Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,

What about a radical alternative?

What if each non-reference part has an additional “tick” barline (numbered 
according to the reference context) whereever the barlines don’t line up?

Just a thought…
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: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Graham King]

On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 10:38 -0600, David Wright wrote:

> On Tue 10 Nov 2015 at 13:52:33 (+), Graham King wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> > > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > > > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”
> > > > That’s sufficient reason for me.  =)
> > > Good answer.
> > > In that case, I would pick one part, and force those measure 
> > numbers in
> > > as numeric rehearsal marks in the other parts.
> > > Otherwise, you’d need a translation guide...
> > > ~Chris
> > > I guess Gould has a point.  I've just realised that, under my system 
> > as I
> > > described it, a part could have the same bar number twice.  For 
> > example, in the
> > > attachment below, T has two bars "9".  But apart from an ill-chosen 
> > number (in
> > > this case), one could regard the "bar numbers" as "numeric rehearsal 
> > marks".
> > > Different mechanism, different formatting, same result.  In practice, 
> > for the
> > > sort of music I'm dealing with, the polymetric sections tend to be 
> > quite short
> > > so, for the most part, bar numbers are more helpful than rehearsal 
> > marks.
> > 
> > This is avoidable if each new bar is numbered with 1+(number of the
> > bar—looking across all the parts—that most recently finished). Not
> > something I could automate with my zero knowledge of scheme.
> > 
> > Very logical.
> > Advantages:
> > +1Might be amenable to automation.
> > +2Robust with respect to re-formatting.
> > +3Supports any variation of Staff.BarNumber.break-visibility (I think).
> > 
> > Disadvantages:
> > -1On a given line, bar numbers increase in strange and surprising ways,
> > giving potential for confusion.
> 
> That's unavoidable by any scheme. Where a player has a part that has
> many bars in one line (eg a slow-moving bass part where some other
> parts have many more notes), the player will see multiple jumps in
> their line, each where your "reference part" starts a new line in
> its score. These jumps could be forwards or backwards.

I see your point.  I'm dealing with a special case however, in which
there is just a vocal score (no separate parts).  Clearly, your scheme
is superior in the general case.

> 
> >  One cannot just count from the start of the
> > line and announce a bar number.
> 
> Oh, I don't think you can get away without labelling every bar in
> every part. We're just discussing what those labels will say.
> 
> > For that reason alone, I'm inclined to favour:
> > oCounting the bars of the top visible staff of the system, whilst
> > oAllowing discontinuity at the start of each line to accommodate other
> > parts that might have more bars in the previous line.
> 
> The "start of each line" will be different in each and every score:
> the full score, the vocal score, the choral score, and all the parts.
> *Their* discontinuities will be all over the place, with jumps
> backwards and forwards! Exciting stuff.
> 
> So I see further advantages than just those in your list:
> 
> +4 Bar numbers monotonically increase throughout every part.
> +5 Bar numbers are a defined and intrinsic property of the music,
>not an accident of one particular layout. In other words, the
>bar number of every bar is known *before* LP tries to calculate
>linebreaks and pagebreaks.
> 
> > But that's just a personal preference.  I wouldn't want to impose it on 
> > anyone
> > else!  (and I'm prepared to accept the need to fiddle with bar numbers 
> > manually
> > at a late stage in the editing process).
> 
> So what you're saying is (correct me if I'm wrong) you typeset the
> music *in it's final form*, then sit down with the printout and
> annotate the "reference part" bar numbers, then re-edit the source
> putting in all the \set Score.currentBarNumber commands for each and
> every line of the reference part.

not necessarily every line.  Different assumptions about the musical
material - see below.

> 
> Now comes the interesting bit: figuring out the bar numbers for all
> the other parts and forcing them to match the reference part.
> 
> And if a late correction has the effect of shifting a bar from one
> line to another in the reference part, you're scuppered.


Yes, all (mostly) correct, believe it or not!  For my purposes, that's
not a lot of work, since (i) the polymetric sections tend to be quite
short, (ii) the piece is never published other than in score form and,
(iii) re-working for corrections is rare (and if needed, a new set of
printouts can be run off).  I fully accept that this is a special case
of a much more difficult general problem to which your analysis applies.
I'm not trying to impose this 

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[David Wright]

On Tue 10 Nov 2015 at 13:52:33 (+), Graham King wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”
> > > That’s sufficient reason for me.  =)
> > Good answer.
> > In that case, I would pick one part, and force those measure 
> numbers in
> > as numeric rehearsal marks in the other parts.
> > Otherwise, you’d need a translation guide...
> > ~Chris
> > I guess Gould has a point.  I've just realised that, under my system as 
> I
> > described it, a part could have the same bar number twice.  For 
> example, in the
> > attachment below, T has two bars "9".  But apart from an ill-chosen 
> number (in
> > this case), one could regard the "bar numbers" as "numeric rehearsal 
> marks".
> > Different mechanism, different formatting, same result.  In practice, 
> for the
> > sort of music I'm dealing with, the polymetric sections tend to be 
> quite short
> > so, for the most part, bar numbers are more helpful than rehearsal 
> marks.
> 
> This is avoidable if each new bar is numbered with 1+(number of the
> bar—looking across all the parts—that most recently finished). Not
> something I could automate with my zero knowledge of scheme.
> 
> Very logical.
> Advantages:
> +1Might be amenable to automation.
> +2Robust with respect to re-formatting.
> +3Supports any variation of Staff.BarNumber.break-visibility (I think).
> 
> Disadvantages:
> -1On a given line, bar numbers increase in strange and surprising ways,
> giving potential for confusion.

