Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Johan Vromans]

On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:44:30 +0200
Wilbert Berendsen  wrote:

> that at the moment you type the `g`, Frescobaldi automatically writes
> a comma after the next c, which was already existing:

Now, that would be wonderful!


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Wilbert Berendsen]

Op Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:58:38 +1000
Matt Hood  schreef:

> Add in temporary polyphonic passages, chords, etc, and it all just
> becomes an exercise in trial and error. Any tips for keeping control?

Makes me think of an intelligent input mode for Frescobaldi, where the
first note after the place you are inserting new notes is automagically
changed to the correct octave if you are in a \relative construct...

When you have this:

\relative {
  c c c c
  c c c c
}

and you start to insert a line (pipesymbol is text cursor):

\relative {
  c c c c
  d e f g
  c c c c
}

that at the moment you type the `g`, Frescobaldi automatically writes
a comma after the next c, which was already existing:

\relative {
  c c c c
  d e f g
  c, c c c
}


-- 
Wilbert Berendsen, musician
‣ mail: i...@wilbertberendsen.nl
‣ web: www.wilbertberendsen.nl
‣ phone: +31646122877

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Vaughan McAlley]

On 3 May 2016 at 04:53, David Wright  wrote:
> Perhaps composers don't sweat over individual notes like that and/or
> don't need a decent looking copy in front of them. Some compose at the
> piano, don't they.

When I’m composing, I don’t want to have to deal with anything more
technologically advanced than a pencil sharpener. If I used music
software for composing I’d want instant playback, maybe MIDI-based?

As far as transcribing, I adapted my own version of Finale’s Speedy
Note Entry for note input, so there are rarely problems there. I’m
more fluent reading \relative, so I guess I consider the occasional
octave/duration issue while making small edits the price of being able
to read more fluently.

Vaughan

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[David Wright]

On Sat 30 Apr 2016 at 10:38:55 (+0200), Malte Meyn wrote:
> Am 30.04.2016 um 05:43 schrieb David Wright:
> >But it's no surprise that composing directly into LP is only really
> >possible in absolute mode.
> 
> It’s not. I’ve always done it in \relative mode using octave checks,
> I never had any problems.

I guess there's more difference between composing and transcribing
than I had realised. It looks from your example as if your leave
phrases out and then put them in later. The problem with transcribing
is that you often have to do that note by note. An octavation check on
every other note soon looks like absolute!

A vital part of transcribing for me is a written copy to follow; kind
of chicken and egg. So I write the individual lines with gaps where
it's muddy, get them roughly right, particularly the overall durations
so that LP can break lines, and typeset that as a working copy.
(Using absolute is tedious for that.)

Then I convert to absolute and try to sort out the muddy bits. As soon
as you start, for example, switching inner parts' notes (the bass and
the top line tend to be easier), you get in a mess with relative.
When you press "R" to refresh the PDF after making a change, the bar
you're working on might jump to a different page because suddenly the
alto is an octave deeper, the tenor an octave higher, and the music
takes more pages to render, than it did.

Perhaps composers don't sweat over individual notes like that and/or
don't need a decent looking copy in front of them. Some compose at the
piano, don't they.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[David Wright]

On Sat 30 Apr 2016 at 09:22:14 (+0200), Noeck wrote:
> Am 30.04.2016 um 05:43 schrieb David Wright:
> > it would be great
> > if it could convert into a canonical style, where canonical could be
> > defined in ways such as: every note with pitch duration (or
> > even pitch) on only the first note of each line (omitted elsewhere);
> 
> Frescobaldi offers that in the tools menu (I think it is python-ly in
> the background).

You're right, it does. Both the embedded and stand-alone version of ly
appear to have the functionality required, provided by (in the
stripping case):

def remove_dups(iterable):
"""Change reoccurring strings to '' in iterable."""
old = None
for i in iterable:
yield '' if i == old else i
old = i

However, unless there's a secret switch somewhere, there's no way of
causing that code to be run in the stand-alone version, even though it
is two years more up-to-date (2015 vs 2013) than the Frescobaldi I
have compared it with.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Paul Morris]

> On May 1, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Paul Morris  wrote:
> 
> I just tried it and it requires the explicit reference pitch like:  \fixed 
> c’’ { … } 

…and that makes sense because the first note may not be in the base octave.

