My fix doesn't _need_ the second voice, but having it does allow for proper
playback (if that's important to you).
Best,
Abraham
On Monday, January 11, 2016, Michiel Sikma wrote:
> Thanks so much Pierre and Abraham!
>
> I'm just a beginner but intuitively, it would seem that in my example both
Dear Community,
I found that the following code does not work properly. I don't know
whether it is the known bug or not...
\version "2.18.2"
{
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff = up {
% It works well when the followong line is commented out.
\override TupletBracket.outside-s
takumi ikeda wrote Tuesday, January 12, 2016 10:52 AM
> I found that the following code does not work properly. I don't know
> whether it is the known bug or not...
>
>
>
> \version "2.18.2"
>
> {
> \new PianoStaff <<
>\new Staff = up {
>
> % It works well when the followong li
Hi Michiel
Chopin is notorious for this kind of notation, and you do seem to have found a
construction where Lily's standard approach fails to reproduce what Chopin
wanted. You can achieve the desired appearance with a bit of subterfuge and at
the expense of a warning with:
fixme-section = {
Hi,
there is an issue with rests under beams.
The comment in the source code says
"Invisible stems should be treated as though they have the same
number of beams as their least-beamed neighbour."
I think this is intended for cases like
\relative c'' {
a32 [ a a r a16 a]
}
(first attachmen
Hi,
Yesterday night I thought about rewriting this snippet:
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=890 using the new whiteout 'outline'
override and finally discovered a funny side effect:
\version "2.19.35"
#(set-default-paper-size "a6")
#(define-markup-command (outliner layout props outln-width ou
Hi Urs,
> I see two approaches to this:
>
> a) have the number of beams correspond to the actual duration of the
> note (third attachment)
> b) have *no* beamlets at all and let the subdivision be calculated as
> usual (fourth attachment)
>
> Any opinions (or references to what the books say)?
Hi Pierre
Very nice! Ideal for those more light-hearted musical items.
LSR?
Trevor
- Original Message -
From: Pierre Perol-Schneider
To: lilypond-user
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 2:37 PM
Subject: Outliner markup command
Hi,
Yesterday night I thought about rewri
Am 12.01.2016 um 16:37 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Urs,
>
>> I see two approaches to this:
>>
>> a) have the number of beams correspond to the actual duration of the
>> note (third attachment)
>> b) have *no* beamlets at all and let the subdivision be calculated as
>> usual (fourth attachment)
Am 12.01.2016 um 16:47 schrieb Urs Liska:
> Hi Kieren,
>
> thanks for info and opinion. (I really have to get hold of Gould's book
> finally ...).
>
> If I'd implement that
>
> \relative c'' {
> a32 [ a a r a16 a ]
> \set subdivideBeams = ##t
> \set baseMoment = #(ly:make-moment 1/8)
> a
> b) have *no* beamlets at all and let the subdivision be calculated
>as usual (fourth attachment)
This is what I prefer.
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
At 17:15 on 12 Jan 2016, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> b) have *no* beamlets at all and let the subdivision be calculated
>>as usual (fourth attachment)
>
>This is what I prefer.
>
+1. Gould seems to always use stemlets with beamlets when the beam
count > 2.
--
Mark Knoop
_
Am 12.01.2016 um 17:28 schrieb Mark Knoop:
> At 17:15 on 12 Jan 2016, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> b) have *no* beamlets at all and let the subdivision be calculated
>>>as usual (fourth attachment)
>> This is what I prefer.
>>
> +1. Gould seems to always use stemlets with beamlets when the bea
Am 12.01.2016 um 17:49 schrieb Urs Liska:
>
> Am 12.01.2016 um 17:28 schrieb Mark Knoop:
>> At 17:15 on 12 Jan 2016, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
b) have *no* beamlets at all and let the subdivision be calculated
as usual (fourth attachment)
>>> This is what I prefer.
>>>
>> +1. Gould see
Hi Urs,
> I must say I find the attached image (with 1/16 subdivision and rests
> before each division) pretty clear.
“Pretty clear”? Yes.
Could it be clearer? Definitely.
I can’t tell if, for example, the 64ths should be phrased 3+5 or 4+4; beamlets
and/or stemlets would definitely help make t
Am 12.01.2016 um 18:11 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Urs,
>
>> I must say I find the attached image (with 1/16 subdivision and rests
>> before each division) pretty clear.
> “Pretty clear”? Yes.
>
> Could it be clearer? Definitely.
> I can’t tell if, for example, the 64ths should be phrased 3+5
Hi Trevor,
Thank you.
Yes, I'll add a snippet for sure, as soon as LSR will work with v2.20.
Pierre
2016-01-12 16:42 GMT+01:00 Trevor Daniels :
> Hi Pierre
>
> Very nice! Ideal for those more light-hearted musical items.
