Re: \partial and \compressMMRests don't seem to work together

[Gerardo Ballabio]

\compressEmptyMeasures works (also in 2.24.1), thank you.

Gerardo

Il giorno mer 21 feb 2024 alle ore 21:49 Mats Bengtsson
 ha scritto:
>
>
> On 2024-02-17 01:15, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I need to change the time in the middle of a bar.
> I managed to do that using \partial, but it seems that after that,
> \compressMMRests no longer works -- only for the group of measures
> immediately following, then it resumes working normally.
> See example below, attaching the output that I get.
> Can you please help me fix that?
>
> Thank you
> Gerardo
>
> %%
> \version "2.24.1"
>
> \new Staff \compressMMRests {
>   \time 2/4
>   R2*4 |
>   \partial 4 r4 \bar "" \time 6/8 \partial 4. r4 r8 |
>   R2.*4 | % these bars aren't compressed
>   R2.*4 | % these are
> }
> %%
>
> You have already received some responses, but for the record, the easiest 
> solution is probably to do
>
> \version "2.24.1" \new Staff { \compressEmptyMeasures \time 2/4 R2*4 | 
> \partial 4 r4 \bar "" \time 6/8 \partial 4. r4 r8 | R2.*4 | % these bars are 
> now compressed! R2.*4 | % these are }
>
> /Mats

Re: \partial and \compressMMRests don't seem to work together

[Mats Bengtsson]

  
  


On 2024-02-17 01:15, Gerardo Ballabio
  wrote:


  Hello,
I need to change the time in the middle of a bar.
I managed to do that using \partial, but it seems that after that,
\compressMMRests no longer works -- only for the group of measures
immediately following, then it resumes working normally.
See example below, attaching the output that I get.
Can you please help me fix that?

Thank you
Gerardo

%%
\version "2.24.1"

\new Staff \compressMMRests {
  \time 2/4
  R2*4 |
  \partial 4 r4 \bar "" \time 6/8 \partial 4. r4 r8 |
  R2.*4 | % these bars aren't compressed
  R2.*4 | % these are
}
%%


You have already received some responses, but for the record, the
  easiest solution is probably to do
\version "2.24.1"

\new Staff {
  \compressEmptyMeasures
  \time 2/4
  R2*4 |
  \partial 4 r4 \bar "" \time 6/8 \partial 4. r4 r8 |
  R2.*4 | % these bars are now compressed!
  R2.*4 | % these are
}


   /Mats

  

Re: \partial and \compressMMRests don't seem to work together

[Gerardo Ballabio]

> On Sun, 2024-02-18 at 11:27 +0100, Thomas Morley wrote:
> > works out of the box with 2.25.13.
> > Please consider to upgrade.

Thank you.
I'm using 2.24.1 because that is what's shipped with Debian stable. If
there's no way to make it work with this version I'll look into using
a newer version.

Il giorno dom 18 feb 2024 alle ore 12:07 J Martin Rushton
 ha scritto:
> I've recently done this:
>   \unfoldRepeats {
> \relative c'' {
> ...
>   \partial 8 e8 |
>   a,8. b16 a8 a4 a8 |
>  ...
>  a8. fs16 d8 fs4 e8 |
>   \partial 8*5 d4. d4 \bar "||"
>   \repeat volta 2 {
> a'8. fs16 d8 d8. e16 fs8 |
>  ...
>
> - and it works fine.

Sorry, my question was about rests not being compressed. I can't see
any rests in your example.

Gerardo

Re: \partial and \compressMMRests don't seem to work together

[J Martin Rushton]

On Sun, 2024-02-18 at 11:27 +0100, Thomas Morley wrote:
> Am Sa., 17. Feb. 2024 um 01:18 Uhr schrieb Gerardo Ballabio
> :
> > 
> > Sorry, forgot the attachment.
> > 
> > Il giorno sab 17 feb 2024 alle ore 01:15 Gerardo Ballabio
> >  ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > I need to change the time in the middle of a bar.
> > > I managed to do that using \partial, but it seems that after that,
> > > \compressMMRests no longer works -- only for the group of measures
> > > immediately following, then it resumes working normally.
> > > See example below, attaching the output that I get.
> > > Can you please help me fix that?
> > > 
> > > Thank you
> > > Gerardo
> > > 
> > > %%
> > > \version "2.24.1"
> > > 
> > > \new Staff \compressMMRests {
> > >   \time 2/4
> > >   R2*4 |
> > >   \partial 4 r4 \bar "" \time 6/8 \partial 4. r4 r8 |
> > >   R2.*4 | % these bars aren't compressed
> > >   R2.*4 | % these are
> > > }
> > > %%
> 
> Hi,
> 
> works out of the box with 2.25.13.
> Please consider to upgrade.
> 
> Cheers,
>   Harm
> 

I've recently done this:
  \unfoldRepeats {
\relative c'' {
...
  \partial 8 e8 |
  a,8. b16 a8 a4 a8 |
 ...
 a8. fs16 d8 fs4 e8 |
  \partial 8*5 d4. d4 \bar "||"
  \repeat volta 2 {
a'8. fs16 d8 d8. e16 fs8 |
 ...

- and it works fine.  No time signature change, just going from
anacrusis to complete bars.  The unfolded repeats are to make the MIDI
work.

Martin


-- 
J Martin Rushton MBCS

Re: \partial and \compressMMRests don't seem to work together

[Thomas Morley]

Am Sa., 17. Feb. 2024 um 01:18 Uhr schrieb Gerardo Ballabio
:
>
> Sorry, forgot the attachment.
>
> Il giorno sab 17 feb 2024 alle ore 01:15 Gerardo Ballabio
>  ha scritto:
> >
> > Hello,
> > I need to change the time in the middle of a bar.
> > I managed to do that using \partial, but it seems that after that,
> > \compressMMRests no longer works -- only for the group of measures
> > immediately following, then it resumes working normally.
> > See example below, attaching the output that I get.
> > Can you please help me fix that?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Gerardo
> >
> > %%
> > \version "2.24.1"
> >
> > \new Staff \compressMMRests {
> >   \time 2/4
> >   R2*4 |
> >   \partial 4 r4 \bar "" \time 6/8 \partial 4. r4 r8 |
> >   R2.*4 | % these bars aren't compressed
> >   R2.*4 | % these are
> > }
> > %%

Hi,

works out of the box with 2.25.13.
Please consider to upgrade.

Cheers,
  Harm

Re: \partial and \compressMMRests don't seem to work together

[Gerardo Ballabio]

Sorry, forgot the attachment.

Il giorno sab 17 feb 2024 alle ore 01:15 Gerardo Ballabio
 ha scritto:
>
> Hello,
> I need to change the time in the middle of a bar.
> I managed to do that using \partial, but it seems that after that,
> \compressMMRests no longer works -- only for the group of measures
> immediately following, then it resumes working normally.
> See example below, attaching the output that I get.
> Can you please help me fix that?
>
> Thank you
> Gerardo
>
> %%
> \version "2.24.1"
>
> \new Staff \compressMMRests {
>   \time 2/4
>   R2*4 |
>   \partial 4 r4 \bar "" \time 6/8 \partial 4. r4 r8 |
>   R2.*4 | % these bars aren't compressed
>   R2.*4 | % these are
> }
> %%


partial.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

\partial and \compressMMRests don't seem to work together

[Gerardo Ballabio]

Hello,
I need to change the time in the middle of a bar.
I managed to do that using \partial, but it seems that after that,
\compressMMRests no longer works -- only for the group of measures
immediately following, then it resumes working normally.
See example below, attaching the output that I get.
Can you please help me fix that?

Thank you
Gerardo

%%
\version "2.24.1"

\new Staff \compressMMRests {
  \time 2/4
  R2*4 |
  \partial 4 r4 \bar "" \time 6/8 \partial 4. r4 r8 |
  R2.*4 | % these bars aren't compressed
  R2.*4 | % these are
}
%%

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[David Kastrup]

Jean Abou Samra  writes:

> Le 27/03/2022 à 16:23, David Kastrup a écrit :
>> It doesn't share the same music objects for different notes since $(...)
>> makes a ly:music-deep-copy anyway that will deduplicate the elements of
>> SequentialMusic while copying them. The intermediate expression is
>> indeed not fit for every use, but the final deep copy fixes that.
>
>
> Ah, yes, correct. I always forget about that twist of $ as I
> only use it for more immediate (lexer) evaluation and not for
> copies. Thanks for the reminder.

Well, it makes $xxx and \xxx behave identically.  And \xxx needs to copy
since music functions are allowed to change their arguments.

The meaning of $ was actually introduced after a pretty thorough
redesign where I think the bulk might have happened with

commit fecc5999e224304e9d54e48bc7a92cdbb123cd35
Author: David Kastrup 
Date:   Sun Nov 6 19:15:27 2011 +0100

Let #{ ... #} pass its $ handling to environment cloning

Includes convertrules.py rules for dealing with #{ ... #} and for
removing uses of ly:export

in version 2.15.18.  You don't really want to know (or explain) what
meaning $ had before that change.  Or #{ ... #}.  Or the
interdependency.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 27/03/2022 à 16:23, David Kastrup a écrit :

It doesn't share the same music objects for different notes since $(...)
makes a ly:music-deep-copy anyway that will deduplicate the elements of
SequentialMusic while copying them. The intermediate expression is
indeed not fit for every use, but the final deep copy fixes that.



Ah, yes, correct. I always forget about that twist of $ as I
only use it for more immediate (lexer) evaluation and not for
copies. Thanks for the reminder.

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[David Kastrup]

Jean Abou Samra  writes:

> Le 26/03/2022 à 03:23, Kieren MacMillan a écrit :
>> Hope that makes it clearer?
>
>
> Yes, I understand better, thanks. I'd just suggest changing your
> snippet to
>
> \version "2.23.7"
>
> $(let ((notes (ly:music-property #{  d'> #} 'elements)))
>     (make-sequential-music
>  (map (lambda (x) (ly:music-deep-copy (list-ref notes (random
> (length notes)
>   (iota 400
>
>
> with the essential change being the insertion of a
> ly:music-deep-copy so it does not share the same music
> objects for different notes, which could go wrong with
> the application of some music functions.

It doesn't share the same music objects for different notes since $(...)
makes a ly:music-deep-copy anyway that will deduplicate the elements of
SequentialMusic while copying them.  The intermediate expression is
indeed not fit for every use, but the final deep copy fixes that.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Jean,

> Yes, I understand better, thanks.

I can give you uncountable examples of "sugar" being more powerful than just 
about anything else that's visible in Lilypond. [We all know that sugar isn't 
as powerful as the amazing code underneath… but for the purposes of 
Lily-vangelizing, it's the input code that makes the most obvious and immediate 
impact on newbies.]

A really big case is stylesheets: when I show people that changing the one line 
(e.g.)

\include "musical/pianoconductor.ily"

to

\include "pub/HalLeonard.ily"

makes the same code/content file appear like two totally different 
publications, you should see the look of awe and envy on the faces of Finale / 
Sibelius / Dorico users.  ;)

> I'd just suggest changing your snippet

I figured you'd have an improvement.
This isn't actually my snippet… but thanks for the tweak!

Best,
Kieren.

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 26/03/2022 à 03:23, Kieren MacMillan a écrit :

Hope that makes it clearer?



Yes, I understand better, thanks. I'd just suggest changing your
snippet to

\version "2.23.7"

$(let ((notes (ly:music-property #{ d'> #} 'elements)))

    (make-sequential-music
 (map (lambda (x) (ly:music-deep-copy (list-ref notes (random 
(length notes)

  (iota 400


with the essential change being the insertion of a
ly:music-deep-copy so it does not share the same music
objects for different notes, which could go wrong with
the application of some music functions.

Cheers,
Jean

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Jean,

>> but for me, it's the highest-impact sales tool when I'm Lily-vangelizing. :)
> I'm curious, could you say more?

When I show someone that you can install "vanilla" Lilypond, just type 
something like


\version "2.23.4"

randomNotes = {
  $@(let ((notes (ly:music-property #{  #} 'elements)))
  (map (lambda (x) (list-ref notes (random (length notes (iota 400)))
}

\new Voice { \randomNotes }


and [every time you compile you] get random notes for interval practice, it 
blows their mind.

Writing


\language "english"
\include "init_schenker.ly "

global = {
  \cadenzaOn
  \key g \major
  s8*16
  \bar "|."
}

urlinie = \relative c'' {
  s8*4
  b8*4[-3
  \lesser b8*2
  a8*4-2
  g8]-1
}

\score {
  \new SchenkerGrandStaff <<
\new SchenkerStaff <<
  \clef treble
  \global
  \new UrlinieVoice { \voiceOne \urlinie }
>>
  >>
}


and getting the output


also seems very impressive at first… but the moment they see they can't do it 
with "vanilla" Lilypond (i.e., they need my included LilySchenker 
file/framework), they’re immediately less impressed.

I don't know how many other people have tried to convert composers/engravers to 
Lilypond, but every bit of sugar makes the whole platform seem more 
approachable. As a wise man once said: “Every sufficiently advanced technology 
is indistinguishable from magic.” :)

Hope that makes it clearer?
Kieren.

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 25/03/2022 à 14:13, Kieren MacMillan a écrit :
but for me, it's the highest-impact sales tool when I'm 
Lily-vangelizing. :)


I'm curious, could you say more?

Jean

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,

> This can be a snippet in the docs, as far as I'm concerned.

Why wouldn't this be a candidate for a patch?

I feel like some developers have an aversion to sugar… but for me, it's the 
highest-impact sales tool when I'm Lily-vangelizing.  :)

Cheers,
Kieren.

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Carl Sorensen]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Valentin Petzel  wrote:

> Hello Carl,
>
> I don’t think recreating \partial is the best thing to do. After all we
> can
> simply do
>
> pickupNotes =
> #(define-music-function (mus) (ly:music?)
>(let* ((mom (ly:music-length mus))
>   (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
>  #{
>\partial #dur
>#mus
>  #}))
>
> Cheers,
> Valentin
>

Yes, way better!  Thanks!

This can be a snippet in the docs, as far as I'm concerned.

Carl


>
>

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Valentin Petzel]

Hello Carl,

I don’t think recreating \partial is the best thing to do. After all we can 
simply do

pickupNotes =
#(define-music-function (mus) (ly:music?)
   (let* ((mom (ly:music-length mus))
  (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
 #{
   \partial #dur
   #mus
 #}))

Cheers,
Valentin

Am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022, 20:57:23 CET schrieb Carl Sorensen:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 12:48 PM Valentin Petzel  wrote:
> > Another idea: We could have a command like partialDuring or partialWith.
> 
> Here's what I wrote, renaming Aaron's function:
> 
> pickupNotes =
> #(define-music-function (mus) (ly:music?)
>(_i "Make a partial measure.")
>(let* ((mom (ly:music-length mus))
>   (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
>  (make-music 'SequentialMusic
>'elements
>(list (context-spec-music
>(make-music 'PartialSet
>'origin (*location*)
>'duration dur)
>'Timing)
>  mus
> 
> 
> \relative
> {
>   \time 4/4
>   \pickupNotes {c'8 d} |
>   e4 f g a
> }
> 
> I think it's nicely descriptive and doesn't need to use convert-ly.
> 
> Carl



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Carl Sorensen]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 12:48 PM Valentin Petzel  wrote:

> Another idea: We could have a command like partialDuring or partialWith.
>

Here's what I wrote, renaming Aaron's function:

pickupNotes =
#(define-music-function (mus) (ly:music?)
   (_i "Make a partial measure.")
   (let* ((mom (ly:music-length mus))
  (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
 (make-music 'SequentialMusic
   'elements
   (list (context-spec-music
   (make-music 'PartialSet
   'origin (*location*)
   'duration dur)
   'Timing)
 mus


\relative
{
  \time 4/4
  \pickupNotes {c'8 d} |
  e4 f g a
}

I think it's nicely descriptive and doesn't need to use convert-ly.

Carl

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Valentin Petzel]

Another idea: We could have a command like partialDuring or partialWith.