-Paul
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Paul Morris]

> On May 1, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Johan Vromans  wrote:
> 
> Can this also be written as:
> 
> \fixed {
>  \key a \major
>  \time 6/8
>  cis''8. d16 cis8 e4 e8 |
>  b,8. cis16 b,8 d4 d8 |
> }
> 
> just like \relative?

No, I just tried it and it requires the explicit reference pitch like:

\fixed c’’ { … } 

(Like relative used to.)

-Paul
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Johan Vromans]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 17:22:27 -0400
Paul Morris  wrote:

> \fixed c'' {
>   \key a \major
>   \time 6/8
>   cis8. d16 cis8 e4 e8 |
>   b,8. cis16 b,8 d4 d8 |
> }

Can this also be written as:

\fixed {
  \key a \major
  \time 6/8
  cis''8. d16 cis8 e4 e8 |
  b,8. cis16 b,8 d4 d8 |
}

just like \relative?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Paul Morris]

> On Apr 29, 2016, at 6:56 PM, Jeff Olson  wrote:
> 
> And for the limited range of a guitar (3.5 octaves) I can \transpose c c'
> to minimize the number of octave marks in absolute mode (so range is e, to 
> b'').
> Thus I never encounter long high runs of 32nds above c'''.

The latest dev version (LilyPond 2.19.x) also has a \fixed mode that lets you 
set a default octave which saves typing, providing some of the advantages of 
both \relative and \absolute.

For example:

{
  \key a \major
  \time 6/8
  cis''8. d''16 cis''8 e''4 e''8 |
  b'8. cis''16 b'8 d''4 d''8 |
}

\fixed c'' {
  \key a \major
  \time 6/8
  cis8. d16 cis8 e4 e8 |
  b,8. cis16 b,8 d4 d8 |
}

From:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning/absolute-note-names.en.html

It looks like \fixed is not mentioned in the changes list yet:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/changes/index.html

Cheers,
-Paul


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Joram,

> What I like about relative:
> 2) most mistakes are easily spottet as all the rest of the voice is off
> by one octave. […] In absolute mode, only one note is in the wrong octave.

This is the ONLY thing I miss about relative mode… but it is (was) VERY helpful 
for proof-reading.

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Malte Meyn]

Am 30.04.2016 um 05:43 schrieb David Wright:

But it's no surprise that composing directly into LP is only really
possible in absolute mode.


It’s not. I’ve always done it in \relative mode using octave checks, I 
never had any problems.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Noeck]

Hi,

Kieren and his choice for absolute is already mentioned.
What I like about relative:

1) mostly for for vocal scores, very few '/, are needed

2) most mistakes are easily spottet as all the rest of the voice is off
by one octave. While some find this annoying, I think it helps a lot to
find mistakes. In absolute mode, only one note is in the wrong octave.

Cheers,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Noeck]

Hi David,

Am 30.04.2016 um 05:43 schrieb David Wright:
> it would be great
> if it could convert into a canonical style, where canonical could be
> defined in ways such as: every note with pitch duration (or
> even pitch) on only the first note of each line (omitted elsewhere);

Frescobaldi offers that in the tools menu (I think it is python-ly in
the background).

Cheers,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[David Wright]

On Fri 29 Apr 2016 at 17:52:16 (-0300), Caio Giovaneti de Barros wrote:
> 
>  On 4/29/16 7:27 AM, "Carl Sorensen"  wrote:
> >>About a year ago, Kieren indicated that he has decided to go completely
> >>absolute mode, even to the point
> >>of redoing his historic code:
> >>
> >>https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-04/msg00846.html

One hopes that he is aware of the ly script that can make this a lot
easier than it otherwise might be (though I'd couple it with "find"
rather than involve Frescobaldi).