>
> LSR?
>
> Trevor
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Pierre P
Am 12.01.2016 um 18:16 schrieb Urs Liska:
>>> What should the behavior of the *last* one be here?
>> > Stemlet, for sure. (IMO)
> Unfortunately producing stemlets is a completely different business
> which I haven't discovered yet (don't even know where this might take
> place).
>
> Urs
>
Ah wel
Hi Urs,
> Ah well, producing stemlets is the responsibility of user input code.
Indeed. =)
I have some syntactic sugar for just such efforts.
> Find attached a solution *with* stemlets (\override Staff.Stem.stemlet-length
> = 1)
From the standpoint of clarity [of beat division/subdivision], t
On 12.01.2016 15:37, Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:
\header {
title = \markup\outliner #3 #'"orange" #'"yellow" { Some Music }
}
Nice idea! You needn’t quote the strings, and #"orange" is at least a
little less convoluted.
Yours, Simon
___
lilyp
> What should the behavior of the *last* one be here?
No beams over the rest.
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:39:06 +0100
From: Luca Danieli
It works perfectly! I understand that I need to rename ALL pitches, otherwise
the building fails.The only problem now is that I have lost the default
microtonal symbols.
So for example, how do I re-write the default symbol ceh (to have
2016-01-12 15:37 GMT+01:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider
:
> Hi,
>
> Yesterday night I thought about rewriting this snippet:
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=890 using the new whiteout 'outline'
> override and finally discovered a funny side effect:
>
> \version "2.19.35"
> #(set-default-paper-size "a
2016-01-12 18:40 GMT+01:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider
:
> Hi Trevor,
>
> Thank you.
> Yes, I'll add a snippet for sure, as soon as LSR will work with v2.20.
>
> Pierre
>
> 2016-01-12 16:42 GMT+01:00 Trevor Daniels :
>>
>> Hi Pierre
>>
>> Very nice! Ideal for those more light-hearted musical items.
>>
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2016-01-12 15:37 GMT+01:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider
> :
>
> I've always found it a little so-so, to define custom markup-commands
> only combining a personal choice of preexisting markup-commands.
> Wouldn't it be better to let it do by a scheme-function?
> Though, you can't
I have the following two bars:
%51%
\tuplet 3/2{
r8-\markup{\italic "gesprochen"} d'8 dis8}
\tuplet 3/2{ r16 cis cis a r16 cis} \tuplet 3/2{ cis a r16 a
cis8\glissando}
\once \hide NoteHead g4\glissando
%52%
cis,2 r4 r8 dis'-\markup{\italic "gliss"}
I would like to make a slur from the g4 of
David Kastrup writes:
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> Any chance to directly insert the result of a scheme-function in a
>> newly created markup?
>
> I've just written a syntax rule allowing that, with the arguments of the
> scheme function being scanned in \notemode. Which is what they are
> usua
Thomas Morley writes:
> Any chance to directly insert the result of a scheme-function in a
> newly created markup?
Tracker issue: 4741 (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4741/)
Rietveld issue: 285070043 (https://codereview.appspot.com/285070043)
Issue description:
Allow Scheme fu
On 12.01.2016 22:12, Ryan Michael wrote:
I would like to make a slur from the g4 of the first bar to the cis2
of the next bar
Slurs in Lilypond use postfix syntax, so you need to type { g4( cis2) }
instead of { ( g4 cis2 ) }.
HTH, Simon
___
lilypo
cis8glissando
does not work, do not forget the "\"!
\relative c''
{
\once \hide NoteHead
a\glissando c
}
Am 12.01.2016 22:12, schrieb Ryan Michael:
I have the following two bars:
%51%
tuplet 3/2{
r8-markup{italic "gesprochen"} d'8 dis8}
tuplet 3/2{ r16 cis cis a r16 cis} tuplet 3/2{ cis
On 12.01.2016 22:40, Blöchl Bernhard wrote:
cis8glissando
does not work, do not forget the "\"!
\relative c''
{
\once \hide NoteHead
a\glissando c
}
The original post contained the backslash – it must have been lost on
the way to you.
Yours, Simon
Am 12.01.2016 22:12, schrieb Ryan Micha
Am 12.01.2016 um 19:57 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Urs,
>
>> Ah well, producing stemlets is the responsibility of user input code.
> Indeed. =)
> I have some syntactic sugar for just such efforts.
>
>> Find attached a solution *with* stemlets (\override
>> Staff.Stem.stemlet-length = 1)
> Fr
Two more remarks:
On 12.01.2016 22:12, Ryan Michael wrote:
I do the following:
%51%
\tuplet 3/2{
r8-\markup{\italic "gesprochen"} d'8 dis8}
\tuplet 3/2{ r16 cis cis a r16 cis} \tuplet 3/2{ cis a r16 a
cis8\glissando}
\once \hide NoteHead (g4\glissando
%52%
cis,2 ) r4 r8 dis'-\markup{\itali
Am 12.01.2016 22:40, schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:
cis8glissando
does not work, do not forget the "\"!
