Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Phil Holmes]

 Original Message - 
From: "Sebastiano Vigna" 

To: "Reinhold Kainhofer" 
Cc: ; "Phil Holmes" 
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: orchestral template, please comment



On Oct 22, 2010, at 9:11 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:



My concern is that LSR search does not, at the moment, find the snippets
that go with these two erroneous headers, "Adding a laissezVibrer tie to
only one note of a chord" and "Schleifer articulation mark"



Sorry, I'm confused. I tried both searches (with quotes) and I get the 
snippets. What's the matter?



Ciao,



seba


There was a problem that a seach for orchestra resulted in the search page 
returning the snippets identified above.  It's now not doing that - 
presumably as a result of the search indexes being updated.


--
Phil Holmes


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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Sebastiano Vigna]

On Oct 22, 2010, at 9:11 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:

>>> 
>>> My concern is that LSR search does not, at the moment, find the snippets
>>> that go with these two erroneous headers, "Adding a laissezVibrer tie to
>>> only one note of a chord" and "Schleifer articulation mark"
>>> 

Sorry, I'm confused. I tried both searches (with quotes) and I get the 
snippets. What's the matter?

Ciao,

seba



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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

Am Freitag, 22. Oktober 2010, um 14:05:16 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:20:21 -0700, Phil Holmes 
> > At the moment, a search in the LSR that should find 719 and/or 713
> > 
> > 
> > brings up links to these two snippets, but with the different headers on
> > the search results page.
> > 
> > My concern is that LSR search does not, at the moment, find the snippets
> > that go with these two erroneous headers, "Adding a laissezVibrer tie to
> > only one note of a chord" and "Schleifer articulation mark"
> > 
> > My sympathies for the bother.
> > -Keith
> 
> I was aware of this, but can't do anything about it.  I was going to wait a
> couple of days and hope it sorts itself out.

Has any of you told Sebastiano Vigna, who is the admin of the LSR server and 
the coder of the LSR itself?

Cheers,
Reinhold


-- 
--
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
To: "Phil Holmes" 

Cc: ; "Graham Percival" 
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: orchestral template, please comment


On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:20:21 -0700, Phil Holmes  
wrote:





On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:29:16PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:

Now approved.  http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719 .  This will
mean deleting snippet 713, since I've renamed this.  I always like
to check before doing that - anyone any problems with that deletion?


If the new one has exactly the same name as the previous one, and
the previous one is deleted, there shouldn't be any problem.



Done.



Phil,
At the moment, a search in the LSR that should find 719 and/or 713
<http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Search?q=Choir+piano+template>
brings up links to these two snippets, but with the different headers on 
the search results page.


My concern is that LSR search does not, at the moment, find the snippets 
that go with these two erroneous headers, "Adding a laissezVibrer tie to 
only one note of a chord" and "Schleifer articulation mark"


My sympathies for the bother.
-Keith


I was aware of this, but can't do anything about it.  I was going to wait a 
couple of days and hope it sorts itself out.


--
Phil Holmes



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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[James Lowe]

Hello

On 21/10/2010 21:26, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:20:21 -0700, Phil Holmes 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:29:16PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
 Now approved. http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719 . This will
 mean deleting snippet 713, since I've renamed this. I always like
 to check before doing that - anyone any problems with that deletion?
>>>
>>> If the new one has exactly the same name as the previous one, and
>>> the previous one is deleted, there shouldn't be any problem.
>>
>>
>> Done.
>>
>
> Phil,
> At the moment, a search in the LSR that should find 719 and/or 713
> 
> brings up links to these two snippets, but with the different headers on
> the search results page.

I seem to remember that someone had to some re-indexing a few weeks ago 
on the LSR when each earlier searches came up with the snippet before 
(or after I can't quite remember) the one that was actually required.

Valentin?

James


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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[k-ohara5a5a]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:20:21 -0700, Phil Holmes  wrote:




On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:29:16PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:

Now approved.  http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719 .  This will
mean deleting snippet 713, since I've renamed this.  I always like
to check before doing that - anyone any problems with that deletion?