That's unavoidable by any scheme. Where a player has a part that has
many bars in one line (eg a slow-moving bass part where some other
parts have many more notes), the player will see multiple jumps in
their line, each where your "reference part" starts a new line in
its score. These jumps could be forwards or backwards.

>  One cannot just count from the start of the
> line and announce a bar number.

Oh, I don't think you can get away without labelling every bar in
every part. We're just discussing what those labels will say.

> For that reason alone, I'm inclined to favour:
> oCounting the bars of the top visible staff of the system, whilst
> oAllowing discontinuity at the start of each line to accommodate other
> parts that might have more bars in the previous line.

The "start of each line" will be different in each and every score:
the full score, the vocal score, the choral score, and all the parts.
*Their* discontinuities will be all over the place, with jumps
backwards and forwards! Exciting stuff.

So I see further advantages than just those in your list:

+4 Bar numbers monotonically increase throughout every part.
+5 Bar numbers are a defined and intrinsic property of the music,
   not an accident of one particular layout. In other words, the
   bar number of every bar is known *before* LP tries to calculate
   linebreaks and pagebreaks.

> But that's just a personal preference.  I wouldn't want to impose it on anyone
> else!  (and I'm prepared to accept the need to fiddle with bar numbers 
> manually
> at a late stage in the editing process).

So what you're saying is (correct me if I'm wrong) you typeset the
music *in it's final form*, then sit down with the printout and
annotate the "reference part" bar numbers, then re-edit the source
putting in all the \set Score.currentBarNumber commands for each and
every line of the reference part.

Now comes the interesting bit: figuring out the bar numbers for all
the other parts and forcing them to match the reference part.

And if a late correction has the effect of shifting a bar from one
line to another in the reference part, you're scuppered.

Hm. I want LP to do the work for me, not the other way round.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Graham King]

On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 18:44 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Am 11.11.2015 um 11:14 schrieb Graham King:
> 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > > > > annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric
> > > > > scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So to approach the issue one would have to remove \annotationProcessor
> > > > > from the Score context and "consist" it in another context.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't know what would happen if it would be added to more than one
> > > > > context (I can't really imagine it would work).
> > > > > What would probably work *in principle* is adding that to the context
> > > > > Kieren would take as the "master" context.
> > > > 
> > > > This passeth my understanding.  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Mine too :-) That's why I would like you to simply try it out ...
> > > 
> > > Best
> > > Urs
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > I'll play with contexts in the morning.  Thanks again. 
> > > > 
> > > > > I assume (can't test currently) that any annotation would then get the
> > > > > barnumber of the master context and the partial measure calculated 
> > > > > from
> > > > > there. Of course this wouldn't give very useful results but it would 
> > > > > be
> > > > > interesting to check out anyway ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Good luck
> > > > > Urs
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I hope I'm making a valid test: Had a bit of trouble integrating
> > > > > > ScholarLy with a short test score, so I just plugged the \include
> > > > > > statements and a \criticalRemark stanza into the
> > > > > > Isaac_Confessoribus_Prosa2.ly (which is full of polyrhythms).  Will 
> > > > > > pick
> > > > > > up again late tonight or tomorrow, to check that \scaleDurations is 
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > messing things up.  Must dash now.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Urs
> > > > > > 
> > 
> > OK, I think I have a reasonable test case (attached).  Toggling the
> > block comment at lines 66 & 79 shows the effect of moving
> > \annotationProcessor between the Score and Staff contexts.
> > Alas, in Staff context, it still gives "Sorry, rhythmic position
> > could not be determined." 
> 
> 
> OK, I looked into it a little bit (this actually *is* a good test
> case), and I think we're in a kind of dead end. At least I don't see a
> way out or any use investigating further without a very clear idea
> what we eventually want to achieve. Sorry.

Alas.  Many thanks for your help and support anyway.

I too have spent part of today delving into both the default
bar-numbering mechanism and the Measure_counter_engraver, but both seem
to be built on the same foundation, which appears not to allow for the
case where the Default_bar_line_engraver has been moved into the Staff
context.  But I might be a bit hard-of-thinking and hence wrong.