> I was not aware of Kieren's opinion, but after my last work on
> Lilypond I'm arriving at almost the same conclusion. At least for
> music that works outside the tonal (and in a way also modal)
> paradigm of pitch ranges and intervals it is preferable to use
> absolute mode almost always. What a pain it is to write, say, a line
> by Webern in relative mode. And if you make a mistake along the way
> (and you will make it) you have to be prepared to hunt the right
> note to correct the octave next. At least with Frescobaldi you can
> click on the pdf viewer and it puts your cursor directly where you
> want, which is awesome.
> 
> >>
> >>I find his arguments interesting.  And if I were engraving things as
> >>complex as his, I might also move to absolute.
> >>
> >>But I am working on simple, short, pieces.  The longest I have done to
> >>this point is about 8 pages.
> >>For my use case, the convenience of less typing (and to be fair, not
> >>having to worry about the octave
> >>I'm using) overrides the inconvenience of the occasional octave mistake.
> >>
> >>So I use relative.
> 
> I do believe that at the end this is a choice the engraver has to
> make based on the type of music she or he is working with. Many
> decisions in code organization comes down to convenience, your
> habits and comfort, but just like music engraving in general there
> are good practices to make your work more productive, and if you
> need to be read and understood by others, this is even more
> critical.

I certainly think that absolute mode suits LP archives because it
lacks any ambiguity, so Kieren's converting all his historic code is a
sensible move. But the Subject line says "input mode" and then it's a
matter of horses for courses. Most of my music input consists of vocal
lines written out conventionally, so I find relative far easier and
faster. (Thank goodness octavation ignores accidentals.)

However, I find absolute easier if a voice is fragmentary; for example,
I write vocal performing scores where the accompaniment is sketched in
only when noone is singing (so they don't get lost). Similarly, when
writing keyboard parts where you sometimes have to juggle the voices
to get LP to render it correctly. (I don't enjoy that.)

But it's no surprise that composing directly into LP is only really
possible in absolute mode. The nearest I ever get to that is
transcribing from a recording, and anyway I do this voice by voice in
relative mode (making many more mistakes).

I haven't yet used the new duration-only mode. I've never investigated
what ly is able to do with its reformat option, but it would be great
if it could convert into a canonical style, where canonical could be
defined in ways such as: every note with pitch duration (or
even pitch) on only the first note of each line (omitted elsewhere);
single or zero space between each pitch pair; and so on.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Jeff Olson]

On 4/29/2016 4:56 PM, Jeff Olson wrote:

< 41312

41340


Okay, now I know what you mean by the > problem and I've modified my
ways and the script (to insert a couple of leading blanks) to show e.g.

  < 41312
  > 41340

HTH,
Jeff
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Jeff Olson]

On 4/29/2016 5:58 AM, Matt Hood wrote:

What does everyone prefer? Relative, absolute, or a mix of both?


Summary: For my work, a perl script confimed my choice of absolute
 mode in conjunction with judicious use of \transpose,
 but for other people it suggests relative is better.

Details:
I started with relative, to conserve line width and minimize input effort,
but soon realized that was a premature optimization.

In my transcriptions of Beethoven and Bach for guitar duos, most of the
input effort and line width is attributable to chords, fingerings, string
indications and other annotations.

And for the limited range of a guitar (3.5 octaves) I can \transpose c c'
to minimize the number of octave marks in absolute mode (so range is e, to b'').
Thus I never encounter long high runs of 32nds above c'''.

I also found that, for the limited range of the guitar, it was easier to think
in absolute (you're always aware of your octave on a guitar) than in relative
(especially in the frequent case where a pitch and its octave are in the same
chord or arpeggio, yet with identical pitch symbols).  Doing global replacements
in vi is also a bit easier in absolute than in relative.

To satisfy my curiousity about the "relative frequency" of octave marks,
both between files in relative vs files in absolute mode, and compared to
other annotations that seem to overwhelm octave marks, I wrote a little
perl script (included below) to count selected characters in ly files.

The script confirmed my intial impression that (a) octave marks are a trivial
contributor to line width (in my work) but also suprised me that (b) using
absolute mode on average only added one more octave mark per measure than
using relative mode (probably because I used \transpose to simplify input).

For fun, here are some specific test runs.

The first example is from when I used only relative mode.  FYI, I habitually
use measure marks (|) and try for one measure per line.  I also use lots
of abbreviations to shorten things where I can (see large number of "=" signs).

The results below for relative mode show only about 1 octave mark per measure
for a typical piece of about 6 pages:

$ ly-chars mypubs/pathetique-2-guitar-duo-2064/pathetique-2-guitar-duo.ly
In a file of 214 measure marks, 710 lines, 26458 characters and 3 \relatives ...
octave marks (,') are 1.0 per measure mark, 0.3 per line, 0.8 percent of file.