If the new one has exactly the same name as the previous one, and
the previous one is deleted, there shouldn't be any problem.



Done.



Phil,
At the moment, a search in the LSR that should find 719 and/or 713

brings up links to these two snippets, but with the different headers on the 
search results page.

My concern is that LSR search does not, at the moment, find the snippets that go with these two 
erroneous headers, "Adding a laissezVibrer tie to only one note of a chord" and 
"Schleifer articulation mark"

My sympathies for the bother.
-Keith


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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "Graham Percival" 

To: "Phil Holmes" 
Cc: "Trevor Daniels" ; "Keith E OHara" 
; 

Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:05 AM
Subject: Re: orchestral template, please comment



On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:29:16PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:

Now approved.  http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719 .  This will
mean deleting snippet 713, since I've renamed this.  I always like
to check before doing that - anyone any problems with that deletion?


If the new one has exactly the same name as the previous one, and
the previous one is deleted, there shouldn't be any problem.



Done.

--
Phil Holmes



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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:29:16PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> Now approved.  http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719 .  This will
> mean deleting snippet 713, since I've renamed this.  I always like
> to check before doing that - anyone any problems with that deletion?

If the new one has exactly the same name as the previous one, and
the previous one is deleted, there shouldn't be any problem.

> I don't do this moving to git stuff, I'm afraid.

That's generally done by me or Neil.  It would be nice to have a
single dedicated person to do this, but that'll be a GOP task.

Cheers,
- Graham

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Phil Holmes]

Now approved.  http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719 .  This will mean 
deleting snippet 713, since I've renamed this.  I always like to check 
before doing that - anyone any problems with that deletion?


I don't do this moving to git stuff, I'm afraid.

--
Phil Holmes


- Original Message - 
From: "Trevor Daniels" 

To: "Phil Holmes" 
Cc: ; "Keith E OHara" 
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: orchestral template, please comment



Phil

I'm happy to replace this template in the LM now.  If you're happy too,
could you approve it please?   Are you able to run makelsr.py to move
it to git?

Trevor

- Original Message - 
From: "Keith E OHara" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: orchestral template, please comment


On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:00:55 -0700,  
wrote:



While all these suggestions are perfectly reasonable, let's not forget
after all this is a *template*.



Yep.  If any clear need comes to light from this discussion of the new 
spacing, let's make it an enhancement request to adjust the defaults.  My 
submission to LSR will not override the default spacing.y


I'm quite happy to have a point of interest that gets people looking at 
<http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719> and hopefully taking a moment 
to think if it would have helped them when they were new users.  (For a 
while there I though I might need to start a \transpose \transposition 
flame-war.)



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









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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Trevor Daniels]

Phil

I'm happy to replace this template in the LM now.  If you're happy 
too,
could you approve it please?   Are you able to run makelsr.py to 
move

it to git?

Trevor

- Original Message - 
From: "Keith E OHara" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: orchestral template, please comment


On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:00:55 -0700, 
 wrote:


While all these suggestions are perfectly reasonable, let's not 
forget

after all this is a *template*.



Yep.  If any clear need comes to light from this discussion of the 
new spacing, let's make it an enhancement request to adjust the 
defaults.  My submission to LSR will not override the default 
spacing.y


I'm quite happy to have a point of interest that gets people 
looking at <http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719> and hopefully 
taking a moment to think if it would have helped them when they 
were new users.  (For a while there I though I might need to start 
a \transpose \transposition flame-war.)



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






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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Keith E OHara]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:00:55 -0700,  wrote:


While all these suggestions are perfectly reasonable, let's not forget
after all this is a *template*.



Yep.  If any clear need comes to light from this discussion of the new spacing, 
let's make it an enhancement request to adjust the defaults.  My submission to 
LSR will not override the default spacing.y

I'm quite happy to have a point of interest that gets people looking at 
 and hopefully taking a moment to 
think if it would have helped them when they were new users.  (For a while there I 
though I might need to start a \transpose \transposition flame-war.)