Cheers,
Valentin

Am Montag, 21. März 2022, 02:53:14 CET schrieb Flaming Hakama by Elaine:
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: "Tim's Bitstream" 
> > To: Werner LEMBERG 
> > Cc: lilyp...@hillvisions.com, dan@lyric.works, thomasmorle...@gmail.com,
> > lilypond-de...@gnu.org, lilypond-user@gnu.org
> > Bcc:
> > Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 12:01:25 -0500
> > Subject: Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
> > 
> > > On Mar 20, 2022, at 2:24 AM, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> > > 
> > > What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial`
> > > into oblivion?  Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`.
> > 
> > Perhaps this is an American jazzism, but we would refer to those as
> > \pickup notes.
> 
> I'm not swayed by this proposal
> 
> \partial to me seems like \time
> the info being conveyed is how long the "measure" is
> and so it should not require a music expression
> 
> If you are using global with spacers, this would not be too big a deal,
> but for more casual usage with structure and notes interspersed,
> it forces you to specify a distinct musical expression
> just for the part of the phrase that happens to be before the bar,
> which seems like an awkward pattern to enforce on note entry.
> 
> 
> In terms of US English usage
> 
> "partial" means "less than whole" and is pretty clear and neutral,
> and thus I think a good name for this usage.
> 
> "partial" may also refer to a specific overtone of a note,
> (as in "E3 is the 4th partial of C1")
> but I don't think there is any confusion with this usage.
> 
> 
> "upbeat" is used a few different ways
> which makes it not such a good candidate.
> 
> It can mean the beat before the down beat,
> so in 4/4 beat 4, or in 2/4 beat 2.
> 
> But "upbeat" can also refer to subdivisions, like counting "1 and 2 and 3
> and 4 and"
> the numbers are "beats" or "on the beat" or sometimes "downbeats",
> whereas the "and"s are the upbeats.
> 
> It is further confusing in compound time as you might,
> in line with 2/4, consider the second dotted quarter in 6/8 as the upbeat.
> 
> But, if there are syncopations happening,
> you might consider the first subdivision after the downbeat as the upbeat,
> so in 6/8, subdivisions 2 and 5 would be the upbeats.
> 
> Likewise, in a 3/4 waltz you might consider beat 2 as the upbeat,
> whereas in other 3/4 contexts you might consider beat 3 as the upbeat,
> in line with how we count 4/4.
> 
> 
> "anacrusis" is a term all musicians learn, but no one ever uses,
> unless you are an academic.
> 
> It generally refers to the same thing as "pickup".
> 
> For a lilypond term it might be fine since it is basically descriptive,
> but probably less guessable than "pickup".
> 
> 
> "pickup" generally refers to notes leading into a barline.
> Whether it is singular or plural depends on the context.
> 
> If it is a single note, it is a pickup.
> Multiple notes may be either pickup as referring to the entire phrase,
> or pickups referring to each of the notes.
> 
> "Let's take it from letter B, with pickups"
> 
> 
> There is also a practice--and I'm sure there are a great many opinions
> on the wisdom of this practice, but nonetheless it exists--
> that if a pickup starts on an offbeat,
> the partial measure may include the preceding rest that occurs on the beat.
> 
> In which case, the partial measure length is not the same as the length of
> the "pickup",
> which is understood musically only as the notes played.
> 
> So, use of "pickup"/"anacrusis" to describe the length of the measure
> would not always semantically be accurate.
> 
> 
> So, I suggest we keep \partial as is
> 
> If the motivation is just to eliminate having to type a single duration,
> which typically is used at most once per piece,
> I'm really not seeing the urgency of the problem it is solving.
> 
> It seems like something that should more appropriately be syntactic sugar,
> and not change the core features, which seem appropriate to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Elaine Alt
> 415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
> highly underrated*"
> ela...@flaminghakama.com
> Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[David Kastrup]

Tim's Bitstream  writes:

>> On Mar 20, 2022, at 2:24 AM, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
>> 
>> What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial`
>> into oblivion?  Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`.
>
> Perhaps this is an American jazzism, but we would refer to those as
> \pickup notes.

\pickup has a reasonable ring to it, fitting it in a reasonable subset
of applications for \partial .  The problem I have is figuring out its
role, though.

With \times/\tuplet we clearly phased out \times for \tuplet
consistently in the documentation.  I am not really on-board with the
same regarding \partial/\pickup : the overlap in semantics is different
in character.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Tim's Bitstream" 
> To: Werner LEMBERG 
> Cc: lilyp...@hillvisions.com, dan@lyric.works, thomasmorle...@gmail.com,
> lilypond-de...@gnu.org, lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Bcc:
> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 12:01:25 -0500
> Subject: Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 2022, at 2:24 AM, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> >
> > What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial`
> > into oblivion?  Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`.
>
> Perhaps this is an American jazzism, but we would refer to those as
> \pickup notes.
>

>

I'm not swayed by this proposal

\partial to me seems like \time
the info being conveyed is how long the "measure" is
and so it should not require a music expression

If you are using global with spacers, this would not be too big a deal,
but for more casual usage with structure and notes interspersed,
it forces you to specify a distinct musical expression
just for the part of the phrase that happens to be before the bar,
which seems like an awkward pattern to enforce on note entry.


In terms of US English usage

"partial" means "less than whole" and is pretty clear and neutral,
and thus I think a good name for this usage.

"partial" may also refer to a specific overtone of a note,
(as in "E3 is the 4th partial of C1")
but I don't think there is any confusion with this usage.


"upbeat" is used a few different ways
which makes it not such a good candidate.

It can mean the beat before the down beat,
so in 4/4 beat 4, or in 2/4 beat 2.

But "upbeat" can also refer to subdivisions, like counting "1 and 2 and 3
and 4 and"
the numbers are "beats" or "on the beat" or sometimes "downbeats",
whereas the "and"s are the upbeats.

It is further confusing in compound time as you might,
in line with 2/4, consider the second dotted quarter in 6/8 as the upbeat.

But, if there are syncopations happening,
you might consider the first subdivision after the downbeat as the upbeat,
so in 6/8, subdivisions 2 and 5 would be the upbeats.

Likewise, in a 3/4 waltz you might consider beat 2 as the upbeat,
whereas in other 3/4 contexts you might consider beat 3 as the upbeat,
in line with how we count 4/4.


"anacrusis" is a term all musicians learn, but no one ever uses,
unless you are an academic.

It generally refers to the same thing as "pickup".

For a lilypond term it might be fine since it is basically descriptive,
but probably less guessable than "pickup".


"pickup" generally refers to notes leading into a barline.
Whether it is singular or plural depends on the context.

If it is a single note, it is a pickup.
Multiple notes may be either pickup as referring to the entire phrase,
or pickups referring to each of the notes.

"Let's take it from letter B, with pickups"


There is also a practice--and I'm sure there are a great many opinions
on the wisdom of this practice, but nonetheless it exists--
that if a pickup starts on an offbeat,
the partial measure may include the preceding rest that occurs on the beat.

In which case, the partial measure length is not the same as the length of
the "pickup",
which is understood musically only as the notes played.

So, use of "pickup"/"anacrusis" to describe the length of the measure
would not always semantically be accurate.


So, I suggest we keep \partial as is

If the motivation is just to eliminate having to type a single duration,
which typically is used at most once per piece,
I'm really not seeing the urgency of the problem it is solving.

It seems like something that should more appropriately be syntactic sugar,
and not change the core features, which seem appropriate to me.



Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Tim's Bitstream]

> On Mar 20, 2022, at 2:24 AM, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> 
> What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial`
> into oblivion?  Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`.

Perhaps this is an American jazzism, but we would refer to those as \pickup 
notes.

Re: can someone point me to complete documentation for the partial command argument syntax?

[David Kastrup]

Wols Lists  writes:

> On 19/03/2022 20:01, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Sam Roberts  writes:
>> 
>>> I tried so hard to be accurate, but I missed something:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 12:38 PM Sam Roberts  wrote:
>>>> After experimentation, I found this worked:
>>>>
>>>> \time 3/4 \partial 1 c4 |
>>>
>>> It "works" in that pdf output looks ok, c4 is in the pickup bar, but
>>> still warns about the bar checks, as it should.
>> Please don't just dump partial code that does not compile: this
>> makes it
>> impossible to accurately see what you are doing.
>
> David, you're expecting too much! By his own admission he's a newbie.
>
> And in this particular instance it is quite clear that
> (a) he does not understand what the problem IS,
> and
> (b) if he did understand, he wouldn't have a problem!
>
> So, in this particular instance you are asking him to go away and
> solve his problem by himself. NOT good.

No, I am asking him to actually post the code he is having problems with
rather than something else.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: can someone point me to complete documentation for the partial command argument syntax?

[Wols Lists]

On 19/03/2022 20:01, David Kastrup wrote:

Sam Roberts  writes:


I tried so hard to be accurate, but I missed something:

On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 12:38 PM Sam Roberts  wrote:

After experimentation, I found this worked:

\time 3/4 \partial 1 c4 |


It "works" in that pdf output looks ok, c4 is in the pickup bar, but
still warns about the bar checks, as it should.


Please don't just dump partial code that does not compile: this makes it
impossible to accurately see what you are doing.


David, you're expecting too much! By his own admission he's a newbie.

And in this particular instance it is quite clear that
(a) he does not understand what the problem IS,
and
(b) if he did understand, he wouldn't have a problem!

So, in this particular instance you are asking him to go away and solve 
his problem by himself. NOT good.


You probably are using \partial wrong: its argument does not specify how
long it is _since_ a full bar but how long it is _to_ a full bar.

As such, you'd usually see

... \time 3/4 \partial 4 c4 | ...

in typical contexts.

And the REAL problem is that he quite clearly does not understand the 
documentation (or can't find it). A problem that happens quite regularly.


A case in point - I remember having a HELL of a lot of grief with 
\partial, before I finally got it ...


When someone (especially newbie) presents with a problem, always look 
behind what they're asking for, for what they really need. Here, it's 
documentation they can understand.


Cheers,
Wol

Re: can someone point me to complete documentation for the partial command argument syntax?

[Knute Snortum]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 1:57 PM Sam Roberts  wrote:
>
> > The * syntax is described here:
> >
> > https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/writing-rhythms#scaling-durations

This is a good page to bookmark if you need to lookup the syntax of a command:

https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/lilypond-command-index

--
Knute Snortum

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 20/03/2022 à 10:01, Aaron Hill a écrit :
All of those things *are* music, as far as LilyPond is concerned.  It 
is just that commands like \tempo have no duration, so the following 
is nonsensical since the music has zero length:


   \partial \tempo 4 = 90

Your "global" variable likely uses spacer rests which are providing 
the length information, so the change to \partial usage ultimately 
looks like this:


   \partial 4 s4   =>   \partial s4

This removes the otherwise redundant specification of the duration.




Took me a while to realize that << \partial { s4 } { ... } >> would 
work. Also, what about injecting \partial into music via \pushToTag, the 
edition engraver or similar?


Generally speaking, \partial is so frequently used that I am decidedly 
wary of breaking it. Like Lukas, I am not seeing clearly on the English 
terminology of "partial", "anacrusis", "upbeat" and "pickup", but it 
seems to me that the choice is broad enough to allow the introduction of 
a separate command. I don't know if I like it. It will be more to learn 
for the same thing, but it might be more convenient for cases where you 
need \partial 1*5/16 and such.


Jean

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Luca Fascione]

What if instead of `\upbeat` (which is weirdly named when used in the
end-of-music/phrase/hymn/passage scenario) this new thing is just called
`\partialMusic`?
It's backward compatible, does something easy to use in some simple
scenarios, leaves everything else in place for more refined use cases,
and it's not weird either end of the music

L

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Valentin Petzel]

I do not really like the idea that much to be honest. Of course it would be 
cool if we just have to specify the music and no duration, but in the end 
\partial is not really a command about the music, but about the measure 
structure. Binding it to some music would be a bit like having \time take some 
music, even though it does not need it.

This means that filling music into a structure becomes much weirder, requiring 
the use of artificial << ... >> statements to parallelize things. E.g. compare 
these two statements:

{
  \time 6/8 \partial 4.
  \repeat unfold 3 { c'8 e' g' }
}

\new Staff {
  \time 6/8
  <<
\partial s4.
\repeat unfold 3 { c'8 e' g' }
  >>
}

Clearly the second way is absolutely not beautiful, readable or intuitive. 
Additionally \partial will not start a new measure, which leads to potentially 
confusing behaviour.

One the other hand the benefit of this functionality is so minimal that I do 
not think it is worth it. Instead I’d say doing something as Werner proposed 
and have a new function with a self-explanatory name like \upbeat music for 
this would surely be preferable.

Also from a standpoint of efficiency: This would force us to put each partial 
measure into sequential music, which means  writings lots of braces, and at 
least I personally find writing braces less efficient than writing numbers.

Cheers,
Valentin


Am Sonntag, 20. März 2022, 05:35:46 CET schrieb Aaron Hill:
> On 2022-03-19 7:53 pm, Dan Eble wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 2022, at 20:53, Aaron Hill  wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> >>>> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited
> >>>> power
> >>>> of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might need to support
> >>>> both
> >>>> duration and music arguments.  Initially I thought this might not be
> >>>> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but
> >>>> the
> > 
> >>>> following does seem to work:
> > ...
> > 
> > I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
> > different.
> > 
> > \score {
> > 
> >   \fixed c' {
> >   
> > \partial 4. 4.
> >   
> >   }
> > 
> > }
> > 
> > \score {
> > 
> >   \fixed c' {
> >   
> > \partial c4. c4.
> >   
> >   }
> > 
> > }
> 
> Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> compatibility would only need to exist for a time.  A warning could be
> issued whenever a user applies the older syntax; this would inform the
> user of the impending breaking change while still allowing existing code
> to compile.  When it is convenient, a future release would only support
> music as the argument.
> 
> 
> -- Aaron Hill



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Aaron Hill]

On 2022-03-20 3:17 am, David Kastrup wrote:

Aaron Hill  writes:

Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
compatibility would only need to exist for a time.


I strongly disagree since \partial with a duration is the natural and
proper expression when writing a separate timing track.


Natural, I can see.  Proper... I would need more information backing 
that claim.  Certainly if there is a technical basis, I would be eager 
to review it.  If sound, then I could retract my proposal and answer the 
email subject with "no".


In my timing/global/structure variables, expressions like \partial 4 s4 
are common.  Certainly \partial 4 would be most succinct, but it creates 
no actual duration in sequential music.  Naturally, the spacer rest is 
used so later commands occur when I need them.  My proposal leads to 
\partial s4 as a reasonable construct that avoids redundancy.  (See 
below regarding NullVoice.)




A warning could be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax;
this would inform the user of the impending breaking change while
still allowing existing code to compile.  When it is convenient, a
future release would only support music as the argument.


4. _is_ valid music.


Yes, and it works with the updated \partial function.  The only side 
effect is that it might produce a visible note (of unspecified pitch), 
because that is what 4. as music means.  If used in a NullVoice context, 
it should work the same as s4. which means we are back to the original 
syntax.  The key difference is that \partial 4. would now have musical 
length.



-- Aaron Hill

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[David Kastrup]

Aaron Hill  writes:

> On 2022-03-19 7:53 pm, Dan Eble wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 2022, at 20:53, Aaron Hill  wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the
>>>>> limited power
>>>>> of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might need to support
>>>>> both
>>>>> duration and music arguments.  Initially I thought this might not be
>>>>> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music;
>>>>> but the
>>>>> following does seem to work:
>> ...
>> I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
>> different.
>> \score {
>>   \fixed c' {
>> \partial 4. 4.
>>   }
>> }
>> \score {
>>   \fixed c' {
>> \partial c4. c4.
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>
> Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> compatibility would only need to exist for a time.

I strongly disagree since \partial with a duration is the natural and
proper expression when writing a separate timing track.

> A warning could be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax;
> this would inform the user of the impending breaking change while
> still allowing existing code to compile.  When it is convenient, a
> future release would only support music as the argument.

4. _is_ valid music.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Aaron Hill]

On 2022-03-20 1:13 am, Leo Correia de Verdier wrote:

Entirely replacing the actual syntax would not be desirable in my
opinion. Consider the case when it is used in a “global” part/variable
in an orchestral score that usually contains rehearsal marks, tempo,
key and time signature changes and such. As I understand it having
\partial to accept only music as argument would have to move to each
part, which would introduce unnecessary typing and disrupt the logic
of the structure. Sure it can be worked around, but I would see it as
a step backwards. Or have I misunderstood?


