Re: Multiple markings
On 04/02/17 14:10, David Sumbler wrote: > So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does not > allow multiple marks or tempo markings? Probably because the underlying code makes it very tricky. > > If the answer to that question really is "yes", then perhaps we could > have an additional grob or 2 which have the same characteristics as the > existing one(s) but without the restriction on numbers. E.g. could we > have a TextMark grob in addition to RehearsalMark? Kieran put in a lot of effort iirc to add all this extra stuff. I remember things from long ago when it was "one mark per barline" and, because I think RehearsalMark resolved to an ordinary mark you couldn't even put a rehearsal mark on the same barline as an ordinary mark. That even that took so long to appear implies it was NOT simple. I suspect if Kieran could have just stacked marks he would have done. He might chime in and tell us. If you want to look at how a tempo mark is implemented you might be able to do it for yourself :-) That said, I wanted to do it and just couldn't get to grips with it :-) But I think if you want multiple marks the obvious solution is to stack them in a column. Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
On Sat, 2017-02-04 at 15:48 +, Wols Lists wrote: > On 04/02/17 14:10, David Sumbler wrote: > > > > So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does > > not allow multiple marks or tempo markings? > Probably because the underlying code makes it very tricky. I feared that that might be the case. Ideally, then, the code needs to be rewritten, since the limitation is unhelpful and serves little, if any, purpose. However, since I do not have the capability to write such code myself, I merely mention it as an "in an ideal world..." sort of comment. > > If the answer to that question really is "yes", then perhaps we > > could > > have an additional grob or 2 which have the same characteristics as > > the > > existing one(s) but without the restriction on numbers. E.g. could > > we > > have a TextMark grob in addition to RehearsalMark? > Kieran put in a lot of effort iirc to add all this extra stuff. I > remember things from long ago when it was "one mark per barline" and, > because I think RehearsalMark resolved to an ordinary mark you > couldn't > even put a rehearsal mark on the same barline as an ordinary mark. > That > even that took so long to appear implies it was NOT simple. > > I suspect if Kieran could have just stacked marks he would have done. > He > might chime in and tell us. If you want to look at how a tempo mark > is > implemented you might be able to do it for yourself :-) That said, I > wanted to do it and just couldn't get to grips with it :-) I am unclear about what you mean by an "ordinary mark". The implication of what you say seems to be that a RehearsalMark and an "ordinary mark" can be anchored to the same barline - which sounds just like what I am trying to do. > But I think if you want multiple marks the obvious solution is to > stack them in a column. That is an idea I hadn't thought of, and sounds like an excellent suggestion. But after experimenting with it, I have not managed to keep a fermata centred over the barline whilst having a longer text mark left-aligned on or near the barline. So far, then, I can't see a clear solution to what I wanted to do. David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
On 06/02/17 11:07, David Sumbler wrote:
> I am unclear about what you mean by an "ordinary mark". The
> implication of what you say seems to be that a RehearsalMark and an
> "ordinary mark" can be anchored to the same barline - which sounds just
> like what I am trying to do.
I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an
ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the
underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. That
was very frustrating back then.
> That is an idea I hadn't thought of, and sounds like an excellent
> suggestion. But after experimenting with it, I have not managed to
> keep a fermata centred over the barline whilst having a longer text
> mark left-aligned on or near the barline. So far, then, I can't see a
> clear solution to what I wanted to do.
What happens if you attach a markup to an empty chord? something like this?
| \mark \default <>^\markup { Put this after the rehearsal mark }
I do this a fair bit, and no it is not a perfect solution, but it's
quite often good enough. (Apologies if the syntax isn't quite right.)
Cheers,
Wol
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
> > > So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does
> > > not allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
>
I can't answer that, but here's a way to get a rehearsal mark and a tempo
mark at the same point in time, using an empty chord:
\version "2.19.15"
{
R1
\mark
<>\tempo Allegro 4=120
R1
}
> > But I think if you want multiple marks the obvious solution is to
> > stack them in a column.