To the general audience on the list:
In case anyone can breathe life into the issue at some future date, my
objective (perhaps refined and stated too late to be presently helpful)
is: 

"to enable ScholarLy to report annotations to a polyrhythmic score in
such a way that the position in the score, to which each annotation
refers, can be clearly, concisely, and unambiguously stated (in the
endnotes). "

To that end, I have assumed that bar-numbering for polyrhythmic music is
required, even at the expense of both a non-standard approach and the
possible need for manual intervention at a late stage of score
preparation.  I believe, in any case, that bar numbers are generally
helpful to performers, at least among those with whom I work.  At risk
of turning this paragraph into a manifesto, let's add: It is true that
Renaissance music had no regular barlines, and indeed I sing it, with
friends, from facsimile editions in which we have to rely on the signum
congruentiae if everything falls apart.  However, in modern times most
singers require modern notation, and tackle a far larger repertoire of
polyphony on (arguably) less rehearsal than our fifteenth- and
sixteenth-century forebears.  So we need all the navigational help we
can get.  As for the polyrhythmic modern editions that cause the present
difficulty: part of the point is to help preserve the closest possible
link to the original mensuration and proportion, and thereby to mitigate
the inappropriate rhythmic straightjacket of the modern barlines.

So, for the time being, I'll continue to add ScholarLy annotations to
the source, against the day when the software might be able to process
them.  But I'll take the log output, add a manually-derived bar number,
and publish the result in a manually-maintained \markup block.

best regards
-- Graham

> 
> The "error" message is produced when formatting an annotation for
> export, and actually is a workaround for a situation that would
> otherwise crash annotate: The "rhythmic-location" that is present in
> the annotation pretends to be (0 0/0). From my source comments this
> seems to be a "workaround for a problem that sometimes the paperColumn
> gets lost along th

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Urs Liska]

Am 11.11.2015 um 11:14 schrieb Graham King:
> 
 annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric
 scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context.

 So to approach the issue one would have to remove \annotationProcessor
 from the Score context and "consist" it in another context.

 I don't know what would happen if it would be added to more than one
 context (I can't really imagine it would work).
 What would probably work *in principle* is adding that to the context
 Kieren would take as the "master" context.
>>> This passeth my understanding. 
>>
>> Mine too :-) That's why I would like you to simply try it out ...
>>
>> Best
>> Urs
>>
>>> I'll play with contexts in the morning.  Thanks again.
 I assume (can't test currently) that any annotation would then get the
 barnumber of the master context and the partial measure calculated from
 there. Of course this wouldn't give very useful results but it would be
 interesting to check out anyway ...

 Good luck
 Urs

 > I hope I'm making a valid test: Had a bit of trouble integrating
 > ScholarLy with a short test score, so I just plugged the \include
 > statements and a \criticalRemark stanza into the
 > Isaac_Confessoribus_Prosa2.ly (which is full of polyrhythms).
 Will pick
 > up again late tonight or tomorrow, to check that \scaleDurations
 is not
 > messing things up. Must dash now.
 >>
 >> Urs
 >
> OK, I think I have a reasonable test case (attached).  Toggling the
> block comment at lines 66 & 79 shows the effect of moving
> \annotationProcessor between the Score and Staff contexts.
> Alas, in Staff context, it still gives "Sorry, rhythmic position could
> not be determined."

OK, I looked into it a little bit (this actually *is* a good test case),
and I think we're in a kind of dead end. At least I don't see a way out
or any use investigating further without a very clear idea what we
eventually want to achieve. Sorry.

The "error" message is produced when formatting an annotation for
export, and actually is a workaround for a situation that would
otherwise crash annotate: The "rhythmic-location" that is present in the
annotation pretends to be (0 0/0). From my source comments this seems to
be a "workaround for a problem that sometimes the paperColumn gets lost
along the way" - and I must say that I'm completely at a loss here. And
as we don't really know what we're after I don't think it makes sense to
really dive into this.

Except if David Nalesnik (who has written major parts of this) would
take on the challenge. If you do, David, I'll give you the pointers
where the stuff is sitting.

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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Graham King]

On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 09:18 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Am 11.11.2015 um 01:32 schrieb Graham King:
> 
> > 
> > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 22:50 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: 
> > 
> > > Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King:
> > > > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:



> > > >> I'm not so sure that it will be possible to implement a solution that
> > > >> really works automatically and is at the same time sufficiently
> > > >> general. But you'd be in any case to create a manual solution, if
> > > >> that's a viable approach given your material (that is: how many of
> > > >> these annotations do you expect, will the numbering be stable or will
> > > >> you have to expect any changes after the fact?)
> > > 
> > > > Very happy to intervene manually in bar numbering.  The remainder of
> > > > this thread is opening my eyes to the difficulty of automating that.
> > > 
> > > Just to avoid misunderstandings: What I am thinking about is an approach
> > > where you add a custom property passing a barnumber manually to the
> > > annotation. I don't think we'll be able to manually modify LilyPond's
> > > idea of barnumbers.
> > 
> > Thanks for the clarification.  I don't think it's a problem so long
> > as two aspects of the workflow are covered:
> > 1: during the preparation of the score, we'll need to be able to
> > capture the issues and display them somehow, and relate each issue
> > to its place in the score.  This does not need barnumbers as we
> > still have source code (and maybe an IDE).  Almost certainly not a
> > problem.  
> 
> 
> The annotations do have their connection to the originating objects,
> regardless of being able to determine a proper musical position. The
> messages printed to the console are linked to the input position, so
> clicking on a message will move the cursor to the annotation, and the
> objects are colored in the score so you have the same navigation
> available through point-and-click.
> 
> If you want to have something readable available I would suggest the
> following:
> (temporarily) move the \annotationProcessor from the Score to another
> context. Choose the one that you consider the "master" context (as per
> Kieren's concept). Then the annotations *should* (not tested yet) get
> the master context's barnumber and a partial measure starting from
> that context's last barline.
> 
> 
> > 2: Bar numbers need to crystallise only at the publication stage. 
> > 
> > > >> We would surely be able to taylor a solution using either a custom
> > > >> annotation type or a custom annotation property.
> > 
> > Now I get it.  The human being at the keyboard tells ScholarLy the
> > bar number.  I'm happy with that.  I might add a git hook to flash
> > at me a message: "Now go back and adjust the bar numbers in the
> > annotations!" :-)  Seriously: It will very rarely be an issue.
> 
> 
> Well, actually I would then do that as one single step towards the end
> of the edition process, when you're sufficiently sure that neither the
> music nor your bar numbering scheme will change anymore.
> It is a compromise, but so far I don't see a solution that could be
> completely automated (due to the conceptual difficulties, not the
> implementation).
> 
> 
> > > >>
> > > >> As a start you could try out and tell us what LilyPond/ScholarLY do by
> > > >> default if used in polymetric scores. I *assume* that LilyPond
> > > >> maintains individual bar numberings for each context
> > > 
> > > > Yes, that appears to be the case.
> > > 
> > > >> and that ScholarLY will just use the "local" barnumbers, without even
> > > >> knowing there's an issue. But it would be nice if you could verify 
> > > >> that.
> > > 
> > > > Scholarly gives the message: "Sorry, rhythmic position could not be
> > > > determined."
> > > 
> > > OK, I see why this happens 



> > > annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric
> > > scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context.
> > > 
> > > So to approach the issue one would have to remove \annotationProcessor
> > > from the Score context and "consist" it in another context.
> > > 
> > > I don't know what would happen if it would be added to more than one
> > > context (I can't really imagine it would work).
> > > What would probably work *in principle* is adding that to the context
> > > Kieren would take as the "master" context.
> > 
> > This passeth my understanding.  
> 
> 
> Mine too :-) That's why I would like you to simply try it out ...
> 
> Best
> Urs
> 
> 
> > I'll play with contexts in the morning.  Thanks again. 
> > 
> > > I assume (can't test currently) that any annotation would then get the
> > > barnumber of the master context and the partial measure calculated from
> > > there. Of course this wouldn't give very useful results but it would be
> > > interesting to check out anyway ...
> > > 
> > > Good luck
> > > Urs
> > > 
> > > > I hope I'm making a valid test: Had a bit of trouble integrating
> > > > Sch

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Urs Liska]

Am 11.11.2015 um 01:32 schrieb Graham King:
> On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 22:50 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>> Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King:
>> > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
>> >>
>> >>> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
>> >>> "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
>> >>>
>> >>> I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
>> >>> edition of sixteenth-century polyphony. But, before investing too
>> >>> much time, I need to check whether there is now a way for it to cope
>> >>> with polymetric music[3].
>> >>
>> >> As the discussion in this thread clearly shows this is firstly a
>> >> conceptual problem. Only if it is clear what you want to achieve we
>> >> can even start thinking about a solution implementation-wise.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not so sure that it will be possible to implement a solution that
>> >> really works automatically and is at the same time sufficiently
>> >> general. But you'd be in any case to create a manual solution, if
>> >> that's a viable approach given your material (that is: how many of
>> >> these annotations do you expect, will the numbering be stable or will
>> >> you have to expect any changes after the fact?)
>>
>> > Very happy to intervene manually in bar numbering. The remainder of
>> > this thread is opening my eyes to the difficulty of automating that.
>>
>> Just to avoid misunderstandings: What I am thinking about is an approach
>> where you add a custom property passing a barnumber manually to the
>> annotation. I don't think we'll be able to manually modify LilyPond's
>> idea of barnumbers.
> Thanks for the clarification.  I don't think it's a problem so long as
> two aspects of the workflow are covered:
> 1: during the preparation of the score, we'll need to be able to
> capture the issues and display them somehow, and relate each issue to
> its place in the score.  This does not need barnumbers as we still
> have source code (and maybe an IDE).  Almost certainly not a problem.  

The annotations do have their connection to the originating objects,
regardless of being able to determine a proper musical position. The
messages printed to the console are linked to the input position, so
clicking on a message will move the cursor to the annotation, and the
objects are colored in the score so you have the same navigation
available through point-and-click.

If you want to have something readable available I would suggest the
following:
(temporarily) move the \annotationProcessor from the Score to another
context. Choose the one that you consider the "master" context (as per
Kieren's concept). Then the annotations *should* (not tested yet) get
the master context's barnumber and a partial measure starting from that
context's last barline.

> 2: Bar numbers need to crystallise only at the publication stage.
>> >> We would surely be able to taylor a solution using either a custom
>> >> annotation type or a custom annotation property.
> Now I get it.  The human being at the keyboard tells ScholarLy the bar
> number.  I'm happy with that.  I might add a git hook to flash at me a
> message: "Now go back and adjust the bar numbers in the annotations!"
> :-)  Seriously: It will very rarely be an issue.