All of those things *are* music, as far as LilyPond is concerned.  It is 
just that commands like \tempo have no duration, so the following is 
nonsensical since the music has zero length:


   \partial \tempo 4 = 90

Your "global" variable likely uses spacer rests which are providing the 
length information, so the change to \partial usage ultimately looks 
like this:


   \partial 4 s4   =>   \partial s4

This removes the otherwise redundant specification of the duration.


-- Aaron Hill

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Leo Correia de Verdier]

Entirely replacing the actual syntax would not be desirable in my opinion. 
Consider the case when it is used in a “global” part/variable in an orchestral 
score that usually contains rehearsal marks, tempo, key and time signature 
changes and such. As I understand it having \partial to accept only music as 
argument would have to move to each part, which would introduce unnecessary 
typing and disrupt the logic of the structure. Sure it can be worked around, 
but I would see it as a step backwards. Or have I misunderstood?

> 20 mars 2022 kl. 05:36 skrev Aaron Hill :
> 
> Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards compatibility 
> would only need to exist for a time.  A warning could be issued whenever a 
> user applies the older syntax; this would inform the user of the impending 
> breaking change while still allowing existing code to compile.  When it is 
> convenient, a future release would only support music as the argument.
> 
> 
> -- Aaron Hill

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Luca Fascione]

What if you rotate them instead?
Rename the current \partial \partialDuration,
convert.ly now is just s/partial/partialDuration/
and \partial always takes music from now on

It's the same as Werner said, but keeps the good name

L

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022, 08:24 Werner LEMBERG,  wrote:

>
> >>>>> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the
> >>>>> limited power of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might
> >>>>> need to support both duration and music arguments.  Initially I
> >>>>> thought this might not be possible, given that a naked duration
> >>>>> can be treated as music; but the following does seem to work:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
> >> different.
> >> \score {
> >>   \fixed c' {
> >> \partial 4. 4.
> >>   }
> >> }
> >> \score {
> >>   \fixed c' {
> >> \partial c4. c4.
> >>   }
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> > compatibility would only need to exist for a time.  A warning could
> > be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax; this would
> > inform the user of the impending breaking change while still
> > allowing existing code to compile.  When it is convenient, a future
> > release would only support music as the argument.
>
> What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial`
> into oblivion?  Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`.
>
>
> Werner
>
>

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Werner LEMBERG]

>>>>> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the
>>>>> limited power of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might
>>>>> need to support both duration and music arguments.  Initially I
>>>>> thought this might not be possible, given that a naked duration
>>>>> can be treated as music; but the following does seem to work:
>>
>> ...
>> I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
>> different.
>> \score {
>>   \fixed c' {
>> \partial 4. 4.
>>   }
>> }
>> \score {
>>   \fixed c' {
>> \partial c4. c4.
>>   }
>> }
>> 
> 
> Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> compatibility would only need to exist for a time.  A warning could
> be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax; this would
> inform the user of the impending breaking change while still
> allowing existing code to compile.  When it is convenient, a future
> release would only support music as the argument.

What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial`
into oblivion?  Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`.


Werner

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Aaron Hill]

On 2022-03-19 7:53 pm, Dan Eble wrote:

On Mar 19, 2022, at 20:53, Aaron Hill  wrote:
...
A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited 
power
of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might need to support 
both

duration and music arguments.  Initially I thought this might not be
possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but 
the

following does seem to work:

...

I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out 
different.


\score {
  \fixed c' {
\partial 4. 4.
  }
}

\score {
  \fixed c' {
\partial c4. c4.
  }
}



Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards 
compatibility would only need to exist for a time.  A warning could be 
issued whenever a user applies the older syntax; this would inform the 
user of the impending breaking change while still allowing existing code 
to compile.  When it is convenient, a future release would only support 
music as the argument.



-- Aaron Hill

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Dan Eble]

On Mar 19, 2022, at 20:53, Aaron Hill  wrote:
...
>>> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited power
>>> of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might need to support both
>>> duration and music arguments.  Initially I thought this might not be
>>> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but the
>>> following does seem to work:
...

I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out different.

\score {
  \fixed c' {
\partial 4. 4.
  }
}

\score {
  \fixed c' {
\partial c4. c4.
  }
}

— 
Dan

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Kenneth Wolcott]

Hi Aaron;

  I **LIKE** it.

Thanks,
Ken Wolcott

On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 5:54 PM Aaron Hill  wrote:
>
> On 2022-03-19 5:46 pm, Thomas Morley wrote:
> > Am So., 20. März 2022 um 00:02 Uhr schrieb Aaron Hill
> > :
> >>
> >> Here would be a possible refactoring:
> >>
> >> 
> >> \version "2.22.0"
> >>
> >> partial =
> >> #(define-music-function (mus) (ly:music?)
> >>(_i "Make a partial measure.")
> >>(let* ((mom (ly:music-length mus))
> >>   (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
> >>  (make-music 'SequentialMusic
> >>'elements
> >>(list (context-spec-music
> >>(make-music 'PartialSet
> >>        'origin (*location*)
> >>    'duration dur)
> >>'Timing)
> >>  mus
> >>
> >>
> >> \fixed c' {
> >>\time 3/4
> >>\partial { g8 a4 }
> >>| g2. \bar "||"
> >>\partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
> >>| a2. \bar "||"
> >>\partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
> >>| g2. \bar "|."
> >> }
> >> 
> >>
> >> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited
> >> power
> >> of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might need to support both
> >> duration and music arguments.  Initially I thought this might not be
> >> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but the
> >> following does seem to work:
> >>
> >> 
> >> \version "2.22.0"
> >>
> >> #(define (duration-or-music? arg)
> >>(or (ly:duration? arg) (ly:music? arg)))
> >>
> >> partial =
> >> #(define-music-function (arg) (duration-or-music?)
> >>(_i "Make a partial measure.")
> >>(if (ly:duration? arg)
> >>  (context-spec-music
> >>(make-music 'PartialSet
> >>    'origin (*location*)
> >>'duration arg)
> >>'Timing)
> >>  (let* ((mom (ly:music-length arg))
> >> (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
> >>(make-music 'SequentialMusic
> >>  'elements
> >>  (list (context-spec-music
> >>  (make-music 'PartialSet
> >>  'origin (*location*)
> >>  'duration dur)
> >>  'Timing)
> >>arg)
> >>
> >>
> >> \fixed c' {
> >>\time 3/4
> >>\partial 4. g8 a4 %% Original syntax works.
> >>| g2. \bar "||"
> >>\partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
> >>| a2. \bar "||"
> >>\partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
> >>| g2. \bar "|."
> >> }
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Aaron Hill
> >
> > Hi Aaron,
> >
> > I really like it! Always wondered why we need to specify a duration,
> > if it can be taken from the music.
> > I'd suggest to propose it on devel. Preferable the second coding,
> > because we could nicely deprecate the old syntax for some versions.
>
> *facepalm*  I thought I was sending to devel.  Well, folks on user might
> want to chime in too.
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Aaron Hill]

On 2022-03-19 5:46 pm, Thomas Morley wrote:

Am So., 20. März 2022 um 00:02 Uhr schrieb Aaron Hill
:


Here would be a possible refactoring:


\version "2.22.0"

partial =
#(define-music-function (mus) (ly:music?)
   (_i "Make a partial measure.")
   (let* ((mom (ly:music-length mus))
  (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
 (make-music 'SequentialMusic
   'elements
   (list (context-spec-music
   (make-music 'PartialSet
   'origin (*location*)
   'duration dur)
   'Timing)
 mus


\fixed c' {
   \time 3/4
   \partial { g8 a4 }
   | g2. \bar "||"
   \partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
   | a2. \bar "||"
   \partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
   | g2. \bar "|."
}


A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited 
power

of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might need to support both
duration and music arguments.  Initially I thought this might not be
possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but the
following does seem to work:


\version "2.22.0"

#(define (duration-or-music? arg)
   (or (ly:duration? arg) (ly:music? arg)))

partial =
#(define-music-function (arg) (duration-or-music?)
   (_i "Make a partial measure.")
   (if (ly:duration? arg)
 (context-spec-music
   (make-music 'PartialSet
   'origin (*location*)
   'duration arg)
   'Timing)
 (let* ((mom (ly:music-length arg))
(dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
   (make-music 'SequentialMusic
 'elements
 (list (context-spec-music
 (make-music 'PartialSet
 'origin (*location*)
 'duration dur)
         'Timing)
   arg)


\fixed c' {
   \time 3/4
   \partial 4. g8 a4 %% Original syntax works.
   | g2. \bar "||"
   \partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
   | a2. \bar "||"
   \partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
   | g2. \bar "|."
}



-- Aaron Hill


Hi Aaron,

I really like it! Always wondered why we need to specify a duration,
if it can be taken from the music.
I'd suggest to propose it on devel. Preferable the second coding,
because we could nicely deprecate the old syntax for some versions.


*facepalm*  I thought I was sending to devel.  Well, folks on user might 
want to chime in too.



-- Aaron Hill

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Thomas Morley]

Am So., 20. März 2022 um 00:02 Uhr schrieb Aaron Hill
:
>
> Here would be a possible refactoring:
>
> 
> \version "2.22.0"
>
> partial =
> #(define-music-function (mus) (ly:music?)
>(_i "Make a partial measure.")
>(let* ((mom (ly:music-length mus))
>   (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
>  (make-music 'SequentialMusic
>'elements
>(list (context-spec-music
>(make-music 'PartialSet
>'origin (*location*)
>'duration dur)
>    'Timing)
>  mus
>
>
> \fixed c' {
>\time 3/4
>\partial { g8 a4 }
>| g2. \bar "||"
>\partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
>| a2. \bar "||"
>\partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
>| g2. \bar "|."
> }
> 
>
> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited power
> of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might need to support both
> duration and music arguments.  Initially I thought this might not be
> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but the
> following does seem to work:
>
> 
> \version "2.22.0"
>
> #(define (duration-or-music? arg)
>(or (ly:duration? arg) (ly:music? arg)))
>
> partial =
> #(define-music-function (arg) (duration-or-music?)
>(_i "Make a partial measure.")
>(if (ly:duration? arg)
>  (context-spec-music
>(make-music 'PartialSet
>'origin (*location*)
>'duration arg)
>'Timing)
>  (let* ((mom (ly:music-length arg))
> (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
>(make-music 'SequentialMusic
>  'elements
>  (list (context-spec-music
>  (make-music 'PartialSet
>      'origin (*location*)
>      'duration dur)
>  'Timing)
>arg)
>
>
> \fixed c' {
>\time 3/4
>\partial 4. g8 a4 %% Original syntax works.
>| g2. \bar "||"
>\partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
>| a2. \bar "||"
>\partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
>| g2. \bar "|."
> }
> 
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill

Hi Aaron,

I really like it! Always wondered why we need to specify a duration,
if it can be taken from the music.
I'd suggest to propose it on devel. Preferable the second coding,
because we could nicely deprecate the old syntax for some versions.

Thanks,
  Harm

Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Aaron Hill]

Here would be a possible refactoring:


\version "2.22.0"

partial =
#(define-music-function (mus) (ly:music?)
  (_i "Make a partial measure.")
  (let* ((mom (ly:music-length mus))
 (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
(make-music 'SequentialMusic
  'elements
  (list (context-spec-music
  (make-music 'PartialSet
  'origin (*location*)
  'duration dur)
  'Timing)
mus


\fixed c' {
  \time 3/4
  \partial { g8 a4 }
  | g2. \bar "||"
  \partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
  | a2. \bar "||"
  \partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
  | g2. \bar "|."
}


A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited power 
of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might need to support both 
duration and music arguments.  Initially I thought this might not be 
possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but the 
following does seem to work:



\version "2.22.0"

#(define (duration-or-music? arg)
  (or (ly:duration? arg) (ly:music? arg)))

partial =
#(define-music-function (arg) (duration-or-music?)
  (_i "Make a partial measure.")
  (if (ly:duration? arg)
(context-spec-music
  (make-music 'PartialSet
  'origin (*location*)
  'duration arg)
  'Timing)
(let* ((mom (ly:music-length arg))
   (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
  (make-music 'SequentialMusic
'elements
(list (context-spec-music
(make-music 'PartialSet
'origin (*location*)
'duration dur)
        'Timing)
  arg)


\fixed c' {
  \time 3/4
  \partial 4. g8 a4 %% Original syntax works.
  | g2. \bar "||"
  \partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
  | a2. \bar "||"
  \partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
  | g2. \bar "|."
}



-- Aaron Hill

Re: can someone point me to complete documentation for the partial command argument syntax?

[Sam Roberts]

> The * syntax is described here:
>
> https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/writing-rhythms#scaling-durations

Thank you, that's perfect.

Sam

Re: can someone point me to complete documentation for the partial command argument syntax?

[Michael Gerdau]

> For my more general understanding, is there documentation anywhere for
> the syntax of the argument to partial? Something that will explain the
> * syntax shown on this page?
That is simple. The argument to \partial is a duration.

> 
https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/106875/how-to-write-a-pickup-measure-with-5-16-duration-in-lilypond
All the examples on that page shown display different ways to provide 
the same duration.


HTH,
Michael
--
 Michael Gerdau   email: m...@qata.de
 GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver

Re: can someone point me to complete documentation for the partial command argument syntax?

[Carl Sorensen]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 2:41 PM Sam Roberts  wrote:

>
> For my more general understanding, is there documentation anywhere for
> the syntax of the argument to partial? Something that will explain the
> * syntax shown on this page?
>
>
> https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/106875/how-to-write-a-pickup-measure-with-5-16-duration-in-lilypond
>
> The argument to \partial is a duration.

The * syntax is described here:

https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/writing-rhythms#scaling-durations

The 16*5 means a duration of 1/16 multiplied by 5 which is 5/16, exactly
what you wanted.

Thanks,

Carl

>
>

Re: can someone point me to complete documentation for the partial command argument syntax?

[Sam Roberts]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 1:01 PM David Kastrup  wrote:
> You probably are using \partial wrong: its argument does not specify how
> long it is _since_ a full bar but how long it is _to_ a full bar.

Thank you, that was definitely a problem, I hadn't understood that.

For my more general understanding, is there documentation anywhere for
the syntax of the argument to partial? Something that will explain the
* syntax shown on this page?

https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/106875/how-to-write-a-pickup-measure-with-5-16-duration-in-lilypond

Thanks,
Sam

Re: can someone point me to complete documentation for the partial command argument syntax?

[David Kastrup]

Sam Roberts  writes:

> I tried so hard to be accurate, but I missed something:
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 12:38 PM Sam Roberts  wrote:
>> After experimentation, I found this worked:
>>
>> \time 3/4 \partial 1 c4 |
>
> It "works" in that pdf output looks ok, c4 is in the pickup bar, but
> still warns about the bar checks, as it should.

Please don't just dump partial code that does not compile: this makes it
impossible to accurately see what you are doing.

You probably are using \partial wrong: its argument does not specify how
long it is _since_ a full bar but how long it is _to_ a full bar.

As such, you'd usually see

   ... \time 3/4 \partial 4 c4 | ...

in typical contexts.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: can someone point me to complete documentation for the partial command argument syntax?

[Sam Roberts]

I tried so hard to be accurate, but I missed something:

On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 12:38 PM Sam Roberts  wrote:
> After experimentation, I found this worked:
>
> \time 3/4 \partial 1 c4 |

It "works" in that pdf output looks ok, c4 is in the pickup bar, but
still warns about the bar checks, as it should.

can someone point me to complete documentation for the partial command argument syntax?

[Sam Roberts]

I'm still baffled by it. After experimentation, I found this worked:

\time 3/4 \partial 1 c4 |

But "1"? 1 what? The pickup is a 2, and if I do this barcheck passes,
as I expect:

\time 3/4  c2 c4 |

So from the doc examples I'd expect "\partial 2" to indicate a
half/note pickup, but it fails.

https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/106875/how-to-write-a-pickup-measure-with-5-16-duration-in-lilypond
has some examples using the star operator, but I haven't found any ref
for how to specify rationals. I don't really understand what's on the
left and right of the "*", and I don't understand if the fractions are
true fractions, or note fractions. Not sure what the right term for
that, but in 3/4 time there are 3 1/4 notes in a whole bar, so the
pickup in above is 2/3 of a bar, but is two 1/4 notes, or one 1/2 note
(which takes 2/3 of the bar). I tried to use both approaches, no luck.