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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Jan Warchoł]

2010/10/19 James 
>
> On 19/10/2010 10:01, Jan Warchoł wrote:
>
>> However, in my opinion (and i'm an amateur, judging only by my personal
>> taste about readability) there should be more space after (...)
>
>
> While all these suggestions are perfectly reasonable, let's not forget
> after all this is a *template*


You are right. However, in my opinion the main advantage of LilyPond over
Finale (and other notation programs) is that Lily makes more things on its
own and there is less things for user to tweak (so in addition to less work
needed you don't have to be an expert to produce pleasant scores). That's
why i suggested improving default spacing.
Of course if doing what i suggest is too much work then forget it :) The
amount of work needed is difficult for me to judge as i have only the very
basic programming skills (not much more than "Hello world" in C) :)

cheers,
Jan
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[James]

Hello

On 19/10/2010 10:01, Jan Warchoł wrote:

2010/10/19 Keith E OHara mailto:k-ohara5...@oco.net>>

The defaults are :

...



However, in my opinion (and i'm an amateur, judging only by my personal
taste about readability) there should be more space after

...

While all these suggestions are perfectly reasonable, let's not forget 
after all this is a *template*.


James


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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Jan Warchoł]

2010/10/19 Keith E OHara 
>
> The defaults are :
> Staves within a group are spaced 9 staff-lines apart (from centerline to
> centerline).
> After the last staff in a group, the next staff is placed 10.5 staff-lines
> below (centerline-to-centerline).
> After a staff that is not in a group (like percussion) the next staff is
> placed 9 staff-lines below.
>

It certainly looks much much better than in the 2.12.3 :)

However, in my opinion (and i'm an amateur, judging only by my personal
taste about readability) there should be more space after the vocal group.
It's because of the lyrics: now the next group is positioned 10.5 staff
spaces below the centerline of bottom vocal *staff *(tenor staff), but the
visual "center" of the tenor is lower - it's in the middle between top
staffline and bottom of lyrics, somewhere around 4th staffline. So i'd add
something like 1 staffspace after a vocal staff that is the last in group
(or is alone).

The other thing is the spacing of staffs that are not in group. I think they
should be placed 10.5 staff-spaces below *and* and above other staffs. (so
in this case the gap between percussion and piano should be bigger). Here
the percussion is not the best example to see this, because it has only 1
staffline, but imagine a regular staff in its place.

cheers,
Jan

PS sorry for double post, Keith
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: orchestral template, please comment (horn transposition)

[David Santamauro]

Hi Tim,

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:09:37 -0700
Tim Reeves  wrote:

> > 
> > There is also a discrepancy between the transposition direction
> > (down 5th or up 4th). Some scores actually place an ambitus-sort-of
> > note at the beginning of the horn staff to indicate the
> > transposition direction.
> > 
> > David
> 
> David,
> 
> I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong in some cases, but in 
> thirty-plus years of playing the horn, I've never seen any ambiguity
> in horn transposition like you describe.
> Horn in F is *always* sounding a fifth lower than notated.
> The only place I know of ambiguity is in parts with bass clef, where
> "old notation" means that the pitch as played is a fourth higher than
> what is notated, but this is limited to a certain period in history
> (i.e. classical period) and is generally discernible by context (e.g.
> if the note lower than it is possible to play for a good player, then
> it must be old notation).

Yes, you are correct. "In all new scores and new editions of old
scores, the horn in F always transposes a perfect fifth down" [1]

I was just trying to make a point that there are still sources that
transpose a fourth up -- it isn't a big deal for this template, just
making a small point.

> In such cases, I've never seen the ambitus-like notation that you 
> describe, but I can see how it would be helpful for those unsure of
> the notation.

I can't remember the exact piece(s) but IIRC, Mahler had done this.