>
> That is an idea I hadn't thought of, and sounds like an excellent
> suggestion. But after experimenting with it, I have not managed to
> keep a fermata centred over the barline whilst having a longer text
> mark left-aligned on or near the barline. So far, then, I can't see a
> clear solution to what I wanted to do.
>
> David
>
Sounds like you want two marks next to each other, not in a column.
So, just have two marks in the same markup.
\version "2.19.15"
{
R1
\mark \markup { \fermata "Longer text mark" }
R1
}
To deal with alignment, you can use something like the following.
This isn't killer, since the amount of extra-offset to get the fermata
centered will depend on the size of your fermata; this is a manual
adjustment, not auto-centering.
\version "2.19.15"
{
R1
\override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
\override Score.RehearsalMark #'extra-offset = #'( -1.5 . 0 )
\mark \markup { \fermata "Longer text mark" }
R1
}
HTH,
David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
>> > > So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does
>> > > not allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
>>
>
> I can't answer that, but here's a way to get a rehearsal mark and a tempo
> mark at the same point in time, using an empty chord:
>
> \version "2.19.15"
> {
> R1
> \mark
> <>\tempo Allegro 4=120
> R1
> }
Uh, that would be tantamount to
\mark <>
\tempo Allegro 4=120
I am skeptical that \mark would be happy about a music expression.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:00 AM
> I can't answer that, but here's a way to get a rehearsal mark and a tempo
> mark at the same point in time, using an empty chord:
\version "2.19.15"
{
R1
\mark
<>\tempo Allegro 4=120
R1
}
This works in 2.19.15, but not in recent development releases. The correct way
is this:
\version "2.19.15"
{
R1
\mark \default
\tempo Allegro 4=120
R1
}
which works fine in 2.19 (at least in 2.15 and recent releases).
Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
Trevor Daniels wrote Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:21 AM
>
> Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:00 AM
>
>> I can't answer that, but here's a way to get a rehearsal mark and a tempo
>> mark at the same point in time, using an empty chord:
>
>
> \version "2.19.15"
> {
>R1
>\mark
><>\tempo Allegro 4=120
>R1
> }
>
>
> This works in 2.19.15, but not in recent development releases. The correct
> way is this:
>
> \version "2.19.15"
> {
>R1
>\mark \default
>\tempo Allegro 4=120
>R1
> }
>
> which works fine in 2.19 (at least in 2.15 and recent releases).
I meant "at least in 2.19.15 ..." of course.
Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
Thank you all for the various suggestions regarding this problem.
Some of the latest posts have left me slightly bewildered: I wasn't
aware that there was a problem with having a RehearsalMark and a
MetronomeMark at the same point in a piece. Of course, they are
formatted and aligned differently by default.
I am currently using v.2.19.48, so may be I just never needed both at
the same time when I was using 2.18 or earlier, but if that is the case
it surprises me.
In the instance that I originally enquired about it is of academic
importance in any case, because I need a title, a barline fermata and a
tempo marking all at the same double bar.
Following Wols's suggestion of formatting multiple marks as a column
within a single mark, I came up with the following solution, which
works pretty well.
\version "2.19.48"
\markuplist \table-of-contents
songTitle = "This Song"
songName = { \once \override
Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #-0.79
\mark \markup \column {
\transparent "spacer"
\bold \songTitle
\center-align \musicglyph #"scripts.ufermata" } }
{ c''1
\tocItem \songTitle
\songName
c''2 b' c''1
}
The value of self-alignment-X has to be found by trial and error, but
is then good, it seems, for score and parts. The horizontal alignment
of the title in relation to the fermata (and therefore to the barline)
could also be altered fairly easily.
The transparent item is there just to increase the space between this
system and the preceding one - it's the only way I could find to do it,
but I am sure there must be better ways.
