On 6/10/19, 12:00 PM, "Florian" <florian.grun...@gmx.de> wrote:

    Hi Aaron, 
    
    
    Aaron Hill wrote
    > Seems to be a case of the first context not being alive by the time the 
    > other notes come along.  If you manually added some spacer rests of 
    > suitable length to the upper Staff...
    > 
    > %%%%
    >      \context Staff = "1" <<
    >        \mergeDifferentlyDottedOn \mergeDifferentlyHeadedOn
    >        { s1*2 } %% Keeping context alive.
    >      >>
    > %%%%
    > 
    > ...then the output appears correct.
    
    When adding the spacer rests the output contains now two staffs as expected
    but they have different time signatures (C vs. 4/4) which is not correct
    either. So I guess more manual work is required here which brings me back to
    the initial request to classify this as a musicml2ly bug :)  
    I hope we can avoid any manual post processing - that's why I'm using
    lilipond... 

I believe that this is less a bug in musicxml2ly and more a limitation of 
musicxm2ly.  MusicXML and Lilypond have fundamentally different concepts of the 
structure of music.  These differences lead to inability to exactly render the 
MusicXML in LilyPond for complicated structures.

In this case, the note of musicXML is correctly rendered -- that is, the note 
is put in the correct voice and the correct staff.    However, the musicXML 
structure is different from the LilyPond structure, so there is not a 
one-to-one correspondence.

IMO, when there is not perfect correspondence between structural 
representations, expecting a converter to handle all possible outcomes is 
unreasonable.    If the information in the musicXML is all captured (and it 
appears to be so for this case), then the converter has done its job.

I'm certainly not opposing raising an issue for this, but fixing it would be 
very low priority for me.

Thanks,

Carl
 

_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Reply via email to