David


[1] Adler: "The Study of Orchestration" p. 261

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment (horn transposition)

[Tim Reeves]

> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:25:50 -0400
> From: David Santamauro 
> Subject: Re: orchestral template, please comment
> To: "Trevor Daniels" 
> Cc: Keith E OHara , lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Message-ID: <20101018062550.370d4...@debussy>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> 
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:18:52 +0100
> "Trevor Daniels"  wrote:
> 
> > Shouldn't the music for the Horn in F be printed in D major?
> 
> It is very common for key signatures to be omitted for Horn. As the
> notes themselves are correct transpositions, it looks ok.
> 
> There is also a discrepancy between the transposition direction
> (down 5th or up 4th). Some scores actually place an ambitus-sort-of
> note at the beginning of the horn staff to indicate the transposition
> direction.
> 
> One other comment that I think it would also be a good addition to the
> template is that between the differing instrument choirs (woodwinds,
> brass, voice, strings), there should be visual 'space' in addition to
> the grouping itself.
> 
> David
> 
>

David,

I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong in some cases, but in 
thirty-plus years of playing the horn, I've never seen any ambiguity in 
horn transposition like you describe.
Horn in F is *always* sounding a fifth lower than notated.
The only place I know of ambiguity is in parts with bass clef, where "old 
notation" means that the pitch as played is a fourth higher than what is 
notated, but this is limited to a certain period in history (i.e. 
classical period) and is generally discernible by context (e.g. if the 
note lower than it is possible to play for a good player, then it must be 
old notation).
In such cases, I've never seen the ambitus-like notation that you 
describe, but I can see how it would be helpful for those unsure of the 
notation.


Regards,

Tim Reeves

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Keith E OHara]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:18:52 +0100 "Trevor Daniels" wrote:


Shouldn't the music for the Horn in F be printed in D major?


I will add a comment "% Key signature is often omitted for horns".
As a user, I can easily insert it if I want it.  The previous version omitted 
this key sig (showing off a nice feature of Lilypond) but with the piece in 
C-major it was hard to notice.


On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 03:25:50 -0700, David Santamauro wrote:


there should be visual 'space' in addition to
the grouping itself.



Agreed, but...  Do know a way to do this, in the stable 2.12 version of 
LilyPond, that we can recommend to new users?

The forthcoming 2.14 will have a variable to adjust the space between groups :
  \override StaffGrouper #'after-last-staff-spacing #'padding = #12
(I think the variable names will be revised on the next alpha-test version.) 
Once we figure out how to use this feature in the alpha-version, we need to 
recommend good defaults for the spacing variables.

Then we would get good spacing by default, and not need to put an override in 
this snippet.


P.S. Thanks Phil and Reinhold for letting people actually see the snippet
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719


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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[David Santamauro]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:18:52 +0100
"Trevor Daniels"  wrote:

> Shouldn't the music for the Horn in F be printed in D major?

It is very common for key signatures to be omitted for Horn. As the
notes themselves are correct transpositions, it looks ok.

There is also a discrepancy between the transposition direction
(down 5th or up 4th). Some scores actually place an ambitus-sort-of
note at the beginning of the horn staff to indicate the transposition
direction.

One other comment that I think it would also be a good addition to the
template is that between the differing instrument choirs (woodwinds,
brass, voice, strings), there should be visual 'space' in addition to
the grouping itself.

David

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

Am Sonntag, 17. Oktober 2010, um 09:41:38 schrieb Trevor Daniels:
> Keith E OHara wrote Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:27 PM
> 
> > Having heard no complaints, a snippet with these changes is in the
> > LSR awaiting approval.
> 
> Keith, until it's approved, only the LSR admin and you as author
> can see this snippet, so no one else can comment.

Actually, unapproved snippets are not included in the search, but everyone can 
see them by using their snippet ID:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=719

Cheers,
Reinhold

-- 
--
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "Keith E OHara" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:57 AM
Subject: orchestral template, please comment



Dear orchestral writers,
  I don't use LilyPond for orchestral scores very often, which means that 
I need to refer to the template in Appendix 5.1 of the Learning Manual.