David
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
Hi Wols, > I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an > ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the > underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. That > was very frustrating back then. What exactly do you mean by “back then”? I can’t even remember a time when this was a problem, and I’ve been using Lilypond since 2003. Perhaps by complete coincidence I just never had \mark and \tempo at the same moment until 2.17 (when I know for sure it worked fine). Thanks, 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: Multiple markings
On 07/02/17 13:39, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Wols, > >> I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an >> ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the >> underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. That >> was very frustrating back then. > > What exactly do you mean by “back then”? > > I can’t even remember a time when this was a problem, and I’ve been using > Lilypond since 2003. > Perhaps by complete coincidence I just never had \mark and \tempo at the same > moment until 2.17 (when I know for sure it worked fine). > Before then :-) - some time last century :-) I started using lily with 2.4, and I was forever cursing that "feature". I don't know if the empty chord workaround worked then, either. Certainly I didn't know of it. I thought you wrote the code that sorted it. Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
Hi Wols, > Before then :-) - some time last century :-) Is there anyone on the list who can verify when this was a problem? i.e., which version it stopped being a problem. I’m seriously curious! > I started using lily with 2.4, and I was forever cursing that "feature”. Hmm… I started with 2.1, and I honestly don’t remember having this problem! > I thought you wrote the code that sorted it. Definitely not (though I wish I could write Lilypond at that level!). You are probably thinking of the syntactic sugar I’ve sprinkled on the list over the years to handle fancy tempo markings, spacing issues between \mark and \tempo grobs, etc. 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: Multiple markings
On 07/02/17 14:33, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Wols, > >> Before then :-) - some time last century :-) > > Is there anyone on the list who can verify when this was a problem? i.e., > which version it stopped being a problem. > I’m seriously curious! > >> I started using lily with 2.4, and I was forever cursing that "feature”. > > Hmm… I started with 2.1, and I honestly don’t remember having this problem! It was probably "work-around-able" back then, I just couldn't do it. I think I was probably pointed at stuff, but iirc it was along the lines of "write this code that's a mix of lilypond and scheme and it'll work" and I just couldn't get my head round it. I can be a bit grumpy at times as I'm sure you well know :-) and for something as basic as multiple marks on a barline, well I know I did get very grumpy over it! :-) Not helped, of course, because almost invariably I wanted to combine another mark with \mark \default, and even now I find Scheme a bit frightening :-) At heart I'm a "database and C/FORTRAN" guy, so lily's internals are another world :-) > >> I thought you wrote the code that sorted it. > > Definitely not (though I wish I could write Lilypond at that level!). You are > probably thinking of the syntactic sugar I’ve sprinkled on the list over the > years to handle fancy tempo markings, spacing issues between \mark and \tempo > grobs, etc. > Almost certainly. And I'm extremely grateful for it :-) - it's turned what I considered almost a show-stopper problem into something that's relatively simple (if you can say that about any complex formatting in lily :-) > Cheers, > Kieren. Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
Wols Lists writes: > On 07/02/17 13:39, Kieren MacMillan wrote: >> Hi Wols, >> >>> I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an >>> ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the >>> underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. That >>> was very frustrating back then. >> >> What exactly do you mean by “back then”? >> >> I can’t even remember a time when this was a problem, and I’ve been >> using Lilypond since 2003. >> Perhaps by complete coincidence I just never had \mark and \tempo at >> the same moment until 2.17 (when I know for sure it worked fine). >> > Before then :-) - some time last century :-) > > I started using lily with 2.4, and I was forever cursing that "feature". > I don't know if the empty chord workaround worked then, either. > Certainly I didn't know of it. > > I thought you wrote the code that sorted it. You are probably confusing Kieren MacMillan with Keith O'Hara. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
> > I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an
> > ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the
> > underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. That
> > was very frustrating back then.
>
> What exactly do you mean by “back then”?
>
> I can’t even remember a time when this was a problem, and I’ve been using
> Lilypond since 2003.
> Perhaps by complete coincidence I just never had \mark and \tempo at the
> same moment until 2.17 (when I know for sure it worked fine).
>
Wy back in 2.19.15, this behavior still exists, where the tempo is
dropped:
\version "2.19.15"
{
R1
\mark
\tempo Allegro 4=120
R1
}
David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
>> > I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an
>> > ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the
>> > underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. That
>> > was very frustrating back then.