These fails the bar check, an attempt at saying 2 quarter notes:

\partial 2*1/4 c'4 |

This is syntax failure:

\partial 2/3 c'4 |

wrong type for argument 1.  Expecting duration, found (cons 2 3)

I've searched for docs on the duration syntax, but I'm not succeeding yet.

Can someone point me to docs, or perhaps explain the syntax?

https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.21/Documentation/learning/advanced-rhythmic-commands#partial-measure
as an example, just has a couple examples, but not a complete syntax.


Thank you,
Sam

Re: bar count not displayed after partial measure followed by forced line break

[Kenneth Wolcott]

Hi Brian;

  Thank you for your patience with me.

  I found the 2.23.6-1 doc tarball, downloaded it and made a web
browser bookmark to it just like I did for 2.22.1 docs.

  I then carefully read section 1.2.5, looking for my situation.

  Since I am printing bar numbers in the default manner, the first
measure of each line (except for the very first measure) is given a
bar number.

  So I now understand that it might seem weird for a partial measure
to get a bar number; and that it should be parenthesized in order to
be sure that it was specifically intended.

  I am now about to attempt implementing the snippet provided into my engraving.

Thank you,
Ken

On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 9:15 PM Brian Barker  wrote:
>
> At 14:36 20/02/2022 -0800, Kenneth Wolcott wrote:
> >I'm not sure I totally understand your response.
>
> Evidently so.
>
> >I'd like to see the bar number displayed on the next line as that is
> >when the incomplete measure is completed.
>
> What, please, makes you think I didn't understand that?
>
> >I indeed hope that with the next release I'll be able to have the
> >bar number displayed automatically or have a mechanism to force it
> >to be displayed.
>
> And why do you not think that the snippet I identified does that for
> you? (You don't need any new releases.)
>
> As I said, the 2.23 Notation Reference (which you can easily look up)
> explains the situation at 1.2.5 Bars. It even provides a snippet that
> shows you what to do. (I even confirmed that the technique and
> snippet work in your version 2.22, despite not appearing in the 2.22
> documentation.) What happened when you tried that snippet or
> incorporated it into your work?
>
> Brian Barker
>
>
>

Re: bar count not displayed after partial measure followed by forced line break

[Brian Barker]

At 14:36 20/02/2022 -0800, Kenneth Wolcott wrote:

I'm not sure I totally understand your response.


Evidently so.

I'd like to see the bar number displayed on the next line as that is 
when the incomplete measure is completed.


What, please, makes you think I didn't understand that?

I indeed hope that with the next release I'll be able to have the 
bar number displayed automatically or have a mechanism to force it 
to be displayed.


And why do you not think that the snippet I identified does that for 
you? (You don't need any new releases.)


As I said, the 2.23 Notation Reference (which you can easily look up) 
explains the situation at 1.2.5 Bars. It even provides a snippet that 
shows you what to do. (I even confirmed that the technique and 
snippet work in your version 2.22, despite not appearing in the 2.22 
documentation.) What happened when you tried that snippet or 
incorporated it into your work?


Brian Barker  

Re: bar count not displayed after partial measure followed by forced line break

[Kenneth Wolcott]

Hi Brian;

  I'm not sure I totally understand your response.

  I'd like to see the bar number displayed on the next line as that is
when the incomplete measure is completed.

  Perhaps that is an incorrect expectation.

  I indeed hope that with the next release I'll be able to have the
bar number displayed automatically or have a mechanism to force it to
be displayed.

  It is by no means a show-stopper :-)

Thanks,
Ken

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:53 PM Brian Barker  wrote:
>
> At 17:16 19/02/2022 -0800, Kenneth Wolcott wrote:
> >bar count not displayed after partial measure followed by forced line break
> >
> >I am engraving some music where there is a partial measure starting
> >the music and later a measure is broken at a line break. To
> >implement this I tried using:
> >\bar "||"
> >\break
> >to display the end of line and then resume on the following line.
> >The completed measure, at the beginning of the line, does not have a
> >bar number displayed. I am using bar checks. Lilypond 2.22.1
>
> I'd find a bare bar number labelling what is an incomplete bar
> confusing. Indeed, Elaine Gould tells me "Place the bar number on the
> new system in parenthesis to show that this is not the beginning of
> the bar" (Behind Bars, p. 490).
>
> The 2.23 Notation Reference says (at 1.2.5 Bars) "_Printing bar
> numbers for broken measures_ By default a BarNumber of a broken
> measure is not repeated at the beginning of the new line. Use
> first-bar-number-invisible-save-broken-bars for barNumberVisibility
> to get a parenthesized BarNumber there." and provides a snippet. I
> don't see the snippet in the 2.22 documentation, but it does work in
> that version.
>
> I trust this helps.
>
> Brian Barker
>
>

Re: bar count not displayed after partial measure followed by forced line break

[Brian Barker]

At 17:16 19/02/2022 -0800, Kenneth Wolcott wrote:

bar count not displayed after partial measure followed by forced line break

I am engraving some music where there is a partial measure starting 
the music and later a measure is broken at a line break. To 
implement this I tried using:

\bar "||"
\break
to display the end of line and then resume on the following line. 
The completed measure, at the beginning of the line, does not have a 
bar number displayed. I am using bar checks. Lilypond 2.22.1


I'd find a bare bar number labelling what is an incomplete bar 
confusing. Indeed, Elaine Gould tells me "Place the bar number on the 
new system in parenthesis to show that this is not the beginning of 
the bar" (Behind Bars, p. 490).


The 2.23 Notation Reference says (at 1.2.5 Bars) "_Printing bar 
numbers for broken measures_ By default a BarNumber of a broken 
measure is not repeated at the beginning of the new line. Use 
first-bar-number-invisible-save-broken-bars for barNumberVisibility 
to get a parenthesized BarNumber there." and provides a snippet. I 
don't see the snippet in the 2.22 documentation, but it does work in 
that version.


I trust this helps.

Brian Barker

Re: Bar numbers on lines beginning with a partial measure

[Jean Abou Samra]

> Le 6 févr. 2022 à 11:54, Valentin Petzel  a écrit :
> 
> Thus I think this would be a sensible default. Is there any good reason 
> against using this by default?



I wondered about that as well when I split the barNumberVisibility test and 
submitted the pending MR to no longer require \bar "" for printing the first 
bar number; but these were already deep frames in a stack of changes, so I 
decided not to look into it for the time being. You are welcome to do so. I 
seem to recall there is an open issue that more or less encompasses this 
problem (can't search the URL on a phone). The thing is, these options were 
added as options in the first place, so a reason not to have it at the default 
might have been found at the time. Before proposing a change to the default, 
I'd dig in code history to read the commit messages and code reviews of the 
patches that added these options.

Regards,
Jean

Re: Bar numbers on lines beginning with a partial measure

[Valentin Petzel]

Hello Jean,

in my opinion even if Gould did not specify this it is the most obvious 
solution to this, that is, the one solution everyone would come up with 
immediately.

Thus I think this would be a sensible default. Is there any good reason against 
using this by default?

Best,
Valentin

06.02.2022 10:38:27 Jean Abou Samra :

> 
>> Le 6 févr. 2022 à 10:16, Aaron Hill  a écrit :
>> 
>> I have for quite some time just relied on the default behavior where bar 
>> numbers are printed only for the first measure in each line (save the very 
>> first measure).  This works reasonably well as my musicians are able to 
>> locate measures by number fairly quickly.  However, there is an issue when I 
>> opt to split measures over a line break.  (This practice is quite common in 
>> hymnals, though I find it equally effective for modern music to avoid having 
>> pickup/trailing notes/lyrics straddling a line break.)  When the first 
>> measure on a line is a partial measure, no bar number is shown.  This means 
>> some lines in my lead sheets have no bar number for reference.  In some 
>> cases, I end up with no automatic bar numbers at all.
>> 
>> (Some code for context/reference...)
>> 
>> 
>> midMeasureBreak = { \bar "" \break }
>> forceBarNumber =
>> \once \override Score.BarNumber
>> .break-visibility = #all-visible
>> 
>> { R1*4 \break
>> R1*4 r2 r4 \midMeasureBreak r4
>> R1*4 r2 r4 \midMeasureBreak r4
>> \forceBarNumber
>> R1*4 \bar "|." }
>> 
>> 
>> As can be see above, I can manually override the bar number visibility, but 
>> it is not very elegant.  If I opt to reflow music, I would have to revisit 
>> the bar numbers to make sure only the ones I want are there.  It would be 
>> very nice if LilyPond could treat the first full measure as the effective 
>> first measure on the line w.r.t. break visibility settings.
>> 
>> Has anyone else encountered this and come up with a solution?  If not, I 
>> will dig around the existing engraver logic and see about submitting a patch 
>> should folks find the updated behavior desirable.
> 
> 
> Are you aware of the options to print a parenthesized bar number at the start 
> of the line if it's the continuation of a measure? See 
> input/regression/bar-number-visibility-* (sadly missing documentation at the 
> moment). I don't have an opinion on whether that is better practice or not 
> than what you suggest. It is, at any rate, what Gould recommends (Behind Bars 
> p. 490).
> 
> Best,
> Jean

Re: Bar numbers on lines beginning with a partial measure

[Aaron Hill]

On 2022-02-06 1:37 am, Jean Abou Samra wrote:

Are you aware of the options to print a parenthesized bar number at
the start of the line if it's the continuation of a measure? See
input/regression/bar-number-visibility-* (sadly missing documentation
at the moment). I don't have an opinion on whether that is better
practice or not than what you suggest. It is, at any rate, what Gould
recommends (Behind Bars p. 490).


Thanks, Jean.  first-bar-number-invisible-save-broken-bars is one of the 
undocumented options that seems almost perfect.


At first glance, though, the parenthesized numbers stand out too much.  
Thankfully, the parenthesization logic is within 
robust-bar-number-function, which is easily adaptable as Scheme code.  
Some quick testing with the \parenthesize markup command looks better 
than relying on the glyphs of the number font which are a little too 
wide.



;; ...preamble from robust-bar-number-function...
  (let*
   ((number-and-power (get-number-and-power 0 0))
(begin-measure (= 0 (ly:moment-main-numerator measure-pos)))
(text (string-append (number->string barnum)
   (make-letter "" (car number-and-power) (cdr 
number-and-power)

  (if begin-measure text
   (markup #:override '(line-thickness . 0.05)
   #:override '(padding . 0.05)
   #:override '(width . 0.2)
   #:parenthesize #:smaller text


I will have to try this for awhile to see if I like it better than 
labelling the first full measure.  It is interesting that all bar 
numbers would be consistently aligned on the left margin, so that might 
prove useful.



-- Aaron Hill

Re: Bar numbers on lines beginning with a partial measure

[Jean Abou Samra]

> Le 6 févr. 2022 à 10:16, Aaron Hill  a écrit :
> 
> I have for quite some time just relied on the default behavior where bar 
> numbers are printed only for the first measure in each line (save the very 
> first measure).  This works reasonably well as my musicians are able to 
> locate measures by number fairly quickly.  However, there is an issue when I 
> opt to split measures over a line break.  (This practice is quite common in 
> hymnals, though I find it equally effective for modern music to avoid having 
> pickup/trailing notes/lyrics straddling a line break.)  When the first 
> measure on a line is a partial measure, no bar number is shown.  This means 
> some lines in my lead sheets have no bar number for reference.  In some 
> cases, I end up with no automatic bar numbers at all.
> 
> (Some code for context/reference...)
> 
> 
> midMeasureBreak = { \bar "" \break }
> forceBarNumber =
> \once \override Score.BarNumber
>  .break-visibility = #all-visible
> 
> { R1*4 \break
>  R1*4 r2 r4 \midMeasureBreak r4
>  R1*4 r2 r4 \midMeasureBreak r4
>  \forceBarNumber
>  R1*4 \bar "|." }
> 
> 
> As can be see above, I can manually override the bar number visibility, but 
> it is not very elegant.  If I opt to reflow music, I would have to revisit 
> the bar numbers to make sure only the ones I want are there.  It would be 
> very nice if LilyPond could treat the first full measure as the effective 
> first measure on the line w.r.t. break visibility settings.
> 
> Has anyone else encountered this and come up with a solution?  If not, I will 
> dig around the existing engraver logic and see about submitting a patch 
> should folks find the updated behavior desirable.


Are you aware of the options to print a parenthesized bar number at the start 
of the line if it's the continuation of a measure? See 
input/regression/bar-number-visibility-* (sadly missing documentation at the 
moment). I don't have an opinion on whether that is better practice or not than 
what you suggest. It is, at any rate, what Gould recommends (Behind Bars p. 
490).

Best,
Jean

Bar numbers on lines beginning with a partial measure

[Aaron Hill]

I have for quite some time just relied on the default behavior where bar 
numbers are printed only for the first measure in each line (save the 
very first measure).  This works reasonably well as my musicians are 
able to locate measures by number fairly quickly.  However, there is an 
issue when I opt to split measures over a line break.  (This practice is 
quite common in hymnals, though I find it equally effective for modern 
music to avoid having pickup/trailing notes/lyrics straddling a line 
break.)  When the first measure on a line is a partial measure, no bar 
number is shown.  This means some lines in my lead sheets have no bar 
number for reference.  In some cases, I end up with no automatic bar 
numbers at all.


(Some code for context/reference...)


midMeasureBreak = { \bar "" \break }
forceBarNumber =
\once \override Score.BarNumber
  .break-visibility = #all-visible

{ R1*4 \break
  R1*4 r2 r4 \midMeasureBreak r4
  R1*4 r2 r4 \midMeasureBreak r4
  \forceBarNumber
  R1*4 \bar "|." }


As can be see above, I can manually override the bar number visibility, 
but it is not very elegant.  If I opt to reflow music, I would have to 
revisit the bar numbers to make sure only the ones I want are there.  It 
would be very nice if LilyPond could treat the first full measure as the 
effective first measure on the line w.r.t. break visibility settings.


Has anyone else encountered this and come up with a solution?  If not, I 
will dig around the existing engraver logic and see about submitting a 
patch should folks find the updated behavior desirable.



-- Aaron Hill

Re: 5/16 of 4/4 as a partial? How?

[Kenneth Wolcott]

Hi Christian;

  AWESOME!  Thank you very much!

Ken

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:44 PM Christian  wrote:
>
> Hi Kenneth!
>
> You might just wanna try:
> \partial 16*5
>
> All the best,
> Christian
>
> Am Mo., 20. Dez. 2021 um 21:22 Uhr schrieb Kenneth Wolcott 
> :
>>
>> Hi;
>>
>>   I'm engraving a piece in 4/4 which has a partial of one sixteenth
>> note, followed by a dotted eighth and another sixteenth note.
>>
>> How to engrave this?
>>
>> My sloppy workaround was to use spacer notes (s2 s8.) to proceed the
>> aforementioned which completes the measure, but looks awful :-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ken Wolcott
>>

Re: 5/16 of 4/4 as a partial? How?

[Christian]

Hi Kenneth!

You might just wanna try:
\partial 16*5

All the best,
Christian

Am Mo., 20. Dez. 2021 um 21:22 Uhr schrieb Kenneth Wolcott <
kennethwolc...@gmail.com>:

> Hi;
>
>   I'm engraving a piece in 4/4 which has a partial of one sixteenth
> note, followed by a dotted eighth and another sixteenth note.
>
> How to engrave this?
>
> My sloppy workaround was to use spacer notes (s2 s8.) to proceed the
> aforementioned which completes the measure, but looks awful :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Ken Wolcott
>
>

5/16 of 4/4 as a partial? How?

[Kenneth Wolcott]

Hi;

  I'm engraving a piece in 4/4 which has a partial of one sixteenth
note, followed by a dotted eighth and another sixteenth note.

How to engrave this?