Here's a count of selected characters (X represents all others):
' 68
) 78
( 78
^ 121
# 124
_ 138
, 142
= 156
{ 204
} 204
| 214
[ 215
] 216
% 256
\ 735
< 940

940

- 998
X 20631
$


The second example is from recent one-page piece in absolute mode.
The surprise here is that there are only about 2 octave marks per measure.
While that's twice as many as for relative, it's still only one extra character
per measure:

$ ly-chars mypubs/lagrima-duo-2103/lagrima-duo.ly
In a file of 55 measure marks, 338 lines, 10634 characters and 0 \relatives ...
octave marks (,') are 2.1 per measure mark, 0.3 per line, 1.1 percent of file.

Here's a count of selected characters (X represents all others):
, 32
[ 33
] 33
_ 35
) 49
( 49
| 55
^ 63
' 85
# 86
% 89
{ 123
} 123
< 130

130

= 156
- 176
\ 351
X 8836
$

So that's just for my work.  To see an average over other people's work,
here are analogous runs over all the 455 Beethoven files in mutopia, first
on the ones that use relative (at least once) and then those that don't.

$ cd /f/MutopiaProject/ftp/BeethovenLv
$ ly-chars `find -type f -name '*.ly' -exec grep -q relative '{}' \; -print `
In 99 files of 11756 measure marks, 28834 lines, 752704 characters and 158 
\relatives ...
octave marks (,') are 1.6 per measure mark, 0.7 per line, 2.6 percent of file.

Here's a count of selected characters (X represents all others):
^ 841
= 1296
_ 1863
# 2374
{ 3327
} 3327
[ 4839
] 4842
) 8804
( 8805
% 8853
' 9625
, 9675
| 11756

11848

< 11890
- 14235
\ 18339
X 616165
$
$ ly-chars `find -type f -name '*.ly' ! -exec grep -q relative '{}' \; -print `
In 356 files of 1350 measure marks, 33854 lines, 2139195 characters and 0 
\relatives ...
octave marks (,') are 205.5 per measure mark, 8.2 per line, 13.0 percent of 
file.

Here's a count of selected characters (X represents all others):
| 1350
% 2059
^ 2288
_ 2703
# 3533
- 4021
= 4519
{ 12864
} 12864
[ 15002
] 15033
) 16376
( 16406
, 25594
< 41312

41340

\ 69817
' 251807
X 1600307


Contrary to my personal experience, the above results show a 5 fold increase
in octave marks for absolute files (13.0 percent) vs relative (2.6 percent).
The authors using absolute are also much less likely to use measure marks
so ignore that number.  And who knows about one measure per line.

Perhaps the huge number of octave marks in the absolute files could be
reduced by judicious local use of \transpose.

Since I've already taken up so much space, I may as well include perl script:
$ cat ly-chars.pl
   $relatives = 0;
   $files = @ARGV;
   while (<>) {
  #/\|/ or 

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Caio Giovaneti de Barros]

 On 4/29/16 7:27 AM, "Carl Sorensen"  wrote:

About a year ago, Kieren indicated that he has decided to go completely
absolute mode, even to the point
of redoing his historic code:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-04/msg00846.html


I was not aware of Kieren's opinion, but after my last work on Lilypond 
I'm arriving at almost the same conclusion. At least for music that 
works outside the tonal (and in a way also modal) paradigm of pitch 
ranges and intervals it is preferable to use absolute mode almost 
always. What a pain it is to write, say, a line by Webern in relative 
mode. And if you make a mistake along the way (and you will make it) you 
have to be prepared to hunt the right note to correct the octave next. 
At least with Frescobaldi you can click on the pdf viewer and it puts 
your cursor directly where you want, which is awesome.




I find his arguments interesting.  And if I were engraving things as
complex as his, I might also move to absolute.

But I am working on simple, short, pieces.  The longest I have done to
this point is about 8 pages.
For my use case, the convenience of less typing (and to be fair, not
having to worry about the octave
I'm using) overrides the inconvenience of the occasional octave mistake.

So I use relative.


I do believe that at the end this is a choice the engraver has to make 
based on the type of music she or he is working with. Many decisions in 
code organization comes down to convenience, your habits and comfort, 
but just like music engraving in general there are good practices to 
make your work more productive, and if you need to be read and 
understood by others, this is even more critical.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Carl Sorensen]

Putting it on the list (my mistake leaving it off earlier).