Well, actually I would then do that as one single step towards the end
of the edition process, when you're sufficiently sure that neither the
music nor your bar numbering scheme will change anymore.
It is a compromise, but so far I don't see a solution that could be
completely automated (due to the conceptual difficulties, not the
implementation).

>> >>
>> >> As a start you could try out and tell us what LilyPond/ScholarLY do by
>> >> default if used in polymetric scores. I *assume* that LilyPond
>> >> maintains individual bar numberings for each context
>>
>> > Yes, that appears to be the case.
>>
>> >> and that ScholarLY will just use the "local" barnumbers, without even
>> >> knowing there's an issue. But it would be nice if you could verify
>> that.
>>
>> > Scholarly gives the message: "Sorry, rhythmic position could not be
>> > determined."
>>
>> OK, I see why this happens (did I ever say that it is cool that I can
>> inspect openLilyLib code on Github using my phone?).
> Sheesh Urs! I know you're bright, but I've just had this image of your
> whipping out the phone in a few bars rest, with the thought "I've just
> got time to fix the earthling's problem..."  :-)
>> annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric
>> scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context.
>>
>> So to approach the issue one would have to remove \annotationProcessor
>> from the Score context and "consist" it in another context.
>>
>> I don't know what would happen if it would be added to more than one
>> context (I can't really imagine it would work).
>> What would probably work *in principle* is adding that to the context
>> Kieren would ta

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Graham King]

On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 22:50 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:

> Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King:
> > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
> >>
> >>> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
> >>> "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
> >>>
> >>> I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
> >>> edition of sixteenth-century polyphony.  But, before investing too
> >>> much time, I need to check whether there is now a way for it to cope
> >>> with polymetric music[3]. 
> >>
> >> As the discussion in this thread clearly shows this is firstly a
> >> conceptual problem. Only if it is clear what you want to achieve we
> >> can even start thinking about a solution implementation-wise.
> >>
> >> I'm not so sure that it will be possible to implement a solution that
> >> really works automatically and is at the same time sufficiently
> >> general. But you'd be in any case to create a manual solution, if
> >> that's a viable approach given your material (that is: how many of
> >> these annotations do you expect, will the numbering be stable or will
> >> you have to expect any changes after the fact?)
> 
> > Very happy to intervene manually in bar numbering.  The remainder of
> > this thread is opening my eyes to the difficulty of automating that.
> 
> Just to avoid misunderstandings: What I am thinking about is an approach
> where you add a custom property passing a barnumber manually to the
> annotation. I don't think we'll be able to manually modify LilyPond's
> idea of barnumbers.

Thanks for the clarification.  I don't think it's a problem so long as
two aspects of the workflow are covered:
1: during the preparation of the score, we'll need to be able to capture
the issues and display them somehow, and relate each issue to its place
in the score.  This does not need barnumbers as we still have source
code (and maybe an IDE).  Almost certainly not a problem.  2: Bar
numbers need to crystallise only at the publication stage.

> 
> >> We would surely be able to taylor a solution using either a custom
> >> annotation type or a custom annotation property.

Now I get it.  The human being at the keyboard tells ScholarLy the bar
number.  I'm happy with that.  I might add a git hook to flash at me a
message: "Now go back and adjust the bar numbers in the
annotations!" :-)  Seriously: It will very rarely be an issue.

> >>
> >> As a start you could try out and tell us what LilyPond/ScholarLY do by
> >> default if used in polymetric scores. I *assume* that LilyPond
> >> maintains individual bar numberings for each context
> 
> > Yes, that appears to be the case.
> 
> >> and that ScholarLY will just use the "local" barnumbers, without even
> >> knowing there's an issue. But it would be nice if you could verify that.
> 
> > Scholarly gives the message: "Sorry, rhythmic position could not be
> > determined."
> 
> OK, I see why this happens (did I ever say that it is cool that I can
> inspect openLilyLib code on Github using my phone?).

Sheesh Urs! I know you're bright, but I've just had this image of your
whipping out the phone in a few bars rest, with the thought "I've just
got time to fix the earthling's problem..."  :-)

> annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric
> scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context.
> 
> So to approach the issue one would have to remove \annotationProcessor
> from the Score context and "consist" it in another context.
> 
> I don't know what would happen if it would be added to more than one
> context (I can't really imagine it would work).
> What would probably work *in principle* is adding that to the context
> Kieren would take as the "master" context.

This passeth my understanding.  I'll play with contexts in the morning.
Thanks again.