My sloppy workaround was to use spacer notes (s2 s8.) to proceed the
aforementioned which completes the measure, but looks awful :-)

Thanks,
Ken Wolcott

PIano: Partial Pedalling

[Dijkhuizen, J.F. van]

Dear All,


I've tinkered about some more with partial pedalling and gradual sustain pedal 
release, and here's some code (some of it copied/adapted from the internet) 
that seems to work, even though in some respects it shouldn't:


\version "2.20.0"

\relative c'' {
  \set Staff.pedalSustainStyle = #'bracket

  % 1. standard sustain pedal behaviour
  c1\sustainOn c \sustainOff \sustainOn c\sustainOff c

  % 2. gradual pedal release indicated by dashed line
   \once \override Staff.PianoPedalBracket.edge-height = #' (1 . 0)
  c1\sustainOn
  \once \override Staff.PianoPedalBracket.bracket-flare = #'(0 . 14.5)
  \once \override Staff.PianoPedalBracket.edge-height = #' (0 . 1)
  \once \override Staff.PianoPedalBracket.style = #'dashed-line
  c \sustainOff \sustainOn
   c c4\sustainOn \sustainOff c c c

 % 3. 1/2 pedal instruction
   \set Staff.pedalSustainStyle = #'mixed
\once \override Staff.PianoPedalBracket.edge-height = #' (0 . 1)
   \override Staff.PianoPedalBracket.bracket-flare = #'(8 . 0)
   \once \override Staff.SustainPedal #'stencil =
  #(lambda (grob) (grob-interpret-markup grob (markup "½")))
   c1\sustainOn c c \sustainOff
}


In the second snippet, the slanted pedal release line ONLY works if \sustainOff 
in the final line is preceded by \sustainOn; otherwise the line remains 
horizontal.

It doesn't make complete sense to me, since there's already a \sustainOn in the 
preceding line. So this is probably isn't how it's supposed to be done, but for 
now it offers a simple way of notating gradual sustain pedal release.


Jan

Re: Piano: partial pedalling

[Dijkhuizen, J.F. van]

Many thanks for this, Aaron; it's very useful and I could never have coded this 
myself.


I've meanwhile done some more searching and the 'pedal-decorations' notation 
snippets in OpenLilyLib also go quite a long way towards doing what I'm looking 
for.


Jan



Van: Aaron Hill 
Verzonden: maandag 10 mei 2021 21:57
Aan: Dijkhuizen, J.F. van
CC: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Onderwerp: Re: Piano: partial pedalling

On 2021-05-10 11:38 am, Dijkhuizen, J.F. van wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I was wondering if anybody knows if it's possible to notate partial
> sustain pedalling in LilyPond (essentially 1/4. half-pedal, 3/4
> pedal), and if so how.
>
> There seems to be nothing about it in the manual, and I've not been
> able to find anything online that I am able to use. Ideally, I'd like
> to be able to notate pedal level changes by means of a line, as is
> possible in Dorico, for example:
>
> However, just being able to specify '1/2' at the beginning of a pedal
> line, and, for example, 'release pedal slowly' at tthe end of a pedal
> line, would be great too.
>
>  Any help with this would be really appreciated!

There are a few ad hoc solutions if you search the archives.  You can
see if my hack [1] to the PianoPedalBracket stencil a few years ago
would be of any use.

[1]:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-01/msg00522.html


-- Aaron Hill

Re: Piano: partial pedalling

[Aaron Hill]

(Please make sure to keep the mailing list on all messages.)

On 2021-05-10 1:42 pm, Dijkhuizen, J.F. van wrote:

Many thanks for this. When I paste the code into Frescobaldi and
compile it, I'm getting the following error message:

error: syntax error, unexpected end of input
{ s4 s4*6\gradualSustain #'((0 2 2 0)(0.3)(0.4 0 5 -3 3)) s4\sustainOff

Do you know what went wrong?


Well, there's a missing closing brace in what you quoted above.  But 
most likely you are hitting an issue where the >> is missing when you 
copy/paste from the lists.gnu.org archive site.  See this version hosted 
on lilybin [1].


[1]: http://lilybin.com/kq9t97/1

-- Aaron Hill

Re: Piano: partial pedalling

[Aaron Hill]

On 2021-05-10 11:38 am, Dijkhuizen, J.F. van wrote:

Dear All,

I was wondering if anybody knows if it's possible to notate partial
sustain pedalling in LilyPond (essentially 1/4. half-pedal, 3/4
pedal), and if so how.

There seems to be nothing about it in the manual, and I've not been
able to find anything online that I am able to use. Ideally, I'd like
to be able to notate pedal level changes by means of a line, as is
possible in Dorico, for example:

However, just being able to specify '1/2' at the beginning of a pedal
line, and, for example, 'release pedal slowly' at tthe end of a pedal
line, would be great too.

 Any help with this would be really appreciated!


There are a few ad hoc solutions if you search the archives.  You can 
see if my hack [1] to the PianoPedalBracket stencil a few years ago 
would be of any use.


[1]: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-01/msg00522.html



-- Aaron Hill

Piano: partial pedalling

[Dijkhuizen, J.F. van]

Dear All,


I was wondering if anybody knows if it's possible to notate partial sustain 
pedalling in LilyPond (essentially 1/4. half-pedal, 3/4 pedal), and if so how.


There seems to be nothing about it in the manual, and I've not been able to 
find anything online that I am able to use. Ideally, I'd like to be able to 
notate pedal level changes by means of a line, as is possible in Dorico, for 
example:


[cid:5fc29545-b07a-4416-b824-05b22139aba9]

However, just being able to specify '1/2' at the beginning of a pedal line, 
and, for example, 'release pedal slowly' at tthe end of a pedal line, would be 
great too.

Any help with this would be really appreciated!

Thanks,

Jan

Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Joe McCool]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 09:58, Lukas-Fabian Moser  wrote:

> Hi Joe,
>
> But there is still something wrong with my understanding.  When I compile
> the attached with 2.22, Lily complains of a barcheck fail at 15,30 :-(
>
> This is caused by \unfoldRepeats in the MIDI version of the score and the
> conflicting simultaneous \partials you issue in mill_mill_o (begins with
> \partial 8*2) and mill_mill_o_chords (begins with \partial 8).
>
Again, bullseye Lukas.   Super remiss of me not to have spotted that.

I go off now happy as the flowers in May and much humbled.

Thanks a lot to you all and thanks for Lilypond, which I still find a
source of great joy.

-- 
Thanks.

Joe McCool CEng, MIMarEST, SMIEEE
www.tangentengineering.co. <http://www.tangentengineering.co.uk>uk
(44)7802572441

Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Hi Joe,

But there is still something wrong with my understanding.  When I 
compile the attached with 2.22, Lily complains of a barcheck fail at 
15,30 :-(


This is caused by \unfoldRepeats in the MIDI version of the score and 
the conflicting simultaneous \partials you issue in mill_mill_o (begins 
with \partial 8*2) and mill_mill_o_chords (begins with \partial 8).


Ultimately, the reason is your non-standard (or by usual standards 
"wrong") notation of a repeat.


a) \partial makes the current bar "shorter than usual". You only have to 
issue this once in simultaneous layers of music (for example, only in 
the melody, not also in the chords). It's not wrong to issue it in each 
simultaneous layer, but to have \partial 8 and \partial 8*2 (which is 
\partial 4, by the way) simultaneously makes no sense.


b) In classical notation, your repeat would have to be considered 
"wrong" since, at the point where we encounter the :|| sign, we already 
are at the end of a complete 4/4 bar. The new pickup bar in effect 
creates a 5/4 bar mid-piece, which is not impossible, but very unusual 
(and should be written explicitly if really intended).


A standard way of writing repeats in music with pickups (common, for 
example, in Bach's chorales) would be:


\version "2.22.0"

\relative c' {
  \repeat volta 2 {
    \partial 4
    c8 d |
    e4 e d d |
    c2.
  } e8 d |
  e4 e8 f g4 f8 e
  e4( d)^"etc."
}

Note that the last bar inside the \repeat is incomplete (c2.), but 
together with the new pickup (c8 d in the repeat, e8 d afterwards) makes 
for a complete bar.


Lukas

Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Joe McCool via LilyPond user discussion]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 at 14:11, David Wright 
wrote:

> Apart from your commandline, we also need to know what and how you
> installed the version you're using. If it helps, I installed the
> downloaded file   lilypond-2.22.0-1.linux-64.sh   with the commands:
>
> $ cd ~
> $ bash .../lilypond-2.22.0-1.linux-64.sh --prefix
> lilypond-2.22.0-1.linux-64
>
> ^^^


I had followed the instructions here:

https://lilypond.org/download/binaries/linux-64/lilypond-2.22.0-1.linux-64.sh

But omitted your --prefix

newmend.ly now compiles without error and the resulting pdf appears perfect
to me.  Thanks a lot for that.

But there is still something wrong with my understanding.  When I compile
the attached with 2.22, Lily complains of a barcheck fail at 15,30 :-(

I cannot see the difference between the approach taken in newmend.ly and
mill.mill.o.ly.   Can it have something to do with 6/8 in the first tune
and 4/4 in the second?

Surely  \partial 8*2 d8. [ e16 ]  |is correct?

Sorry I am making such heavy weather of this.  I have tried following the
examples here:

https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/106875/how-to-write-a-pickup-measure-with-5-16-duration-in-lilypond

-- 
Thanks.

Joe McCool CEng, MIMarEST, SMIEEE
www.tangentengineering.co. <http://www.tangentengineering.co.uk>uk
(44)7802572441
\version "2.18.2"
% automatically converted by musicxml2ly from test.xml

\header {
  encoder = "abc2xml version 226"
  encodingdate = "2021-02-15"
  title = "Mill Mill O, The"
}

mill_mill_o =  \relative d'' {
  \tempo 4 = 120
  \key d \major
  \time 4/4
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*2 d8. [ e16 ] | %!. %%| % 2
fis4 a,8. [ b16 ] a4. d8 | %%| % 3
b8. [ a16 ] b16 [ d8. ] e4 d8. [ e16 ] | %%| % 4
fis4 a,4 g'8. [ fis16 e8 d8 ] | %%| % 5
b4. cis8 d2 | 
  }
  \break
  \partial 8*1 a8 | %!*7 %%| % 7
  d8. [ e16 fis8 g8 ] a4. a8 | %%| % 8
  g8. [ fis16 ] e16 [ d8. ] e4 a,4 | %%| % 9
  d8. [ e16 fis8 g8 ] a4. g8 | %\barNumberCheck #10
  fis4. g8 a4. a,8 | 
  d8. [ e16 fis8 g8 ] a4. a8 | %%| % 12
  b8. [ a16 g8 fis8 ] e4 d8. [ e16 ] | %%| % 13
  fis4. a8 g8 [ fis8 e8 d8 ] | %%| % 14
  b4. cis8 d2 | %\bar "%%|%%|"
}

mill_mill_o_chords = \chordmode {
  \set noChordSymbol = "" 
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*1 r8 r8  %%| % 2
d4:5 r4 r r  %%| % 3
g8:5 r r r a4:5 r4  %%| % 4
d4:5 r4 g8:5 r r r %%| % 5
a4:5 r4 d4:5 r4
  }
  \partial 8*1 r8 %%| % 7
  d8:5 r r r r r r r %%| % 8
  g8:5 r r r a4:5 r8 r %%| % 9
  d8:5 r r r a4:5 r8 r %%| \barNumberCheck #10
  d4:5 r4 a4:5 r8 r %%| % 11
  d8:5 r r r r r r r %%| % 12
  g8:5 r r r a4:5 r8 r %%| % 13
  d4:5 r8 r g8:5 r r r %%| % 14
  a4:5 r8 r d4:5 r   \bar "%%|%%|"
}

mill_mill_o_final = {
  <<
\new ChordNames {
  \set chordChanges = ##t
  \mill_mill_o_chords
}
\new Voice = "one" { \mill_mill_o}
  >>
}

\score {
  \mill_mill_o_final
  \header {
piece = "mill_mill_o"
  }
  \layout {
indent = #0
line-width = #180
ragged-last = ##t
 }
}

\score {
  \unfoldRepeats   
  {
\mill_mill_o_final
\mill_mill_o_final
\mill_mill_o_final
  }
  \midi{}
}
\markup{filename: mill.mill.o.ly}

Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[David Wright]

On Wed 24 Feb 2021 at 05:03:15 (+), Joe McCool wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 13:27, Xavier Scheuer wrote:
> >
> >   \alternative {
> > { g8 [ fis8 g8 ] e8 [ fis8 g8 ] |
> > \set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 5/8)
> > a8 [ fis8 d8 ] c8 b8 } % b4 } % ←
> > {
> > \set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 6/8)
> > d8  [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ] |
> > c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4 } % g4. } % ←
> >   }
> >
> Ah,  bullseye.  Thank you so much.

I can't help you there.

(For non-Debian users, bullseye is the next stable version of Debian.)

> Under Debian Buster, when I install 2.22 and try lilypond newmend.ly, it
> retorts:
> 
> GNU LilyPond 2.22.0

Apart from your commandline, we also need to know what and how you
installed the version you're using. If it helps, I installed the
downloaded file   lilypond-2.22.0-1.linux-64.sh   with the commands:

$ cd ~
$ bash .../lilypond-2.22.0-1.linux-64.sh --prefix lilypond-2.22.0-1.linux-64

(... is wherever you download things) and ran it thus:

$ cd /tmp/
$ ~/lilypond-2.22.0-1.linux-64/bin/lilypond newmend.ly 
GNU LilyPond 2.22.0
Processing `newmend.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...[8][16][24]
Preprocessing graphical objects...
Interpreting music...
MIDI output to `newmend.midi'...
Finding the ideal number of pages...
Fitting music on 1 page...
Drawing systems...
Converting to `newmend.pdf'...
Success: compilation successfully completed
$ 

This avoids any interference from the fact that buster's own version
is 2.18.2 (though the name of the package is baroque) and also the
four other downloaded versions that I have installed.

$ ls -Ggld lilypond-*
drwxr-x---  4 4096 Feb  7  2018 lilypond-2.18.2-1.linux-64
drwxr-x---  4 4096 May 13  2019 lilypond-2.19.83-1.linux-64
drwxr-x---  4 4096 Apr 18  2020 lilypond-2.21.0-1.linux-64
drwxr-x---  4 4096 Nov 15 14:22 lilypond-2.21.80-1.linux-64
drwxr-x---  4 4096 Jan 11 13:22 lilypond-2.22.0-1.linux-64
drwxr-x--- 22 4096 Feb  4 18:25 lilypond-docs
$ 

> Processing `newmend.ly'
> Parsing...
> Interpreting music...[8][16][24]
> Preprocessing graphical objects...
> Interpreting music...
> newmend.ly:30:17: warning: barcheck failed at: 1/8
> a8^"PART B"
> | %!*5 %%| % 13 %% \partial 8*1 a8^"PART B" %!*5 %%| % 13 %
> ←
> newmend.ly:31:24: warning: barcheck failed at: 1/4
> b4 d8 g8 [ d8 b8 ]
>| %%| % 14
> newmend.ly:32:33: warning: barcheck failed at: 3/8
> d8 [ g8 b,8 ] d8 [ g8 b,8 ]
> | %%| % 15
> newmend.ly:33:24: warning: barcheck failed at: 1/2
> c4 e8 g8 [ e8 c8 ]
>| %%| % 16
> newmend.ly:35:28: warning: barcheck failed at: 1/8
> d4 fis8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ]
>| %%| % 18
> newmend.ly:44:36: warning: barcheck failed at: 1/4
> d8  [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ]
>|
> MIDI output to `newmend.midi'...
> Finding the ideal number of pages...
> Fitting music on 1 page...
> Drawing systems...
> Converting to `newmend.pdf'...
> warning: `(gs -q -dNODISPLAY -dNOSAFER -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH
> -dAutoRotatePages=/None -dPrinted=false /tmp/lilypond-tmp-5422433)' failed
> (11)
> 
> fatal error: failed files: "newmend.ly"
> 
> I suspect I have some sort of environmental problem :-(

Cheers,
David.

Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Joe McCool]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 13:27, Xavier Scheuer  wrote:

>
>   \alternative {
> { g8 [ fis8 g8 ] e8 [ fis8 g8 ] |
> \set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 5/8)
> a8 [ fis8 d8 ] c8 b8 } % b4 } % ←
> {
> \set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 6/8)
> d8  [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ] |
> c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4 } % g4. } % ←
>   }
>

Ah,  bullseye.  Thank you so much.