On 4/29/16 7:27 AM, "Carl Sorensen"  wrote:

>On 4/29/16 5:58 AM, "Matt Hood"  wrote:
>
>
>>I¹ve got a non-technical question regarding mode of pitch input. What
>>does everyone prefer? Relative, absolute, or a mix of both?
>
>About a year ago, Kieren indicated that he has decided to go completely
>absolute mode, even to the point
>of redoing his historic code:
>
>https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-04/msg00846.html
>
>
>I find his arguments interesting.  And if I were engraving things as
>complex as his, I might also move to absolute.
>
>But I am working on simple, short, pieces.  The longest I have done to
>this point is about 8 pages.
>For my use case, the convenience of less typing (and to be fair, not
>having to worry about the octave
>I'm using) overrides the inconvenience of the occasional octave mistake.
>
>So I use relative.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Carl
>

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Ralph Palmer]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Matt Hood  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I’ve got a non-technical question regarding mode of pitch input. What does
> everyone prefer? Relative, absolute, or a mix of both?
>

I always use relative.


> I’ve always stuck to relative, but I feel like I’ve hit a brick wall as
> far as fluency goes. I’m still quite slow at it, and I spend half of my
> time trying to work out whether I need to change octave or not - usually
> getting it wrong, and watching half of a page disappear into ledger lines.


Fluency should come with use. I still make mistakes, but mine often come
from copy and paste. That being said, it's usually not too hard to figure
out where the mistake occurred.


> Add in temporary polyphonic passages, chords, etc, and it all just becomes
> an exercise in trial and error. Any tips for keeping control?
>

Only tip : on chords, look first at the first note in each chord; those are
the notes that determine the octave. The following notes within the chord
are related *only* to the preceding note within that chord. So, I make sure
the first note of a chord is correctly related to the preceding note (the
last one before the chord) or the *first* note of the preceding chord.

Happy and rewarding engraving to you,

Ralph

-- 
Ralph Palmer
Brattleboro, VT
USA
palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Malte Meyn]

Am 29.04.2016 um 13:58 schrieb Matt Hood:

What does everyone prefer? Relative, absolute, or a mix of both?


I always use \relative without reference pitch because reference pitches 
confused me every single time I used them. In RhythmicStaffs I use only 
durations without pitch (possible in 2.19).



Add in temporary polyphonic passages, chords, etc, and it all just becomes an 
exercise in trial and error. Any tips for keeping control?


I use LilyPond for composing and arranging so I often have to insert 
notes before others. This could change the following notes. But there is 
simple solution (which also is suitable for polyphonic music): Use 
octave checks.


\relative {
  c'4 d e f
  s1*3 % this will be filled in the future
  g=''8 a b g c2
}

This generates warnings but I ignore them until the piece is finished; 
only then I add , and ' before the =.


Concerning chords: I always input the pitches in the same order (upwards 
or downwards but not both). Whether upwards or downwards depends on 
where some sort of melody is but you could also stick to one single 
direction.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Choice of pitch input mode

[Anthonys Lists]

On 29/04/2016 12:58, Matt Hood wrote:

Hi all,

I’ve got a non-technical question regarding mode of pitch input. What does 
everyone prefer? Relative, absolute, or a mix of both?


Relative. Every time. Alhough I'm sure other people will disagree with 
me :-)


I’ve always stuck to relative, but I feel like I’ve hit a brick wall as far as 
fluency goes. I’m still quite slow at it, and I spend half of my time trying to 
work out whether I need to change octave or not - usually getting it wrong, and 
watching half of a page disappear into ledger lines.


The problem isn't applying the rule (the rule is easy). The problem is 
*remembering* to apply the rule. If it's a fourth away or less then no 
modifier is needed. I actually find it more effort keeping note 
*lengths* accurate.



  Add in temporary polyphonic passages, chords, etc, and it all just becomes an 
exercise in trial and error. Any tips for keeping control?


Mmmm. I don't tend to do chords ... I can see where that makes life 
difficult ... I think if I had to do a lot of chords I probably would 
switch to absolute. But for entering voices - and even when combining 
them - to me relative just seems so much simpler.




Any anecdotes or mildly related musings are welcome, I feel like it would be 
good to facilitate a general discussion.



Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user