>>
>> What exactly do you mean by “back then”?
>>
>> I can’t even remember a time when this was a problem, and I’ve been using
>> Lilypond since 2003.
>> Perhaps by complete coincidence I just never had \mark and \tempo at the
>> same moment until 2.17 (when I know for sure it worked fine).
>>
>
> Wy back in 2.19.15, this behavior still exists, where the tempo is
> dropped:
>
> \version "2.19.15"
> {
> R1
> \mark
> \tempo Allegro 4=120
> R1
> }
Have you ever actually tried looking up how \mark is called?
Write \mark \default (as that is likely what you mean here) and of
course \tempo is not affected in any manner.
The problem is that \mark has historically been too lenient in verifying
its argument, so you feed it crap and then make up absurd theories about
what is happening.
The only thing that has changed since that time is that \mark will
actually complain about this kind of rubbish. If you write stuff
correctly, it will work the same now and then.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
Because it was incorrect syntax, but not shown as such in the logfile. Correct
syntax was still \mark \default
--
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
From: Flaming Hakama by Elaine
To: Lilypond-User Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Multiple markings
> I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an
> ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the
> underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. That
> was very frustrating back then.
What exactly do you mean by “back then”?
I can’t even remember a time when this was a problem, and I’ve been using
Lilypond since 2003.
Perhaps by complete coincidence I just never had \mark and \tempo at the
same moment until 2.17 (when I know for sure it worked fine).
Wy back in 2.19.15, this behavior still exists, where the tempo is
dropped:
\version "2.19.15"
{
R1
\mark
\tempo Allegro 4=120
R1
}
David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954 "Confusion is
highly underrated"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
___
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: Multiple markings
On 07.02.2017 09:17, David Kastrup wrote:
Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does
not allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
I can't answer that, but here's a way to get a rehearsal mark and a tempo
mark at the same point in time, using an empty chord:
\version "2.19.15"
{
R1
\mark
<>\tempo Allegro 4=120
R1
}
Uh, that would be tantamount to
\mark <>
\tempo Allegro 4=120
I am skeptical that \mark would be happy about a music expression.
To provide an actual explanation: \mark is a music function which takes
one argument: a number or a markup. See
,
to be found most easily through the LilyPond command index. This
argument is optional, but due to LilyPond’s syntax, it can’t simply be
omitted, but must be replaced by \default. Else whatever comes next
would be gulped by \mark as its argument, and the difference between
versions arose from different handling of wrong arguments.
Best, Simon
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
On Tue 07 Feb 2017 at 10:34:14 (+), David Sumbler wrote:
> Thank you all for the various suggestions regarding this problem.
>
> Some of the latest posts have left me slightly bewildered: I wasn't
> aware that there was a problem with having a RehearsalMark and a
> MetronomeMark at the same point in a piece. Of course, they are
> formatted and aligned differently by default.
>
> I am currently using v.2.19.48, so may be I just never needed both at
> the same time when I was using 2.18 or earlier, but if that is the case
> it surprises me.
I've found cases of \tempo and \tempoMark at the start of a piece.
The \version was "2.7.40" but I can't recall where I got that
number from. The files are dated 2007-10-30 and were run with 2.8.7
on Debian etch.
But I'm not clear about exactly what the issue is that we're searching
for because it arose out of a conversation rather than one specific point.
> In the instance that I originally enquired about it is of academic
> importance in any case, because I need a title, a barline fermata and a
> tempo marking all at the same double bar.
>
> Following Wols's suggestion of formatting multiple marks as a column
> within a single mark, I came up with the following solution, which
> works pretty well.