> I assume (can't test currently) that any annotation would then get the
> barnumber of the master context and the partial measure calculated from
> there. Of course this wouldn't give very useful results but it would be
> interesting to check out anyway ...
> 
> Good luck
> Urs
> 
> > I hope I'm making a valid test: Had a bit of trouble integrating
> > ScholarLy with a short test score, so I just plugged the \include
> > statements and a \criticalRemark stanza into the
> > Isaac_Confessoribus_Prosa2.ly (which is full of polyrhythms).  Will pick
> > up again late tonight or tomorrow, to check that \scaleDurations is not
> > messing things up.  Must dash now.
> >>
> >> Urs
> > 
> 
> 
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Urs Liska]

Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King:
> On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
>>
>>> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
>>> "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
>>>
>>> I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
>>> edition of sixteenth-century polyphony.  But, before investing too
>>> much time, I need to check whether there is now a way for it to cope
>>> with polymetric music[3]. 
>>
>> As the discussion in this thread clearly shows this is firstly a
>> conceptual problem. Only if it is clear what you want to achieve we
>> can even start thinking about a solution implementation-wise.
>>
>> I'm not so sure that it will be possible to implement a solution that
>> really works automatically and is at the same time sufficiently
>> general. But you'd be in any case to create a manual solution, if
>> that's a viable approach given your material (that is: how many of
>> these annotations do you expect, will the numbering be stable or will
>> you have to expect any changes after the fact?)

> Very happy to intervene manually in bar numbering.  The remainder of
> this thread is opening my eyes to the difficulty of automating that.

Just to avoid misunderstandings: What I am thinking about is an approach
where you add a custom property passing a barnumber manually to the
annotation. I don't think we'll be able to manually modify LilyPond's
idea of barnumbers.

>> We would surely be able to taylor a solution using either a custom
>> annotation type or a custom annotation property.
>>
>> As a start you could try out and tell us what LilyPond/ScholarLY do by
>> default if used in polymetric scores. I *assume* that LilyPond
>> maintains individual bar numberings for each context

> Yes, that appears to be the case.

>> and that ScholarLY will just use the "local" barnumbers, without even
>> knowing there's an issue. But it would be nice if you could verify that.

> Scholarly gives the message: "Sorry, rhythmic position could not be
> determined."

OK, I see why this happens (did I ever say that it is cool that I can
inspect openLilyLib code on Github using my phone?).
annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric
scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context.

So to approach the issue one would have to remove \annotationProcessor
from the Score context and "consist" it in another context.

I don't know what would happen if it would be added to more than one
context (I can't really imagine it would work).
What would probably work *in principle* is adding that to the context
Kieren would take as the "master" context.
I assume (can't test currently) that any annotation would then get the
barnumber of the master context and the partial measure calculated from
there. Of course this wouldn't give very useful results but it would be
interesting to check out anyway ...

Good luck
Urs

> I hope I'm making a valid test: Had a bit of trouble integrating
> ScholarLy with a short test score, so I just plugged the \include
> statements and a \criticalRemark stanza into the
> Isaac_Confessoribus_Prosa2.ly (which is full of polyrhythms).  Will pick
> up again late tonight or tomorrow, to check that \scaleDurations is not
> messing things up.  Must dash now.
>>
>> Urs
>> ___
>> 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
> 


-- 
Urs Liska
www.openlilylib.org

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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Graham King]

On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
> 
> > 
> > (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
> > "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
> > 
> > I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
> > edition of sixteenth-century polyphony.  But, before investing too
> > much time, I need to check whether there is now a way for it to cope
> > with polymetric music[3].  
> 
> 
> As the discussion in this thread clearly shows this is firstly a
> conceptual problem. Only if it is clear what you want to achieve we
> can even start thinking about a solution implementation-wise.
> 
> I'm not so sure that it will be possible to implement a solution that
> really works automatically and is at the same time sufficiently
> general. But you'd be in any case to create a manual solution, if
> that's a viable approach given your material (that is: how many of
> these annotations do you expect, will the numbering be stable or will
> you have to expect any changes after the fact?)

Very happy to intervene manually in bar numbering.  The remainder of
this thread is opening my eyes to the difficulty of automating that.

> We would surely be able to taylor a solution using either a custom
> annotation type or a custom annotation property.
> 
> As a start you could try out and tell us what LilyPond/ScholarLY do by
> default if used in polymetric scores. I *assume* that LilyPond
> maintains individual bar numberings for each context

Yes, that appears to be the case.

>  and that ScholarLY will just use the "local" barnumbers, without even
> knowing there's an issue. But it would be nice if you could verify
> that.

Scholarly gives the message: "Sorry, rhythmic position could not be
determined."
I hope I'm making a valid test: Had a bit of trouble integrating
ScholarLy with a short test score, so I just plugged the \include
statements and a \criticalRemark stanza into the
Isaac_Confessoribus_Prosa2.ly (which is full of polyrhythms).  Will pick
up again late tonight or tomorrow, to check that \scaleDurations is not
messing things up.  Must dash now.

> 
> Urs
> 
> ___
> 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: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Graham King]

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote:

> On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> > 
> > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”
> > >
> > > That’s sufficient reason for me.  =)
> > 
> > Good answer.
> > 
> > In that case, I would pick one part, and force those measure numbers in
> > as numeric rehearsal marks in the other parts.
> > 
> > Otherwise, you’d need a translation guide...
> > 
> > ~Chris
> > 
> > I guess Gould has a point.  I've just realised that, under my system as I
> > described it, a part could have the same bar number twice.  For example, in 
> > the
> > attachment below, T has two bars "9".  But apart from an ill-chosen number 
> > (in
> > this case), one could regard the "bar numbers" as "numeric rehearsal 
> > marks". 
> > Different mechanism, different formatting, same result.  In practice, for 
> > the
> > sort of music I'm dealing with, the polymetric sections tend to be quite 
> > short
> > so, for the most part, bar numbers are more helpful than rehearsal marks.
> 
> This is avoidable if each new bar is numbered with 1+(number of the
> bar—looking across all the parts—that most recently finished). Not
> something I could automate with my zero knowledge of scheme.


