Look at
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.0/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/
Line-breaking.html#Line%20breaking
The example says that the following breaks the lines every 4 measures:
\repeat unfold 7 { s1 * 4 \break }
Should it not be more correct to do it like this:
\repeat \unfold 7 {\repeat
Also, I have noticed that midi and paper seem to have separate
barcheck mechanisms, the paper's being a bit more intelligent.
Included in my wish is that both barcheck mechanisms should follow
the same rules.
Can you demonstrate this? This hasn't been the case for some time
On Monday 12 January 2004 17.22, Carl Youngblood wrote:
How do you force lilypond to use a certain number of measures per
system?
Thanks,
Carl Youngblood
See
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.0/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/
Line-breaking.html#Line%20breaking
More correct would however be:
Your file specifies that the last chord should take a full
measure (as
opposed to the last note being dotted 1/2.) The blank space
represents
that missing quarter note.
I'm confused. The file says
melody = \notes \relative c' {
\partial 4 a'
% blah blah blah
g'2. g4. f8 e4
Hi,
Here's a new issue on lyrics notation. It happens in choral music that
different voices have _almost_ the same lyrics, and it only differs during a
few bars. It is a common behaviour to split the lyrics at these bars only.
Example: SATB. Everyone sings lalala, and suddenly A+T sing baz
On Friday 09 January 2004 01.47, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One rule could be to not print the barcheck failure at a/b warning in a
bar, if a barcheck failure at a/b with the same a and b occured on the
last | of the same staff. But probably there also exist even more
Hi,
It seems that lily 2.1 is the time for major changes in the lyrics code, which
even may break backward compatibility.. so it feels like the right time to
raise these questions, as some kind of constructive criticism (tm):
1. It would often be useful to override the behaviour of \addlyrics
Hi,
The lilypond code generated from midi2ly doesn't look too good when it comes
to chords: What usually is written as:
c g8 g8
is written as:
c g 8g8
by midi2ly, i.e. with spacing that looks weird (though it is correct).
Erik
___
Bug-lilypond
Hi,
I'm in the process of converting all my notes to the new 2.0 format (which
looks great, btw). Found 2 bugs in the convert-ly script so far:
Given the following perfectly valid 1.6.0 file:
\version 1.6.0
x=\notes {c8 [d d' e e]}
the following, very illegal 2.0.0 output is created:
\version
I forgot to mention that I'm using lily 2.0.0.
Erik
___
Bug-lilypond mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Hi,
With lily 1.6.9, fermatas (and probably other ornaments too) disappear when
they are over a R. I guess this has to do with the fact that one R can result
in multiple rests, making it hard to decide which one the fermata belongs to.
But (as in my case) there could be a need for having a
Hi,
I reported this problem in September, and saw today that it still exists.
I am using lily 1.6.6 and guile 1.6.0.
In the following score, the treble clef on the 3rd system of the score
disappears. It is exactly the same error as it was with lily 1.6.0 and guile
1.4. The clef comes back e.g.
Hi,
The line and column counting of input files seems to be broken in 1.6.6.
Usually the numbers are just 1 too small (i.e. the first byte of the file is
considered to be at position (0,0)), but sometimes it's more than that.
Example: Compile the following score with 1.6.6:
\score {\notes { c
Hi,
Take a look at this:
\version 1.6.6
\score {
\context Staff = I \notes { \grace c8 c }
\context Staff = II \notes { \clef bass d8 }
}
The \clef bass appears after the grace note according to the grace timing,
so the second staff starts with a g clef, which after zero time is changed to
Hi,
When compiling the following score with 1.6.4, the two staves' midi tracks
are not synchronised. The first staff finishes about 1/32 before the second
one. This does not happen if the grace note is a c instead of a g.
\version 1.6.4
\score {
\context Staff = I \notes { \grace g8
OK, now I have found an example. It is very constructed and of no practical
use, but it does show that something is strange in Lilypond:
Compile the following file with Debian's unstable 1.6.4. It gets 2 lines long.
Then comment the
\x {\y} \\ {\z}
line and uncomment the
{\x \y} \\ {s2 \z}
The score contained in the subject line makes lily 1.6.4 crash.
Erik
___
Bug-lilypond mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Hi,
When the following scores are compiled with 1.6.4, the dots are placed on the
same spot, even though they belong to different notes. In general, they tend
to be placed below the notehead for stemDown notes in \\:s, and above the
notehead for other polyphonic stemDown notes.
\score
Hi,
When a grace notes occurs as the first note of a measure, it acts as if it
would be the last note of the previous measure, when it decides whether it
should display its accidental. E.g., in the following example, the first
grace note does not get a sharp, while the second one does get a
...says:
Not Found
The requested URL /stable was not found on this server.
Erik
___
Bug-lilypond mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
On Tuesday 17 September 2002 01.51, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday 13 September 2002 11.34, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
The default in Lilypond to add a triplet bracket as
soon as you don't have a beam with exactly the same
length as the triplet.
I know, the
Hi,
The score
\score {\notes {[a8 \times 2/3 {a16 a a]}}}
gets a triplet bracket over the a16:s, like:
__ __
| 3 |
| |-|-|
o o o o
Is this common practise, or a bug? I think all Real Notes in which I have
seen that figure were typeset like:
3
| |-|-|
o o o o
601 - 622 of 622 matches
Mail list logo