>
>
> \version "2.19.48"
>
> \markuplist \table-of-contents
>
> songTitle = "This Song"
> songName = { \once \override
> Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #-0.79
> \mark \markup \column {
> \transparent "spacer"
> \bold \songTitle
> \center-align \musicglyph #"scripts.ufermata" } }
>
> { c''1
> \tocItem \songTitle
> \songName
> c''2 b' c''1
> }
>
>
> The value of self-alignment-X has to be found by trial and error, but
> is then good, it seems, for score and parts. The horizontal alignment
> of the title in relation to the fermata (and therefore to the barline)
> could also be altered fairly easily.
>
> The transparent item is there just to increase the space between this
> system and the preceding one - it's the only way I could find to do it,
> but I am sure there must be better ways.
How would you deal with the case where \songName landed on a break?
That's the problem I've had to wrestle with in the past. You'd want
the fermata at the end of a line but the song title at the start of
the next.
IIRC in my own first incident of this problem, I wanted two
simultaneous marks at the same barline: a right-justified "D.S. al Coda"
and a left-justified Coda sign, but with the former remaining at the
end of the line if broken at that point, and the latter placed at the
start of the next line. I could get away with anchoring the D.S. to
the last note of the measure.
Cheers,
David.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 14:59 -0600, David Wright wrote: > How would you deal with the case where \songName landed on a break? > That's the problem I've had to wrestle with in the past. You'd want > the fermata at the end of a line but the song title at the start of > the next. In the particular case I am currently dealing with, I want the barline to come in the middle of a line in the score to emphasize the fact that this is a continuous piece, and that the individual songs are not intended to be performed separately. So there is no problem. In the parts it might be acceptable or preferable to start the new song on a new line, but it looks as if I shall have to do force \noBreak in the parts as well, like it or not. All of which shows how unsatisfactory the current situation is. I don't pretend to understand the reasons why multiple marks are not allowed, but clearly the reasons must be pretty deep-seated. Since I do not have this understanding, it just seems odd to me that we have this restriction when at the same time we can apparently have almost unlimited numbers of items attached to notes. David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
2017-02-04 15:10 GMT+01:00 David Sumbler :
> A text mark in Lilypond is represented by a grob called a
> RehearsalMark; the grob for a tempo marking is called a MetronomeMark.
>
> I wonder whether perhaps these names reflect something about the
> history of Lilypond: they are certainly not accurate descriptions of
> what the objects are used for - e.g. very often tempo markings make no
> reference to a metronome. I also suspect that history gives a clue to
> why Lilypond allows only one of each of these objects at any point in a
> score unless one performs some sort of programming acrobatics to work
> around the restriction.
>
> In fact this restriction, certainly in the case of RehearsalMark, has
> no logic to it. So either it is somehow hard-wired at a deep level, or
> it must be there presumably because at one time it did make sense.
>
> The clue is in the names, perhaps. It generally does not make sense to
> have more than one actual rehearsal mark at a single point in a piece
> of music (although I can think of rare circumstances in which there
> might be editorial reasons for doing so). But the RehearsalMark object
> is now not used only for rehearsal marks. For instance, even according
> to the documentation it is used for putting a fermata sign over a
> barline. Now, there is no reason on earth why a fermata sign and a
> rehearsal mark should never appear at the same point, yet Lilypond
> throws out a warning and refuses to print one of the objects unless we
> go to extra lengths to get what we actually want.
>
> A RehearsalMark is actually a very useful thing for aligning something
> with a barline - just recently I wanted it for the titles of the
> various sections of a piece. Similarly, there might be times when the
> alignment (or other) characteristics of MetronomeMark are useful for
> some other text, which might or might not occur at the same point as an
> actual tempo marking.
>
> The only case where having more than one of either of these objects
> causes a problem (only for midi output and easy for Lilypond to deal
> with, even then) is if 2 actual metronome marks occur at the same
> point.
>
> Would it not make better sense for Lilypond to accept what is asked for
> without complaining and print all the requested items? We don't
> actually need to have a warning about the supposed error if we can see
> the result in the output. If it is a genuine mistake (e.g. putting
> "Allegro" in most parts and "allegro" in another) then we can see that,
> and it won't take long to locate the error.
