produces a Lilypond crash so the next lowest
> % rational approximation had to be used. That turns out to be
> \time 3677/223
> \override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
> \override Staff.TimeSignature.text =
> \markup \override #'(baseline-skip . 0) \center-column \number {
> \concat {
> "742739"
>
> }
> "45045"
> }
>
>
>
>
>
>\tuplet 2067/2167{
> % This is the ratio of the two time signatures reduced to
> % decimals
>
>
>
> \relative c''
>
> {c8 \tuplet 13/11 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/7 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 7/5
> {c8[ c8 c8]} }
>
>
> \relative c''
>
> {c8 \tuplet 5/3 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/7 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8
> \tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]} }
> }
>
> \tuplet 2067/2167 {
> % This is the ratio of the two time signatures reduced to
> % decimals
>
>
>
> \relative c''
>
> {c8 \tuplet 13/11 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/7 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 7/5
> {c8[ c8 c8]} }
>
>
> \relative c''
>
> {c8 \tuplet 5/3 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/7 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8
> \tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]} }
> }
> %\breaks
> %\bar "|"
> \tuplet 2067/2167{
> % This is the ratio of the two time signatures reduced to
> % decimals
>
>
>
> \relative c''
>
> {c8 \tuplet 13/11 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/7 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 7/5
> {c8[ c8 c8]} }
>
>
> \relative c''
>
> {c8 \tuplet 5/3 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/7 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8
> \tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]} }
> }
>
> \tuplet 2067/2167{
> % This is the ratio of the two time signatures reduced to
> % decimals
>
>
>
> \relative c''
>
> {c8 \tuplet 13/11 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/7 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 7/5
> {c8[ c8 c8]} }
>
>
> \relative c''
>
> {c8 \tuplet 5/3 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/7 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8
> \tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]} }
> }
>
> }
>
>>>
>
> }
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/How-to-get-a-polymeter-with-time-signature-89888449-5199909-against-742739-45045-tp196205.html
> Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> 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
How to get a polymeter with time signature 89888449/5199909 against 742739/45045
8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/9 {c8[ c8]} c8
\tuplet 31/29 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 }
\relative c''
{ \tuplet 13/8 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/5 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 23/19
{c8[ c8]} c8 }
}
%\bar "|"
}
\new Staff { \clef "treble"
% \time 742739/45045
\once \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = ##f
%\time 5161/313
% The above time signature produces a Lilypond crash so the next lowest
% rational approximation had to be used. That turns out to be
\time 3677/223
\override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
\override Staff.TimeSignature.text =
\markup \override #'(baseline-skip . 0) \center-column \number {
\concat {
"742739"
}
"45045"
}
\tuplet 2067/2167{
% This is the ratio of the two time signatures reduced to
% decimals
\relative c''
{c8 \tuplet 13/11 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/7 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 7/5
{c8[ c8 c8]} }
\relative c''
{c8 \tuplet 5/3 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/7 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8
\tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]} }
}
\tuplet 2067/2167{
% This is the ratio of the two time signatures reduced to
% decimals
\relative c''
{c8 \tuplet 13/11 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/7 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 7/5
{c8[ c8 c8]} }
\relative c''
{c8 \tuplet 5/3 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/7 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8
\tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]} }
}
%\breaks
%\bar "|"
\tuplet 2067/2167{
% This is the ratio of the two time signatures reduced to
% decimals
\relative c''
{c8 \tuplet 13/11 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/7 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 7/5
{c8[ c8 c8]} }
\relative c''
{c8 \tuplet 5/3 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/7 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8
\tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]} }
}
\tuplet 2067/2167{
% This is the ratio of the two time signatures reduced to
% decimals
\relative c''
{c8 \tuplet 13/11 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8 \tuplet 9/7 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 7/5
{c8[ c8 c8]} }
\relative c''
{c8 \tuplet 5/3 {c8[ c8]} c8 \tuplet 11/7 {c8[ c8 c8]} c8
\tuplet 7/4 {c8[ c8]} }
}
}
>>
}
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/How-to-get-a-polymeter-with-time-signature-89888449-5199909-against-742739-45045-tp196205.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