  There is one bug with the template, and five other changes that I 
suggest to help it meet the goals set in its introduction.  Would those of 
you who set orchestral scores please comment on these?


  In one or two weeks I plan to put those changes on which there is 
consensus into the LSR, and ask for approval to incorporate the revised 
snipped into the docs.

-Keith


1) Remove the outermost \GrandStaff{}
According to the Internals Reference, GrandStaff does not accept any of 
the StaffGroup/RhythmicStaff/ChoirStaff contexts that were placed inside 
it.  A new Staff (which _is_ accepted in GrandStaff) inserted into the 
current template will appear at the very top of the printed score, 
regardless of where it lay in the input.



Someone had already made this change in an unapproved snippet.  I've now 
approved it and it is the new version of the snippet, so this no longer 
needs doing.


--
Phil Holmes



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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

Am Mittwoch, 29. September 2010, um 05:14:54 schrieb Keith E OHara:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:54:23 -0700, Mark Polesky  
wrote:
> > Have you looked at Reinhold's OrchestralLily package?
> 
> The documentation, yes, but I have not used the package.
> 
> I was a bit curious to compare the plain .ly score that Reinhold's package
> would create to the template in A.5.1.  However, his package does not seem
> to generate an intermediate text file; it seems to go from the
> OrchestraLily input file directly to scheme objects.

Exactly. Using an intermediate file is an absolute pain (and one of the main 
reasons why I'm not using lilypond-book, but plain latex with a Makefile 
generating the lilypond files).

The score structure (code-wise) is actually pretty similar to what you would 
write in plain LilyPond. However, since OrchestralLily checks for the 
existence of many [score-id][instrument]variablename variables (for music, 
key, clef, instrument name, midi name, additional settings, transposition, 
lyrics, etc., this can only be done in scheme, as the exact score code depends 
on whether any of these variables is set on each run.

Cheers,
Reinhold

-- 
--
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

Am Mittwoch, 29. September 2010, um 03:54:23 schrieb Mark Polesky:
> Have you looked at Reinhold's OrchestralLily package?
> http://kainhofer.com/orchestrallily/

That version is way outdated. The latest version (for lilypond 2.13.x) is 
available only in git and is up-to-date as of yesterday's git version (where 
you can tweak the part-combiner with \partcombineApart etc.). I'm actually 
using it to generate huge (and very well-looking) orchestral scores for the 
music publishing company that I'm building up right now.

I actually wanted to wait for lilypond 2.14 before I prepare a new release, so 
that I have a stable release working with a stable lilypond version... I have 
no idea, though, when lilypond 2.14 will be finally released.


Unfortunately, I haven't been able to update the OrchestralLily documentation 
so far. The best documentation for the current version is the paper and the 
presentation that I gave at the LAC2010 conference this May in Utrecht:
   http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/science/publications.html
It gives a nice overview, although it does not got into much details. Still, 
you should be able to get things going from that paper.

Cheers,
Reinhold


-- 
--
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

Am Mittwoch, 29. September 2010, um 04:37:04 schrieb Brett McCoy:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Mark Polesky  wrote:
> > Have you looked at Reinhold's OrchestralLily package?
> > http://kainhofer.com/orchestrallily/
> 
> I just tried one of the examples on that site and, sadly, the
> orchestrallily.ly file fails to parse under Lilypond 2.12.3, tons of
> syntax errors. I guess the author hasn't kept up with lilypond
> development, as "2.11.40" is what is listed in the file.