Under Debian Buster, when I install 2.22 and try lilypond newmend.ly, it
retorts:

GNU LilyPond 2.22.0
Processing `newmend.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...[8][16][24]
Preprocessing graphical objects...
Interpreting music...
newmend.ly:30:17: warning: barcheck failed at: 1/8
a8^"PART B"
| %!*5 %%| % 13 %% \partial 8*1 a8^"PART B" %!*5 %%| % 13 %
←
newmend.ly:31:24: warning: barcheck failed at: 1/4
b4 d8 g8 [ d8 b8 ]
   | %%| % 14
newmend.ly:32:33: warning: barcheck failed at: 3/8
d8 [ g8 b,8 ] d8 [ g8 b,8 ]
| %%| % 15
newmend.ly:33:24: warning: barcheck failed at: 1/2
c4 e8 g8 [ e8 c8 ]
   | %%| % 16
newmend.ly:35:28: warning: barcheck failed at: 1/8
d4 fis8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ]
   | %%| % 18
newmend.ly:44:36: warning: barcheck failed at: 1/4
d8  [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ]
   |
MIDI output to `newmend.midi'...
Finding the ideal number of pages...
Fitting music on 1 page...
Drawing systems...
Converting to `newmend.pdf'...
warning: `(gs -q -dNODISPLAY -dNOSAFER -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH
-dAutoRotatePages=/None -dPrinted=false /tmp/lilypond-tmp-5422433)' failed
(11)

fatal error: failed files: "newmend.ly"

I suspect I have some sort of environmental problem :-(

-- 
Thanks.

Joe McCool CEng, MIMarEST, SMIEEE
www.tangentengineering.co. <http://www.tangentengineering.co.uk>uk
(44)7802572441

Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Xavier Scheuer]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 06:04, Joe McCool via LilyPond user discussion <
lilypond-user@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> David, I really appreciate your help.  But I still have a wee problem:
>
> When I look at newmend.pdf, it looks spot on to me.   But if I pull down
your newmend.ly and compile it here, the result is completely different.
See attached.
>
> No doubt this is another cockup on my part :-(

Hello,

You compiled the file with version 2.18.2 whereas David compiled it with
2.22.0 (looking at the tagline in his PDF).
Apparently 2.22 handles incomplete measures and \alternative better than
2.18.

The doc of 2.18.2 also explains when it becomes necessary to set the
Timing.measureLength in the case of alternate endings with incomplete
measure.
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/long-repeats.html
This part is not present anymore in the doc of 2.22.0.

If you use 2.18.2 then modify your \alternative by setting
Timing.measureLength:

  \alternative {
{ g8 [ fis8 g8 ] e8 [ fis8 g8 ] |
\set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 5/8)
a8 [ fis8 d8 ] c8 b8 } % b4 } % ←
{
\set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 6/8)
d8  [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ] |
c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4 } % g4. } % ←
  }

Cheers,
Xavier

-- 
Xavier Scheuer 

Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Joe McCool via LilyPond user discussion]

David, I really appreciate your help.  But I still have a wee problem:

When I look at newmend.pdf, it looks spot on to me.   But if I pull down
your newmend.ly and compile it here, the result is completely different.
See attached.

No doubt this is another cockup on my part :-(

-- 
Thanks.

Joe McCool CEng, MIMarEST, SMIEEE
www.tangentengineering.co. uk
(44)7802572441


newmend.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[David Wright]

On Sat 20 Feb 2021 at 12:46:25 (-0800), Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote:
> 
> I have made some minor changes to conform with performance.

You've set the 40-bar version, originally posted because
the OP hadn't worked out how to repeat the last eight bars
(itself containing the 4-bar repeat).

But, that said, a 40-bar version would not repeat the "c"
(bar 32's last note) again at bar 36/37: it's place has
been taken by the "f♯" (bar 36's last note). This is made
obvious by unfolding the score, or listening to the MIDI.

Lengthening the last note of the piece merely causes trouble
when you start to add the repeat to make it 48 bars long.

So, for 40 bars, only apply the correction in my first post.

OTOH, for 48 bars, that "c" *will* be repeated, though only
after *eight* bars, as seen in newmend.ly in my other post.
("New" because I also started correcting a 40-bar version.)

> The code has a great deal of “stuff” that is not necessary (from the source?).

Some of this may be because, wisely, the OP included
barchecks, but then couldn't get them to work.
I reinserted them, but without deleting anything
originally present in the OP (so a tidy-up would
be called for).

Cheers,
David.

RE: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

Joe,

 

I have made some minor changes to conform with performance.

See the attached.

The code has a great deal of “stuff” that is not necessary (from the source?).

Mark

 

From: Joe McCool [mailto:tangent.gard...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2021 12:42 AM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek 
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

 

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at 19:45, Mark Stephen Mrotek mailto:carsonm...@ca.rr.com> > wrote:

Joe,

 

Thanks for the help Mark et al. 

 

The second repeated section starts with a partial measure.

 

But there is no \partial there in the source code, hence my problem.   With the 
source as shown in my original post the resulting PDF shows a partial and bar 
lines struck through beams, which is absurd in this context.

 

Given your hints, I have dotted the last notes in the alternatives as this: 

 

%

\version "2.18.2"
% automatically converted by musicxml2ly from test.xml

\header {
  source = "https://www.ibiblio.org/fiddlers/FARG_FAY.htm
Paul O'Shaughnessy"
  encoder = "abc2xml version 226"
  encodingdate = "2021-02-16"
  composer = "Father Patrick Joseph Kelly"
  title = "Lough Derg Jig"
}
\override Staff.BarLine.stencil = ##f

lough_derg_jig =  \relative d' {
  \tempo 4 = 120
  \repeat volta 2 {
\key g \major \time 6/8 %%| % 1
\partial 8*1 d8^"PART A" %!*5 %%| % 3
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 4
fis4 g8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 5
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 6
b8 [ d8 b8 ] c8 [ a8 fis8 ] %%| % 7
g4 c8 b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 8
fis4. a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 9
d'8 [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ] %%| \barNumberCheck #10
c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4
  }
  \break
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*1 a8^"PART B" %!*5 %%| % 13
b4 d8 g8 [ d8 b8 ] %%| % 14
d8 [ g8 b,8 ] d8 [ g8 b,8 ] %%| % 15
c4 e8 g8 [ e8 c8 ] %%| % 16
e8 [ g8 c,8 ] e8 [ g8 e8 ] %%| % 17
d4 fis8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 18
fis8 [ a8 d,8 ] fis8 [ a8 d,8 ]
  }
  \alternative {
{g8 [ fis8 g8 ] e8 [ fis8 g8 ] 
 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] c8  b4 } 
{d8  [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ] 
 c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4. }
  }
  \break 
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*1 c8
\repeat volta 2 {
  b4.^"PART C" b8 g e
  fis4 g8 a fis e
}
\alternative {
  {b' d b g a g
   b d b c a fis}
  {d' cis d fis e d
   c a fis g4.}
}
  }
}
  
% The score definition
lough_derg_jig_chords = \chordmode {
  \set noChordSymbol = "" 
}

lough_derg_jig_final = {
  <<
\new ChordNames {
  \set chordChanges = ##t
  \lough_derg_jig_chords
}
\new Voice = "one" { \lough_derg_jig}
  >>
}

\score {
  \lough_derg_jig_final
  \header {
piece = "lough_derg_jig"
  }
  \layout {
indent = #0
line-width = #180
ragged-last = ##t
 }
}

\score {
  \unfoldRepeats   
  {
\lough_derg_jig_final
\lough_derg_jig_final
\lough_derg_jig_final
  }
  \midi{}
}
\markup{filename: lough.derg.jig.ly <http://lough.derg.jig.ly> }



 

This compiles fine and the resulting PDF looks OK, sort of.  But this is 
cheating.

 

My understanding is that if a part starts with a \partial, then the last bar 
should consist of 5 quavers, not six.

 

Remember my original route to this ly was: python abc2xml.py file.abc > 
test.xml;musicxml2ly test.xml"

 

I have taken the liberty of attaching the PDF resulting from abcm2ps (which is 
what I am trying to emulate).  To me it seems more legal in that it features 5 
quavers in the alternatives.

 

In Part C, I have not yet worked out how to show the 1,2 and 3,4 alternatives.  
But that is another day's work.

 

BTW, I love Lilypond dearly and am so grateful for its tolerance of my musical 
ignorance.

 

-- 

Thanks.

Joe McCool CEng, MIMarEST, SMIEEE
www.tangentengineering.co. <http://www.tangentengineering.co.uk> uk

(44)7802572441

 

%
\version "2.18.2"
% automatically converted by musicxml2ly from test.xml

\header {
  source = "https://www.ibiblio.org/fiddlers/FARG_FAY.htm
Paul O'Shaughnessy"
  encoder = "abc2xml version 226"
  encodingdate = "2021-02-16"
  composer = "Father Patrick Joseph Kelly"
  title = "Lough Derg Jig"
}


lough_derg_jig =  \relative d' {
  \tempo 4 = 120
  \repeat volta 2 {
\key g \major \time 6/8 %%| % 1
\partial 8*1 d8^"PART A" %!*5 %%| % 3
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 4
fis4 g8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 5
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 6
b8 [ d8 b8 ] c8 [ a8 fis8 ] %%| % 7
g4 c8 b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 8
fis4. a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 9
d'8 [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ] %%| \barNumberCheck #10
c8 [ a8 fis8 ]

RE: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

Joe,

 

Some thoughts on the score.

Repeats must have complete measures. Note Part A. It starts with an upbeat (one 
eighth) and ends with 5 eighths. This makes a complete measure.

Parts B and C do not have complete measures. The anacrusis in each is somewhat 
of an orphan. It does not make performance sense. Lilypond lets you get away 
with this since you did not use bar checks (look that up in the documentation). 

The repeat sign at the beginning of measure 19 does not make sense. It would if 
the two alternate endings have 5 eights in the last measure.

The metronome marking has a quarter note = 120. I think you want a dotted 
quarter instead.

The source listed is in abc notation. How did you convert it?

 

Mark

 

From: Joe McCool [mailto:tangent.gard...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2021 12:42 AM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek 
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

 

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at 19:45, Mark Stephen Mrotek mailto:carsonm...@ca.rr.com> > wrote:

Joe,

 

Thanks for the help Mark et al. 

 

The second repeated section starts with a partial measure.

 

But there is no \partial there in the source code, hence my problem.   With the 
source as shown in my original post the resulting PDF shows a partial and bar 
lines struck through beams, which is absurd in this context.

 

Given your hints, I have dotted the last notes in the alternatives as this: 

 

%

\version "2.18.2"
% automatically converted by musicxml2ly from test.xml

\header {
  source = "https://www.ibiblio.org/fiddlers/FARG_FAY.htm
Paul O'Shaughnessy"
  encoder = "abc2xml version 226"
  encodingdate = "2021-02-16"
  composer = "Father Patrick Joseph Kelly"
  title = "Lough Derg Jig"
}
\override Staff.BarLine.stencil = ##f

lough_derg_jig =  \relative d' {
  \tempo 4 = 120
  \repeat volta 2 {
\key g \major \time 6/8 %%| % 1
\partial 8*1 d8^"PART A" %!*5 %%| % 3
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 4
fis4 g8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 5
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 6
b8 [ d8 b8 ] c8 [ a8 fis8 ] %%| % 7
g4 c8 b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 8
fis4. a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 9
d'8 [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ] %%| \barNumberCheck #10
c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4
  }
  \break
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*1 a8^"PART B" %!*5 %%| % 13
b4 d8 g8 [ d8 b8 ] %%| % 14
d8 [ g8 b,8 ] d8 [ g8 b,8 ] %%| % 15
c4 e8 g8 [ e8 c8 ] %%| % 16
e8 [ g8 c,8 ] e8 [ g8 e8 ] %%| % 17
d4 fis8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 18
fis8 [ a8 d,8 ] fis8 [ a8 d,8 ]
  }
  \alternative {
{g8 [ fis8 g8 ] e8 [ fis8 g8 ] 
 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] c8  b4 } 
{d8  [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ] 
 c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4. }
  }
  \break 
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*1 c8
\repeat volta 2 {
  b4.^"PART C" b8 g e
  fis4 g8 a fis e
}
\alternative {
  {b' d b g a g
   b d b c a fis}
  {d' cis d fis e d
   c a fis g4.}
}
  }
}
  
% The score definition
lough_derg_jig_chords = \chordmode {
  \set noChordSymbol = "" 
}

lough_derg_jig_final = {
  <<
\new ChordNames {
  \set chordChanges = ##t
  \lough_derg_jig_chords
}
\new Voice = "one" { \lough_derg_jig}
  >>
}

\score {
  \lough_derg_jig_final
  \header {
piece = "lough_derg_jig"
  }
  \layout {
indent = #0
line-width = #180
ragged-last = ##t
 }
}

\score {
  \unfoldRepeats   
  {
\lough_derg_jig_final
\lough_derg_jig_final
\lough_derg_jig_final
  }
  \midi{}
}
\markup{filename: lough.derg.jig.ly <http://lough.derg.jig.ly> }



 

This compiles fine and the resulting PDF looks OK, sort of.  But this is 
cheating.

 

My understanding is that if a part starts with a \partial, then the last bar 
should consist of 5 quavers, not six.

 

Remember my original route to this ly was: python abc2xml.py file.abc > 
test.xml;musicxml2ly test.xml"

 

I have taken the liberty of attaching the PDF resulting from abcm2ps (which is 
what I am trying to emulate).  To me it seems more legal in that it features 5 
quavers in the alternatives.

 

In Part C, I have not yet worked out how to show the 1,2 and 3,4 alternatives.  
But that is another day's work.

 

BTW, I love Lilypond dearly and am so grateful for its tolerance of my musical 
ignorance.

 

-- 

Thanks.

Joe McCool CEng, MIMarEST, SMIEEE
www.tangentengineering.co. <http://www.tangentengineering.co.uk> uk

(44)7802572441

 

Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Joe McCool via LilyPond user discussion]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at 19:45, Mark Stephen Mrotek 
wrote:

> Joe,
>

Thanks for the help Mark et al.

>
>
> The second repeated section starts with a partial measure.
>

But there is no \partial there in the source code, hence my problem.   With
the source as shown in my original post the resulting PDF shows a partial
and bar lines struck through beams, which is absurd in this context.

Given your hints, I have dotted the last notes in the alternatives as this:

%
\version "2.18.2"
% automatically converted by musicxml2ly from test.xml

\header {
  source = "https://www.ibiblio.org/fiddlers/FARG_FAY.htm
Paul O'Shaughnessy"
  encoder = "abc2xml version 226"
  encodingdate = "2021-02-16"
  composer = "Father Patrick Joseph Kelly"
  title = "Lough Derg Jig"
}
\override Staff.BarLine.stencil = ##f

lough_derg_jig =  \relative d' {
  \tempo 4 = 120
  \repeat volta 2 {
\key g \major \time 6/8 %%| % 1
\partial 8*1 d8^"PART A" %!*5 %%| % 3
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 4
fis4 g8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 5
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 6
b8 [ d8 b8 ] c8 [ a8 fis8 ] %%| % 7
g4 c8 b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 8
fis4. a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 9
d'8 [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ] %%| \barNumberCheck #10
c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4
  }
  \break
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*1 a8^"PART B" %!*5 %%| % 13
b4 d8 g8 [ d8 b8 ] %%| % 14
d8 [ g8 b,8 ] d8 [ g8 b,8 ] %%| % 15
c4 e8 g8 [ e8 c8 ] %%| % 16
e8 [ g8 c,8 ] e8 [ g8 e8 ] %%| % 17
d4 fis8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 18
fis8 [ a8 d,8 ] fis8 [ a8 d,8 ]
  }
  \alternative {
{g8 [ fis8 g8 ] e8 [ fis8 g8 ]
 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] c8  b4 }
    {d8  [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ]
 c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4. }
  }
  \break
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*1 c8
\repeat volta 2 {
  b4.^"PART C" b8 g e
  fis4 g8 a fis e
}
\alternative {
  {b' d b g a g
   b d b c a fis}
  {d' cis d fis e d
   c a fis g4.}
}
  }
}

% The score definition
lough_derg_jig_chords = \chordmode {
  \set noChordSymbol = ""
}

lough_derg_jig_final = {
  <<
\new ChordNames {
  \set chordChanges = ##t
  \lough_derg_jig_chords
}
\new Voice = "one" { \lough_derg_jig}
  >>
}

\score {
  \lough_derg_jig_final
  \header {
piece = "lough_derg_jig"
  }
  \layout {
indent = #0
line-width = #180
ragged-last = ##t
 }
}

\score {
  \unfoldRepeats
  {
\lough_derg_jig_final
\lough_derg_jig_final
\lough_derg_jig_final
  }
  \midi{}
}
\markup{filename: lough.derg.jig.ly}
%%%%%%%%

This compiles fine and the resulting PDF looks OK, sort of.  But this is
cheating.