\relative c''
{
\once \hide NoteHead
a\glissando c
}
Am 12.01.2016 22:12, schrieb Ryan Michael:
I have the following two bars:
%51%
tuplet 3/2{
r8-markup{italic "gesprochen"} d'8 dis8}
tuple
2016-01-12 22:08 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> 2016-01-12 15:37 GMT+01:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider
>> :
>>
>> I've always found it a little so-so, to define custom markup-commands
>> only combining a personal choice of preexisting markup-commands.
>> Wouldn't it be better to
Am 12.01.2016 um 20:59 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
>> What should the behavior of the *last* one be here?
> No beams over the rest.
Well, default behaviour is to break the beam at all rests here (see
attached).
But if the user manually enters the beam enclosing the rest there should
be *something*.
Hi Simon,
2016-01-12 20:46 GMT+01:00 Simon Albrecht :
> Nice idea! You needn’t quote the strings, and #"orange" is at least a
> little less convoluted.
>
Yep ! Ok.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/list
For exploring tuplets (etc.) simply consult the manual
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/writing-rhythms#tuplets
Am 12.01.2016 22:40, schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:
cis8glissando
does not work, do not forget the "\"!
\relative c''
{
\once \hide NoteHead
a\glissando c
}
Am 12.
Hi Urs,
> Well, default behaviour is to break the beam at all rests here (see attached).
ew
> But if the user manually enters the beam enclosing the rest there should
> be *something*.
+1
> What would be nice too […] is adding a stemlet,
> but without implicitly adding beamlets.
Yes.
n.b. Yo
Ah!
Okay so actually I was trying to slur from the preceding note (cis8), so
the following worked for me:
\version "2.18.2"
\relative {
%51%
\tuplet 3/2 { r8-\markup \italic "gesprochen" d'8 dis8 }
\tuplet 3/2 { r16 cis cis a r16 cis }
\tuplet 3/2 { cis a r16 a cis8(\glissa
Hi Harm,
2016-01-12 21:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley :
> I've always found it a little so-so, to define custom markup-commands
> only combining a personal choice of preexisting markup-commands.
>
I fully agree, it's just that my scheme knowledge is also a little so-so ;)
Actually I tried to. Witho
>> No beams over the rest.
>
> But if the user manually enters the beam enclosing the rest there
> should be *something*.
Ah, ok, I missed this.
> And I think a single beam is better here than a number of steamlets.
I agree.
Werner
___
lilypond
2016-01-12 21:35 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley :
> You can already put it into LSR: comment out the code, let a
> dummy-markup displayed and add [needs LSR upgrade] to the title. It
> will then be stored in the unapproved snippets, not searchable,
> though.
>
Yep that was my intention as soon as I'll
Pierre Perol-Schneider writes:
> Hi Harm,
>
> 2016-01-12 21:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley :
>
>
>> I've always found it a little so-so, to define custom markup-commands
>> only combining a personal choice of preexisting markup-commands.
>>
>
> I fully agree, it's just that my scheme knowledge is als
Thomas Morley writes:
> Wow, that was fast.
The change was trivial. It's the ramifications that aren't. That's why
I would rather leave them to you. There will be odd cases rather
certainly. The question is whether the overall behavior appears
sensible and that's probably easier to judge emp
2016-01-12 23:05 GMT+01:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider
:
> Hi Harm,
>
> 2016-01-12 21:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley :
>
>>
>> I've always found it a little so-so, to define custom markup-commands
>> only combining a personal choice of preexisting markup-commands.
>
>
> I fully agree, it's just that my sche
On 13.01.2016 00:09, Thomas Morley wrote:
Though, there might be a bug in `stencil-whiteout-outline', Paul cc-ed.
Here you are.
Look at:
\markup \stencil
#(stencil-whiteout-outline
(make-filled-box-stencil '(-1 . 1) '(-1 . 1))
0.5
red
16
1)
\markup \stencil
#(stencil-whiteou
Thank you, works perfectly!
--
Peter Crighton | Musician & Music Engraver based in Mainz, Germany
http://www.petercrighton.de
2016-01-10 9:44 GMT+01:00 Malte Meyn :
>
>
> Am 10.01.2016 um 02:50 schrieb Peter Crighton:
>> (if (or (music-is-of-type? mus 'rest-event)
>>
There are startGraceMusic and stopGraceMusic functions that are helpful for
adjusting the appearance of grace notes. Are there startAfterGraceMusic etc
functions for \afterGrace? Currently I have to manually adjust afterGrace notes
to be the same as that in the startGraceMusic function I have. W
49 matches
Mail list logo