>
> So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does not
> allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
>
> If the answer to that question really is "yes", then perhaps we could
> have an additional grob or 2 which have the same characteristics as the
> existing one(s) but without the restriction on numbers. E.g. could we
> have a TextMark grob in addition to RehearsalMark?
>
> David
To add my 2cts:
Consider:
<<
\new Staff {
R1
\override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #RIGHT
\mark "whatever"
R1
}
\new Staff {
R1
\override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
\mark "whatever-else"
R1
}
>>
Where and how should the RehearsalMark(s) be printed?
Meanwhile why not use some of the workarounds?
(1)
\mark \markup <\[center-]column>
(already mentioned)
(2)
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=976
or
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=977
(3)
http://old.nabble.com/Nice-workaround-for-simultaneous-rehearsal-marks-%E2%80%93-thanks-Neil!-td32212763.html
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 23:01 +0100, Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-02-04 15:10 GMT+01:00 David Sumbler :
> > So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does
> > not
> > allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
> >
> > If the answer to that question really is "yes", then perhaps we
> > could
> > have an additional grob or 2 which have the same characteristics as
> > the
> > existing one(s) but without the restriction on numbers. E.g. could
> > we
> > have a TextMark grob in addition to RehearsalMark?
> >
> > David
>
>
> To add my 2cts:
>
> Consider:
>
> <<
> \new Staff {
> R1
> \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #RIGHT
> \mark "whatever"
> R1
> }
> \new Staff {
> R1
> \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
> \mark "whatever-else"
> R1
> }
> >
> > >
> > >
> Where and how should the RehearsalMark(s) be printed?
I cannot envisage a situation where that would be required. The Marks
are in a Score context, and are normally only printed once in the score
(usually at the top). In most cases we put the same marking in every
instrument's input so that the Mark will appear in the the individual
parts as well, if that is what we want.
I cannot see why you would want to have different score-wide Marks
specified in different parts. But if you did, I would expect them to
be formatted exactly as specified. If they then conflict, that seems
to me to be the editor's problem more than Lilypond's.
> Meanwhile why not use some of the workarounds?
>
> (1)
> \mark \markup <\[center-]column>
> (already mentioned)
>
> (2)
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=976
> or
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=977
>
> (3)
> http://old.nabble.com/Nice-workaround-for-simultaneous-rehearsal-mark
> s-%E2%80%93-thanks-Neil!-td32212763.html
The last doesn't seem to be reachable, but I found it at
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-08/msg00157.html
I shall need some time to study these (and it won't be tonight!), but
thanks very much for pointing me to them.
The fact that these workarounds exist prompts the question: if the
problem can be worked around, why must we continue to have a problem to
work around? (If you see what I mean.)
David
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple markings
Hi David, > The fact that these workarounds exist prompts the question: > if the problem can be worked around, why must we continue > to have a problem to work around? If the problem that humans can’t fly unassisted can be worked around [by way of aircraft], why must we continue to have the problem that humans can’t fly unassisted? ;) More seriously: 1. Even just adequately defining the problem-space is non-trivial. Feel free to shepherd a thread where we do that — I would be happy to contribute! 2. Once the problem-space is adequately defined, someone needs to code the changes necessary to make Lilypond “Do The Right Thing™”. This is non-trivial in general, and may be even less trivial in this specific case. But, as is often stated on this list: patch submissions are always welcome! Best regards, 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: Multiple markings
On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 23:01 +0100, Thomas Morley wrote: > Meanwhile why not use some of the workarounds? > > (1) > \mark \markup <\[center-]column> > (already mentioned) > > (2) > http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=976 > or > http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=977 > > (3) > http://old.nabble.com/Nice-workaround-for-simultaneous-rehearsal-mark > s-%E2%80%93-thanks-Neil!-td32212763.html I spent some time studying and experimenting with all of these. But LSR 976 in particular is amazing - it does everything I am ever likely to want to do with Marks, and a lot more besides. I have now modified my project to use this method. Thank you for suggesting it, and thank you to Arnold, Neil and anyone else whose work went into it. David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