My understanding is that if a part starts with a \partial, then the last
bar should consist of 5 quavers, not six.

Remember my original route to this ly was: python abc2xml.py file.abc >
test.xml;musicxml2ly test.xml"

I have taken the liberty of attaching the PDF resulting from abcm2ps (which
is what I am trying to emulate).  To me it seems more legal in that it
features 5 quavers in the alternatives.

In Part C, I have not yet worked out how to show the 1,2 and 3,4
alternatives.  But that is another day's work.

BTW, I love Lilypond dearly and am so grateful for its tolerance of my
musical ignorance.

-- 
Thanks.

Joe McCool CEng, MIMarEST, SMIEEE
www.tangentengineering.co. <http://www.tangentengineering.co.uk>uk
(44)7802572441


Out.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Re: Partial ottava sign

[Aaron Hill]

On 2021-02-19 5:48 pm, Andrew Bernard wrote:

Acceptable to Gould or not, there are valid use cases for this (in my
New Complexity stuff for one). There's a way to do it - I need to find
it in my library code later today. I seem to vaguely recall there is
an example in LSR? I may be wrong.


Maybe 875 [1]?

[1]: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=875


-- Aaron Hill

Re: Partial ottava sign

[Andrew Bernard]

Acceptable to Gould or not, there are valid use cases for this (in my 
New Complexity stuff for one). There's a way to do it - I need to find 
it in my library code later today. I seem to vaguely recall there is an 
example in LSR? I may be wrong.


Andrew


Peter Toye wrote on 20/02/2021 4:02 AM:
Re: Partial ottava sign Just the one chord. I'll try that unless 
anyone else here comes up with a better suggestion. I was really 
asking whether there's an accepted way of doing it.

RE: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

Joe,

 

The second repeated section starts with a partial measure.

The first alternative is two complete measures.

The two are incompatible.

 

Mark

 

From: lilypond-user [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] 
On Behalf Of Joe McCool
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 9:19 AM
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

 

Please, I cannot understand what I am doing wrong.  When I compile the ly file, 
I get a spurious partial in the 2nd alternative of the 2nd part.

 

%%

\version "2.18.2"
% automatically converted by musicxml2ly from test.xml

\header {
  source = "https://www.ibiblio.org/fiddlers/FARG_FAY.htm
Paul O'Shaughnessy"
  encoder = "abc2xml version 226"
  encodingdate = "2021-02-16"
  composer = "Father Patrick Joseph Kelly"
  title = "Lough Derg Jig"
}
%\override Staff.BarLine.stencil = ##f

lough_derg_jig =  \relative d' {
  \tempo 4 = 120
  \repeat volta 2 {
\key g \major \time 6/8 %%| % 1
\partial 8*1 d8 %!*5 %%| % 3
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 4
fis4 g8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 5
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 6
b8 [ d8 b8 ] c8 [ a8 fis8 ] %%| % 7
g4 c8 b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 8
fis4. a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 9
d'8 [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ] %%| \barNumberCheck #10
c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4
  }
  \break
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*1 a8 %!*5 %%| % 13
b4 d8 g8 [ d8 b8 ] %%| % 14
d8 [ g8 b,8 ] d8 [ g8 b,8 ] %%| % 15
c4 e8 g8 [ e8 c8 ] %%| % 16
e8 [ g8 c,8 ] e8 [ g8 e8 ] %%| % 17
d4 fis8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 18
fis8 [ a8 d,8 ] fis8 [ a8 d,8 ]
  }
  \alternative {
{g8 [ fis8 g8 ] e8 [ fis8 g8 ] \barNumberCheck #20
 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] c8 [ b8 ] }
{d8  cis8 d8  fis8 [ e8 d8 ] 
 c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4 }
  }
  \break 
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*1 c8
b4. b8 g e
fis4 g8 a fis e
  }
  \alternative {
{b' d b g a g
 b d b c a fis}
{d' cis d fis e d
 c a fis g4}
  }
}
  
% The score definition
lough_derg_jig_chords = \chordmode {
  \set noChordSymbol = "" 
}

lough_derg_jig_final = {
  <<
\new ChordNames {
  \set chordChanges = ##t
  \lough_derg_jig_chords
}
\new Voice = "one" { \lough_derg_jig}
  >>
}

\score {
  \lough_derg_jig_final
  \header {
piece = "lough_derg_jig"
  }
  \layout {
indent = #0
line-width = #180
ragged-last = ##t
 }
}

\score {
  \unfoldRepeats   
  {
\lough_derg_jig_final
\lough_derg_jig_final
\lough_derg_jig_final
  }
  \midi{}
}
\markup{filename: lough.derg.jig.ly <http://lough.derg.jig.ly> }



 

I have produced the ly file by:

 

python abc2xml.py file.abc > test.xml 
musicxml2ly test.xml"

 

abcm2ps test.abc works fine.

 

I do not know how to change the ly file to get rid of the partial.


-- 

Thanks.

Joe McCool CEng, MIMarEST, SMIEEE
www.tangentengineering.co. <http://www.tangentengineering.co.uk> uk

(44)7802572441

 

Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[David Wright]

On Fri 19 Feb 2021 at 17:19:13 (+), Joe McCool wrote:
> Please, I cannot understand what I am doing wrong.  When I compile the ly
> file, I get a spurious partial in the 2nd alternative of the 2nd part.
> 
> %%
[…]
> 
> 
> I have produced the ly file by:
> 
> python abc2xml.py file.abc > test.xml
> musicxml2ly test.xml"
> 
> abcm2ps test.abc works fine.
> 
> I do not know how to change the ly file to get rid of the partial.

Perhaps you need to make this change around ll. 44 - 51:

  […]
  \break
   c8
  \repeat volta 2 {
%%\partial 8*1 c8
b4. b8 g e
fis4 g8 a fis e
  }
  […]

Cheers,
David.

Re: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Carl Sorensen]

From: lilypond-user  
on behalf of Joe McCool 
Date: Friday, February 19, 2021 at 10:21 AM
To: "lilypond-user@gnu.org" 
Subject: spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

Please, I cannot understand what I am doing wrong.  When I compile the ly file, 
I get a spurious partial in the 2nd alternative of the 2nd part.

You only have 5/8 worth of notes in the last measure of the 2nd alternative of 
the second part: 1 1/8 notes and 1 ¼ note.
Why do you consider this spurious? To me, the  spurious thing is the fact that 
the first ending of the second repeat contains a full bar, rather than only 5/8 
worth of notes.
Perhaps your alternatives are misordered?

Carl

spurious partial in 2nd repeat abc->ly

[Joe McCool]

Please, I cannot understand what I am doing wrong.  When I compile the ly
file, I get a spurious partial in the 2nd alternative of the 2nd part.

%%
\version "2.18.2"
% automatically converted by musicxml2ly from test.xml

\header {
  source = "https://www.ibiblio.org/fiddlers/FARG_FAY.htm
Paul O'Shaughnessy"
  encoder = "abc2xml version 226"
  encodingdate = "2021-02-16"
  composer = "Father Patrick Joseph Kelly"
  title = "Lough Derg Jig"
}
%\override Staff.BarLine.stencil = ##f

lough_derg_jig =  \relative d' {
  \tempo 4 = 120
  \repeat volta 2 {
\key g \major \time 6/8 %%| % 1
\partial 8*1 d8 %!*5 %%| % 3
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 4
fis4 g8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 5
g8 [ fis8 g8 ] b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 6
b8 [ d8 b8 ] c8 [ a8 fis8 ] %%| % 7
g4 c8 b8 [ a8 g8 ] %%| % 8
fis4. a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 9
d'8 [ cis8 d8 ] fis8 [ e8 d8 ] %%| \barNumberCheck #10
c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4
  }
  \break
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*1 a8 %!*5 %%| % 13
b4 d8 g8 [ d8 b8 ] %%| % 14
d8 [ g8 b,8 ] d8 [ g8 b,8 ] %%| % 15
c4 e8 g8 [ e8 c8 ] %%| % 16
e8 [ g8 c,8 ] e8 [ g8 e8 ] %%| % 17
d4 fis8 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] %%| % 18
fis8 [ a8 d,8 ] fis8 [ a8 d,8 ]
  }
  \alternative {
{g8 [ fis8 g8 ] e8 [ fis8 g8 ] \barNumberCheck #20
 a8 [ fis8 d8 ] c8 [ b8 ] }
{d8  cis8 d8  fis8 [ e8 d8 ]
     c8 [ a8 fis8 ] g4 }
  }
  \break
  \repeat volta 2 {
\partial 8*1 c8
b4. b8 g e
fis4 g8 a fis e
  }
  \alternative {
{b' d b g a g
 b d b c a fis}
{d' cis d fis e d
 c a fis g4}
  }
}

% The score definition
lough_derg_jig_chords = \chordmode {
  \set noChordSymbol = ""
}

lough_derg_jig_final = {
  <<
\new ChordNames {
  \set chordChanges = ##t
  \lough_derg_jig_chords
}
\new Voice = "one" { \lough_derg_jig}
  >>
}

\score {
  \lough_derg_jig_final
  \header {
piece = "lough_derg_jig"
  }
  \layout {
indent = #0
line-width = #180
ragged-last = ##t
 }
}

\score {
  \unfoldRepeats
  {
\lough_derg_jig_final
\lough_derg_jig_final
\lough_derg_jig_final
  }
  \midi{}
}
\markup{filename: lough.derg.jig.ly}


I have produced the ly file by:

python abc2xml.py file.abc > test.xml
musicxml2ly test.xml"

abcm2ps test.abc works fine.

I do not know how to change the ly file to get rid of the partial.

-- 
Thanks.

Joe McCool CEng, MIMarEST, SMIEEE
www.tangentengineering.co. <http://www.tangentengineering.co.uk>uk
(44)7802572441

Re: Partial ottava sign

[Peter Toye]

Just the one chord. I'll try that unless anyone else here comes up with a 
better suggestion. I was really asking whether there's an accepted way of doing 
it.


Best regards,

Peter
mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
www.ptoye.com

-
Friday, February 19, 2021, 4:37:24 PM, Maestraccio wrote:

> If it's just one or two chords, I'd add a text markup "LH 8va bassa" (or in 
> classical music "MS 8va bassa"), that's clear enough for me

> Met vriendelijke groet,

> Bart


>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 at 5:17 PM
>> From: "Kieren MacMillan" 
>> To: "Peter Toye" 
>> Cc: "Lilypond-User Mailing List" 
>> Subject: Re: Partial ottava sign

>> Hi Peter,

>> > Is there an accepted way of notating an ottava sign for only part of a 
>> > staff? I have a two-handed chord of which the LH part needs to be an 
>> > octave lower than notated, but the RH part is at pitch.

>> > I realise that this isn't really a LilyPond question but a general music 
>> > engraving one (it may turn into a LilPond question depending on the 
>> > answer, though)..

>> Do you have “Behind Bars” by Elaine Gould? It’s kind of the definitive 
>> starting place for all such questions — and an essential (I believe) 
>> addition to any engraver’s library.

>> Hope that helps!
>> Kieren.
>> 

>> Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
>> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
>> ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info




> Met vriendelijke groet,

> Bart


>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 at 5:17 PM
>> From: "Kieren MacMillan" 
>> To: "Peter Toye" 
>> Cc: "Lilypond-User Mailing List" 
>> Subject: Re: Partial ottava sign

>> Hi Peter,

>> > Is there an accepted way of notating an ottava sign for only part of a 
>> > staff? I have a two-handed chord of which the LH part needs to be an 
>> > octave lower than notated, but the RH part is at pitch.

>> > I realise that this isn't really a LilyPond question but a general music 
>> > engraving one (it may turn into a LilPond question depending on the 
>> > answer, though)..

>> Do you have “Behind Bars” by Elaine Gould? It’s kind of the definitive 
>> starting place for all such questions — and an essential (I believe) 
>> addition to any engraver’s library.

>> Hope that helps!
>> Kieren.
>> 

>> Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
>> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
>> ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Partial ottava sign

[Peter Toye]

Hello Kieren,

No I don't - it's expensive and as I don't do this for money I really can't 
afford it.

Best regards,

Peter
mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
www.ptoye.com

-
Friday, February 19, 2021, 4:17:29 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

> Hi Peter,

>> Is there an accepted way of notating an ottava sign for only part of a 
>> staff? I have a two-handed chord of which the LH part needs to be an octave 
>> lower than notated, but the RH part is at pitch.

>> I realise that this isn't really a LilyPond question but a general music 
>> engraving one (it may turn into a LilPond question depending on the answer, 
>> though)..

> Do you have “Behind Bars” by Elaine Gould? It’s kind of the definitive 
> starting place for all such questions — and an essential (I believe) addition 
> to any engraver’s library.

> Hope that helps!
> Kieren.
> 

> Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Partial ottava sign

[Brian Barker]

At 11:17 19/02/2021 -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

At 15:35 19/02/2021 +, Peter Toye wrote:
Is there an accepted way of notating an ottava sign for only part 
of a staff? I have a two-handed chord of which the LH part needs to 
be an octave lower than notated, but the RH part is at pitch.


I realise that this isn't really a LilyPond question but a general 
music engraving one (it may turn into a LilPond question depending 
on the answer, though)..


Do you have "Behind Bars" by Elaine Gould? It's kind of the 
definitive starting place for all such questions --- and an 
essential (I believe) addition to any engraver's library.


And the answer is on page 325:

"An octave sign applies to all parts on a stave. A note written with 
an octave transposition should not share a stave with a note to be 
played simultaneously at pitch (_loco_) if there is a feasible 
alternative layout. Transfer either the _ottava_ or the _loco_ 
pitches to another stave. If necessary, add a third stave for this.


Where there is not room for a third stave, the occasional 
octave-transposed note may be placed in the same stave as notes 
played at pitch, provided that the extent of the octave transposition 
is absolutely clear. For clarification, extend a dotted line 
vertically to encompass occasional octave-transposed pitches; for 
occasional notes written at pitch, extend a horizontal dotted line 
after _loco_ for the relevant duration."


Brian Barker 

Re: Partial ottava sign

[Maestraccio]

If it's just one or two chords, I'd add a text markup "LH 8va bassa" (or in 
classical music "MS 8va bassa"), that's clear enough for me

Met vriendelijke groet,

Bart


> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 at 5:17 PM
> From: "Kieren MacMillan" 
> To: "Peter Toye" 
> Cc: "Lilypond-User Mailing List" 
> Subject: Re: Partial ottava sign
>
> Hi Peter,
> 
> > Is there an accepted way of notating an ottava sign for only part of a 
> > staff? I have a two-handed chord of which the LH part needs to be an octave 
> > lower than notated, but the RH part is at pitch.
> > 
> > I realise that this isn't really a LilyPond question but a general music 
> > engraving one (it may turn into a LilPond question depending on the answer, 
> > though)..
> 
> Do you have “Behind Bars” by Elaine Gould? It’s kind of the definitive 
> starting place for all such questions — and an essential (I believe) addition 
> to any engraver’s library.
> 
> Hope that helps!
> Kieren.
> 
> 
> Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
> 
> 
> 

Met vriendelijke groet,

Bart


> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 at 5:17 PM
> From: "Kieren MacMillan" 
> To: "Peter Toye" 
> Cc: "Lilypond-User Mailing List" 
> Subject: Re: Partial ottava sign
>
> Hi Peter,
> 
> > Is there an accepted way of notating an ottava sign for only part of a 
> > staff? I have a two-handed chord of which the LH part needs to be an octave 
> > lower than notated, but the RH part is at pitch.
> > 
> > I realise that this isn't really a LilyPond question but a general music 
> > engraving one (it may turn into a LilPond question depending on the answer, 
> > though)..
> 
> Do you have “Behind Bars” by Elaine Gould? It’s kind of the definitive 
> starting place for all such questions — and an essential (I believe) addition 
> to any engraver’s library.
> 
> Hope that helps!
> Kieren.
> 
> 
> Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
> 
> 
>

Re: Partial ottava sign

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Peter,

> Is there an accepted way of notating an ottava sign for only part of a staff? 
> I have a two-handed chord of which the LH part needs to be an octave lower 
> than notated, but the RH part is at pitch.
> 
> I realise that this isn't really a LilyPond question but a general music 
> engraving one (it may turn into a LilPond question depending on the answer, 
> though)..