Well, the documentation hasn't been kept up-to-date. The latest version (which 
doesn't work in 2.12.3, either, as it needs many new features in 2.13.x) is 
available only in a git repository. Best to check out my paper and the 
presentation about orchestrallily, that I gave at the LAC2010 conference this 
May in Utrecht:

http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/science/publications.html

Cheers,
Reinhold

-- 
--
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Brett Mccoy]

On Sep 28, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Mark Polesky  wrote:

> Brett McCoy wrote:
>>> Have you looked at Reinhold's OrchestralLily package?
>>> http://kainhofer.com/orchestrallily/
>> 
>> I just tried one of the examples on that site and, sadly,
>> the orchestrallily.ly file fails to parse under Lilypond
>> 2.12.3, tons of syntax errors. I guess the author hasn't
>> kept up with lilypond development, as "2.11.40" is what is
>> listed in the file.
> 
> Maybe the link I gave is out of date; it looks like he's
> still tweaking things:
> 
> http://repo.or.cz/w/orchestrallily.git
> 
> - Mark

Ah, that's good to know, thanks!

> 
--Brett

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Mark Polesky]

Brett McCoy wrote:
>> Have you looked at Reinhold's OrchestralLily package?
>> http://kainhofer.com/orchestrallily/
>
> I just tried one of the examples on that site and, sadly,
> the orchestrallily.ly file fails to parse under Lilypond
> 2.12.3, tons of syntax errors. I guess the author hasn't
> kept up with lilypond development, as "2.11.40" is what is
> listed in the file.

Maybe the link I gave is out of date; it looks like he's
still tweaking things:

http://repo.or.cz/w/orchestrallily.git

- Mark


  

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Keith E OHara]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:54:23 -0700, Mark Polesky  wrote:

Have you looked at Reinhold's OrchestralLily package?


The documentation, yes, but I have not used the package.

I was a bit curious to compare the plain .ly score that Reinhold's package 
would create to the template in A.5.1.  However, his package does not seem to 
generate an intermediate text file; it seems to go from the OrchestraLily input 
file directly to scheme objects.

The models I found most useful were Jay Alexander's scores on mutopia.

-Keith


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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Brett McCoy]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Mark Polesky  wrote:

> Have you looked at Reinhold's OrchestralLily package?
> http://kainhofer.com/orchestrallily/

I just tried one of the examples on that site and, sadly, the
orchestrallily.ly file fails to parse under Lilypond 2.12.3, tons of
syntax errors. I guess the author hasn't kept up with lilypond
development, as "2.11.40" is what is listed in the file.

-- 
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.electricminstrel.com

"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
    -- Jelaleddin Rumi

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

Re: orchestral template, please comment

[Mark Polesky]

Have you looked at Reinhold's OrchestralLily package?
http://kainhofer.com/orchestrallily/

- Mark


  

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

orchestral template, please comment

[Keith E OHara]

Dear orchestral writers,
  I don't use LilyPond for orchestral scores very often, which means that I 
need to refer to the template in Appendix 5.1 of the Learning Manual.

  There is one bug with the template, and five other changes that I suggest to 
help it meet the goals set in its introduction.  Would those of you who set 
orchestral scores please comment on these?

  In one or two weeks I plan to put those changes on which there is consensus 
into the LSR, and ask for approval to incorporate the revised snipped into the 
docs.
-Keith


1) Remove the outermost \GrandStaff{}
According to the Internals Reference, GrandStaff does not accept any of the 
StaffGroup/RhythmicStaff/ChoirStaff contexts that were placed inside it.  A new 
Staff (which _is_ accepted in GrandStaff) inserted into the current template 
will appear at the very top of the printed score, regardless of where it lay in 
the input.

2) Change the key signature to something other than C.
Make visible that the french horn part was written without a key signature.

3) Enter notes as written on the instrument parts, as opposed to concert pitch.
The introductory text says that one can, so show how.

4) Revise the introductory text (the block comment at the front of the attached 
.ly).h
a) Say 'in concert pitch' rather than 'in C'
b) Point out how we use \transpose as a tool for our convenience
c) State that \transposition gives information to LilyPond

5) Add \midi{}.
Make it easy to experiment with \transposition, and show that a default midi 
output is produced, even without \set midiInstrument.

6) Remove Oboe Bassoon HornII and Trombone parts.
Reduce clutter, without removing any pedagogical value.

orchestra_template.ly
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user