Very logical.
Advantages:
+1Might be amenable to automation.
+2Robust with respect to re-formatting.
+3Supports any variation of Staff.BarNumber.break-visibility (I
think).

Disadvantages:
-1On a given line, bar numbers increase in strange and surprising
ways, giving potential for confusion.  One cannot just count from the
start of the line and announce a bar number.

For that reason alone, I'm inclined to favour:
oCounting the bars of the top visible staff of the system, whilst
oAllowing discontinuity at the start of each line to accommodate
other parts that might have more bars in the previous line.

But that's just a personal preference.  I wouldn't want to impose it on
anyone else!  (and I'm prepared to accept the need to fiddle with bar
numbers manually at a late stage in the editing process).
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Urs Liska]

Am 10.11.2015 um 14:28 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Urs,
> 
>> I have no idea if it is also appropriate for ancient music.
> 
> Well, the absence of [any] barlines makes barline numbering more complex…  ;)

Of course it depends on the way an edition deals with that.


> 
>> Aren't there any useful references, how have others dealt with that 
>> challenge?
> 
> I can’t find any!

I'll be sitting in the musicological institute this afternoon and will
skim through a number of complete editions.

And maybe I'll ask around among a number of composers and music
theorists if they have an idea about barnumber handling in contemporary
polymetric scores.


Urs

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


-- 
Urs Liska
www.openlilylib.org

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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Urs,

> I have no idea if it is also appropriate for ancient music.

Well, the absence of [any] barlines makes barline numbering more complex…  ;)

> Aren't there any useful references, how have others dealt with that challenge?

I can’t find any!

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: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Graham,

> On the positive side:
> +1This scheme guarantees a unique id for each bar.  The id increases in a 
> sensible manner.
> +2The scheme is robust with respect to re-formatting, if systems are 
> split or joined.
> +3Since Lilypond's default behaviour is to break lines only where 
> barlines co-incide and to number bars at the start of each line 
> (Staff.BarNumber.break-visibility = ##(#f #f #t)), it would work with that.
> 
> On the negative side:
> -1We have to introduce non-integers.  I don't think the current 
> bar-numbering engine will cope with that in cases where +3, above, does not 
> apply.

I didn’t really think of (or, to be honest, care about) Lilypond’s current 
bar-numbering engine; I was simply trying to solve a problem in notation. I can 
make the bar numbers appear however I want (by overriding the stencil, manually 
setting the barnumber counter, etc.).

> -2Where +3 does apply, musicians will get confused.  One will look at the 
> start of the line (bar "n") and count across in the conventional way (n+1, 
> n+2, ...) and announce the supposed bar number.  Everyone else will then look 
> on the wrong line entirely.

Sorry: I took it as self-evident [though, of course, it isn’t] that in 
polymetric music, bar numbers must appear on every bar, not just at the 
beginning of the line.

> On balance I don't think it would work.

Well, until I hear a superior suggestion, this is the one I’m going to use.  =)

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: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Urs Liska]

Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
> "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
>
> I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
> edition of sixteenth-century polyphony.  But, before investing too
> much time, I need to check whether there is now a way for it to cope
> with polymetric music[3]. 

As the discussion in this thread clearly shows this is firstly a
conceptual problem. Only if it is clear what you want to achieve we can
even start thinking about a solution implementation-wise.

I'm not so sure that it will be possible to implement a solution that
really works automatically and is at the same time sufficiently general.
But you'd be in any case to create a manual solution, if that's a viable
approach given your material (that is: how many of these annotations do
you expect, will the numbering be stable or will you have to expect any
changes after the fact?)
We would surely be able to taylor a solution using either a custom
annotation type or a custom annotation property.

As a start you could try out and tell us what LilyPond/ScholarLY do by
default if used in polymetric scores. I *assume* that LilyPond maintains
individual bar numberings for each context and that ScholarLY will just
use the "local" barnumbers, without even knowing there's an issue. But
it would be nice if you could verify that.

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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Urs Liska]

Am 10.11.2015 um 00:56 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Graham,
>
>> I've just realised that, under my system as I described it, a part could 
>> have the same bar number twice.
> My proposed solution would be an “analytic continuation” (to borrow a 
> mathematical term) of the non-polymetric measure numbering scheme:
>
> 1. A “reference context” would be established (in the case of “The Country 
> Wife", the PianoStaff), and the base measure numbers would be generated in 
> that context;
>
> 2. All other contexts would use the base-context measure number when and only 
> when the barlines align; otherwise, each context would use (e.g.) 38A, 38B, … 
> to indicate measures which begin within the moment encompassed by the 
> reference measure.
>
> I think such a system would be >95% sufficient.
>
> Thoughts?