Do you have “Behind Bars” by Elaine Gould? It’s kind of the definitive starting 
place for all such questions — and an essential (I believe) addition to any 
engraver’s library.

Hope that helps!
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info

Partial ottava sign

[Peter Toye]

Is there an accepted way of notating an ottava sign for only part of a staff? I 
have a two-handed chord of which the LH part needs to be an octave lower than 
notated, but the RH part is at pitch. 

I realise that this isn't really a LilyPond question but a general music 
engraving one (it may turn into a LilPond question depending on the answer, 
though)..

 
Regards,

Peter
mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com
www.ptoye.com

Re: Bar line check is wrong with partial note and voltas

[Knute Snortum]

Thanks David,

I'll be looking at this MWE and the other two you posted untilI I grok them.

---
Knute Snortum
(via Gmail)

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 7:57 PM David Wright  wrote:
>
> On Mon 12 Oct 2020 at 14:46:43 (-0700), Knute Snortum wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:03 AM Aaron Hill  
> > wrote:
> > > On 2020-10-12 9:56 am, Knute Snortum wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think I've run into a bug.  It's hard to explain so I will post the
> > > > MWE (it's as minimal as I could make it):
> > > >
> > > > %%% Start
> > > > \version "2.20.0"
> > > >
> > > > rightHand = \relative c' {
> > > >   \partial 4 c4
> > > >   c4 c c
> > > >
> > > >   \repeat volta 2 {
> > > > c4 |
> > > > c4 c c c |
> > > >   }
> > > >   \alternative {
> > > > { c4 c c }
> > > > { c4 c c c }
> > > >   }
> > > >
> > > >   c1 |
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > \score {
> > > >   \new Staff \rightHand
> > > >   \midi {
> > > >   }
> > > > }
> > > > %%% End
> > > >
> > > > The c1 at the end of the music produces a bar line check warning.  It
> > > > only happens when creating a MIDI file. It only happens when the volta
> > > > is in the middle of the measure.  It only happens when an alternate
> > > > ending doesn't contain a full measure of notes.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?  I really appreciate you guys.
> > >
> > > Don't you need to \unfoldRepeats when doing MIDI output?
> > >
> > > 
> > > \score {
> > >\new Staff \unfoldRepeats \rightHand
> > >\midi { }
> > > }
> > > 
> >
> > Thanks, Aaron Hill.  The only problem is this messes up my \barNumberChecks
> >
> > %%% Start
> > \version "2.20.0"
> >
> > rightHand = \relative c' {
> >   \partial 4 c4
> >   c4 c c
> >
> >   \repeat volta 2 {
> > c4 |
> > c4 c c c |
> >   }
> >   \alternative {
> > { c4 c c }
> > { c4 c c c }
> >   }
> >
> >   \barNumberCheck 5
> >   c1 |
> > }
> >
> > \score {
> >   \new Staff \rightHand
> > }
> >
> > \score {
> >   \new Staff \unfoldRepeats \rightHand
> >   \midi {
> >   }
> > }
> > %%% End
>
> Your \barNumberCheck, as you placed it, should be expecting 4 or 6,
> as in the attached, but not 5. A \barNumberCheck placed at the
> barline should be set to the number of the next measure, not the
> previous one.
>
> However, I agree that LP's a bit messy when you generate MIDI with
> folded repeats, which is something I regularly do in order to
> proof-read by ear. In this case, you get the barcheck shown by
> your version at the top of the quote above.
>
> My workaround is the same as previously: generate the MIDI first,
> then the score. My \barNumberChecks are naturally set to agree with
> the printed/folded bar numbers, so all the noise goes into the
> MIDI part of the console log, and the \layout part should be clean.
>
> Cheers,
> David.

Re: centered rest sign in partial

[Martín Rincón Botero]

I don’t think centered rests for partial measures are correct. A normal rest 
should be the way to go.

www.martinrinconbotero.com
On 13. Oct 2020, 13:19 +0200, Johannes Roeßler , wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> I've got an issue with centered rests in partials:
>
> \version "2.20.0"
> {
> \time 4/4
> \partial 2
> R2
> }
>
> gives an invisible rest. Any hints?
>
> Thx, Joei
>
>
>

centered rest sign in partial

[Johannes Roeßler]

Hi Group,

I've got an issue with centered rests in partials:

\version "2.20.0"
{
\time 4/4
\partial 2
R2
}

gives an invisible rest. Any hints?

Thx, Joei

Re: Bar line check is wrong with partial note and voltas

[David Wright]

On Mon 12 Oct 2020 at 14:46:43 (-0700), Knute Snortum wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:03 AM Aaron Hill  wrote:
> > On 2020-10-12 9:56 am, Knute Snortum wrote:
> > >
> > > I think I've run into a bug.  It's hard to explain so I will post the
> > > MWE (it's as minimal as I could make it):
> > >
> > > %%% Start
> > > \version "2.20.0"
> > >
> > > rightHand = \relative c' {
> > >   \partial 4 c4
> > >   c4 c c
> > >
> > >   \repeat volta 2 {
> > > c4 |
> > > c4 c c c |
> > >   }
> > >   \alternative {
> > > { c4 c c }
> > > { c4 c c c }
> > >   }
> > >
> > >   c1 |
> > > }
> > >
> > > \score {
> > >   \new Staff \rightHand
> > >   \midi {
> > >   }
> > > }
> > > %%% End
> > >
> > > The c1 at the end of the music produces a bar line check warning.  It
> > > only happens when creating a MIDI file. It only happens when the volta
> > > is in the middle of the measure.  It only happens when an alternate
> > > ending doesn't contain a full measure of notes.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?  I really appreciate you guys.
> >
> > Don't you need to \unfoldRepeats when doing MIDI output?
> >
> > 
> > \score {
> >\new Staff \unfoldRepeats \rightHand
> >\midi { }
> > }
> > 
> 
> Thanks, Aaron Hill.  The only problem is this messes up my \barNumberChecks
> 
> %%% Start
> \version "2.20.0"
> 
> rightHand = \relative c' {
>   \partial 4 c4
>   c4 c c
> 
>   \repeat volta 2 {
> c4 |
> c4 c c c |
>   }
>   \alternative {
> { c4 c c }
> { c4 c c c }
>   }
> 
>   \barNumberCheck 5
>   c1 |
> }
> 
> \score {
>   \new Staff \rightHand
> }
> 
> \score {
>   \new Staff \unfoldRepeats \rightHand
>   \midi {
>   }
> }
> %%% End

Your \barNumberCheck, as you placed it, should be expecting 4 or 6,
as in the attached, but not 5. A \barNumberCheck placed at the
barline should be set to the number of the next measure, not the
previous one.

However, I agree that LP's a bit messy when you generate MIDI with
folded repeats, which is something I regularly do in order to
proof-read by ear. In this case, you get the barcheck shown by
your version at the top of the quote above.

My workaround is the same as previously: generate the MIDI first,
then the score. My \barNumberChecks are naturally set to agree with
the printed/folded bar numbers, so all the noise goes into the
MIDI part of the console log, and the \layout part should be clean.

Cheers,
David.
rightHand = \relative c' {
  \partial 4 a4
  b4 c d

  \repeat volta 2 {
e4 |
f4 g a b |
  }
  \alternative {
{ c4 d e }
{ f4 g a b }
  }
  \barNumberCheck #4 \barNumberCheck #6
  c1 |
}

\layout {
  \context {
\Score
\override BarNumber.break-visibility = #end-of-line-invisible
barNumberVisibility = #(every-nth-bar-number-visible 1)
  }
}

\score {
  \new Staff \unfoldRepeats \rightHand
  \layout { }
}

\score {
  \new Staff \rightHand
  \layout { }
}

\score {
  \new Staff \rightHand
  \midi { }
}

\score {
  \new Staff \unfoldRepeats \rightHand
  \midi { }
}

Re: Bar line check is wrong with partial note and voltas

[Knute Snortum]

Thanks, Aaron Hill.  The only problem is this messes up my \barNumberChecks

%%% Start
\version "2.20.0"

rightHand = \relative c' {
  \partial 4 c4
  c4 c c

  \repeat volta 2 {
c4 |
c4 c c c |
  }
  \alternative {
{ c4 c c }
{ c4 c c c }
  }

  \barNumberCheck 5
  c1 |
}

\score {
  \new Staff \rightHand
}

\score {
  \new Staff \unfoldRepeats \rightHand
  \midi {
  }
}
%%% End

---
Knute Snortum
(via Gmail)

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:03 AM Aaron Hill  wrote:
>
> On 2020-10-12 9:56 am, Knute Snortum wrote:
> > Hi everyone.
> >
> > I think I've run into a bug.  It's hard to explain so I will post the
> > MWE (it's as minimal as I could make it):
> >
> > %%% Start
> > \version "2.20.0"
> >
> > rightHand = \relative c' {
> >   \partial 4 c4
> >   c4 c c
> >
> >   \repeat volta 2 {
> > c4 |
> > c4 c c c |
> >   }
> >   \alternative {
> > { c4 c c }
> > { c4 c c c }
> >   }
> >
> >   c1 |
> > }
> >
> > \score {
> >   \new Staff \rightHand
> >   \midi {
> >   }
> > }
> > %%% End
> >
> > The c1 at the end of the music produces a bar line check warning.  It
> > only happens when creating a MIDI file. It only happens when the volta
> > is in the middle of the measure.  It only happens when an alternate
> > ending doesn't contain a full measure of notes.
> >
> > Any thoughts?  I really appreciate you guys.
>
> Don't you need to \unfoldRepeats when doing MIDI output?
>
> 
> \score {
>\new Staff \unfoldRepeats \rightHand
>\midi { }
> }
> 
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>

Re: Bar line check is wrong with partial note and voltas

[Kenneth Wolcott]

Thank you Aaron! I learned today, thanks to you, why my repeats fail
when creating midi files with Lilypond!

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:03 AM Aaron Hill  wrote:
>
> On 2020-10-12 9:56 am, Knute Snortum wrote:
> > Hi everyone.
> >
> > I think I've run into a bug.  It's hard to explain so I will post the
> > MWE (it's as minimal as I could make it):
> >
> > %%% Start
> > \version "2.20.0"
> >
> > rightHand = \relative c' {
> >   \partial 4 c4
> >   c4 c c
> >
> >   \repeat volta 2 {
> > c4 |
> > c4 c c c |
> >   }
> >   \alternative {
> > { c4 c c }
> > { c4 c c c }
> >   }
> >
> >   c1 |
> > }
> >
> > \score {
> >   \new Staff \rightHand
> >   \midi {
> >   }
> > }
> > %%% End
> >
> > The c1 at the end of the music produces a bar line check warning.  It
> > only happens when creating a MIDI file. It only happens when the volta
> > is in the middle of the measure.  It only happens when an alternate
> > ending doesn't contain a full measure of notes.
> >
> > Any thoughts?  I really appreciate you guys.
>
> Don't you need to \unfoldRepeats when doing MIDI output?
>
> 
> \score {
>\new Staff \unfoldRepeats \rightHand
>\midi { }
> }
> 
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>

Re: Bar line check is wrong with partial note and voltas

[Aaron Hill]

On 2020-10-12 9:56 am, Knute Snortum wrote:

Hi everyone.

I think I've run into a bug.  It's hard to explain so I will post the
MWE (it's as minimal as I could make it):

%%% Start
\version "2.20.0"

rightHand = \relative c' {
  \partial 4 c4
  c4 c c

  \repeat volta 2 {
c4 |
c4 c c c |
  }
  \alternative {
{ c4 c c }
{ c4 c c c }
  }

  c1 |
}

\score {
  \new Staff \rightHand
  \midi {
  }
}
%%% End

The c1 at the end of the music produces a bar line check warning.  It
only happens when creating a MIDI file. It only happens when the volta
is in the middle of the measure.  It only happens when an alternate
ending doesn't contain a full measure of notes.

Any thoughts?  I really appreciate you guys.


Don't you need to \unfoldRepeats when doing MIDI output?


\score {
  \new Staff \unfoldRepeats \rightHand
  \midi { }
}



-- Aaron Hill

Bar line check is wrong with partial note and voltas

[Knute Snortum]

Hi everyone.

I think I've run into a bug.  It's hard to explain so I will post the
MWE (it's as minimal as I could make it):

%%% Start
\version "2.20.0"

rightHand = \relative c' {
  \partial 4 c4
  c4 c c

  \repeat volta 2 {
c4 |
c4 c c c |
  }
  \alternative {
{ c4 c c }
{ c4 c c c }
  }

  c1 |
}

\score {
  \new Staff \rightHand
  \midi {
  }
}
%%% End

The c1 at the end of the music produces a bar line check warning.  It
only happens when creating a MIDI file. It only happens when the volta
is in the middle of the measure.  It only happens when an alternate
ending doesn't contain a full measure of notes.

Any thoughts?  I really appreciate you guys.

---
Knute Snortum
(via Gmail)

Re: beam and partial

[Gianmaria Lari]

Thank you Aaron and Martin.

It's very clear.

Best regards, g.

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 14:25, Aaron Hill  wrote:

> On 2020-01-28 4:52 am, Gianmaria Lari wrote:
> > Just a curiosity. Why lilypond engrave this:
> >
> > \version "2.19.83"
> > {\partial 8*7 g8 8 8 8 8 8 8}
> >
> >
> > like
> >
> > g8[ 8 8] 8[ 8 8 8]
> >
> > I would expect:
> >
> > g8[ 8 8 8] 8[ 8 8]
>
> Notes within the anacrusis are adjacent to the end of the measure.  To
> beam notes, you would need to consider what the complete measure would
> look like.  This could be done by adding in imaginary skips at the
> beginning of the measure.
>
>\partial 8*7 g8  8 8   8  8 8 8
>=>  \partial 8*8 s8  g8  8 8   8  8 8 8
>=>  \partial 8*8 s8[ g8  8 8]  8[ 8 8 8]
>=>  \partial 8*7 g8[ 8 8]  8[ 8 8 8]
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>
>

Re: beam and partial

[Aaron Hill]

On 2020-01-28 4:52 am, Gianmaria Lari wrote:

Just a curiosity. Why lilypond engrave this:

\version "2.19.83"
{\partial 8*7 g8 8 8 8 8 8 8}


like

g8[ 8 8] 8[ 8 8 8]

I would expect:

g8[ 8 8 8] 8[ 8 8]


Notes within the anacrusis are adjacent to the end of the measure.  To 
beam notes, you would need to consider what the complete measure would 
look like.  This could be done by adding in imaginary skips at the 
beginning of the measure.


  \partial 8*7 g8  8 8   8  8 8 8
  =>  \partial 8*8 s8  g8  8 8   8  8 8 8
  =>  \partial 8*8 s8[ g8  8 8]  8[ 8 8 8]
  =>  \partial 8*7 g8[ 8 8]  8[ 8 8 8]


-- Aaron Hill

beam and partial

[Gianmaria Lari]

Just a curiosity. Why lilypond engrave this:

\version "2.19.83"
{\partial 8*7 g8 8 8 8 8 8 8}


like

g8[ 8 8] 8[ 8 8 8]

I would expect:

g8[ 8 8 8] 8[ 8 8]


Thanks, g.

Re: Full measure rests does not display in partial measure

[Malte Meyn]

Am 19.11.19 um 18:34 schrieb Павел Буданов:

<<
    { \partial 4*3 b b b b b b b }
    \\
    { R1*3/4 R1 }




How to solve subject problem? I did not find the answer in the archive.


A partial measure is partial, not full, so why do you want a full 
measure rest?


In 4/4 time the rest should be written as “r4 r2”.

Full measure rests does not display in partial measure

[Павел Буданов]

<<
   { \partial 4*3 b b b b b b b }
   \\
   { R1*3/4 R1 }
>>

How to solve subject problem? I did not find the answer in the archive.