This sounds pretty reasonable (from a notational as well as from a
rehearsal POV).
At least I would find that appropriate for polymetric contemporary
music, but I have no idea if it is also appropriate for ancient music.

Aren't there any useful references, how have others dealt with that
challenge?

Urs

>
> 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


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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[David Wright]

On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> 
> On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”
> >
> > That’s sufficient reason for me.  =)
> 
> Good answer.
> 
> In that case, I would pick one part, and force those measure numbers in
> as numeric rehearsal marks in the other parts.
> 
> Otherwise, you’d need a translation guide...
> 
> ~Chris
> 
> I guess Gould has a point.  I've just realised that, under my system as I
> described it, a part could have the same bar number twice.  For example, in 
> the
> attachment below, T has two bars "9".  But apart from an ill-chosen number (in
> this case), one could regard the "bar numbers" as "numeric rehearsal marks". 
> Different mechanism, different formatting, same result.  In practice, for the
> sort of music I'm dealing with, the polymetric sections tend to be quite short
> so, for the most part, bar numbers are more helpful than rehearsal marks.

This is avoidable if each new bar is numbered with 1+(number of the
bar—looking across all the parts—that most recently finished). Not
something I could automate with my zero knowledge of scheme.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Graham,

> I've just realised that, under my system as I described it, a part could have 
> the same bar number twice.

My proposed solution would be an “analytic continuation” (to borrow a 
mathematical term) of the non-polymetric measure numbering scheme:

1. A “reference context” would be established (in the case of “The Country 
Wife", the PianoStaff), and the base measure numbers would be generated in that 
context;

2. All other contexts would use the base-context measure number when and only 
when the barlines align; otherwise, each context would use (e.g.) 38A, 38B, … 
to indicate measures which begin within the moment encompassed by the reference 
measure.

I think such a system would be >95% sufficient.

Thoughts?

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: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Graham King]

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote:

> On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”
> >
> > That’s sufficient reason for me.  =)
> 
> Good answer.
> 
> In that case, I would pick one part, and force those measure numbers in 
> as numeric rehearsal marks in the other parts.
> 
> Otherwise, you’d need a translation guide...
> 
> ~Chris

I guess Gould has a point.  I've just realised that, under my system as
I described it, a part could have the same bar number twice.  For
example, in the attachment below, T has two bars "9".  But apart from an
ill-chosen number (in this case), one could regard the "bar numbers" as
"numeric rehearsal marks".  Different mechanism, different formatting,
same result.  In practice, for the sort of music I'm dealing with, the
polymetric sections tend to be quite short so, for the most part, bar
numbers are more helpful than rehearsal marks.


RemoveEmptyStaffContext.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Christopher R. Maden]

On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”

That’s sufficient reason for me.  =)


Good answer.

In that case, I would pick one part, and force those measure numbers in 
as numeric rehearsal marks in the other parts.


Otherwise, you’d need a translation guide...

~Chris
--
Chris Maden, text nerd  http://crism.maden.org/ >
“All I ask of living is to have no chains on me, and all I ask of
 dying is to go naturally.” —  Laura Nyro, “And When I Die”
GnuPG fingerprint: DB08 CF6C 2583 7F55 3BE9  A210 4A51 DBAC 5C5C 3D5E

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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Chris,

> What do you need the bar numbers for?  I suspect rehearsal marks would fit 
> the bill, no?  If not, why not?

The score runs 105 measures in the piano part. I have 9 rehearsal marks (A-I), 
for an average of ~12 measures per rehearsal mark.

In anticipation of officially [self-]publishing “The Country Wife” ASAP, I sat 
down just this past Friday with HAVEN Trio to see how I could improve the score 
and parts. HAVEN has been performing it the most often (~20 performances in the 
past year), and in fact were here in Toronto for new three performances.

The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”

That’s sufficient reason for me.  =)

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: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Christopher R. Maden]

On 11/09/2015 01:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

Is there a standard/convention/best practice on measure numbering in
polymetric scores? I’m running into an issue of that myself (in my
song “The Country Wife”), and can’t find anything definitive.

Note: Gould (p. 484) writes, “Bar numbers should not be used in music
in which individual performers have different numbers of bars or
where barlines do not coincide”… but I’d like to at least have a
non-recommended alternative.


What do you need the bar numbers for?  I suspect rehearsal marks would 
fit the bill, no?  If not, why not?


~Chris
--
Chris Maden, text nerd  http://crism.maden.org/ >
“All I ask of living is to have no chains on me, and all I ask of
 dying is to go naturally.” —  Laura Nyro, “And When I Die”
GnuPG fingerprint: DB08 CF6C 2583 7F55 3BE9  A210 4A51 DBAC 5C5C 3D5E

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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,

Is there a standard/convention/best practice on measure numbering in polymetric 
scores? I’m running into an issue of that myself (in my song “The Country 
Wife”), and can’t find anything definitive.

Note: Gould (p. 484) writes, “Bar numbers should not be used in music in which 
individual performers have different numbers of bars or where barlines do not 
coincide”… but I’d like to at least have a non-recommended alternative.

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