Le 22/02/2022 à 03:09, Tom Campbell a écrit :
I am about to transcribe a bunch of older Western folk music in lead
sheet form for an open source tunebook.
Nice to hear that!
Am trying to create a robust template so I don't have to think too
much about anything other than getting the notes,
You wrote:
>>
> \crossStaff should be used on the voice whose stems should
> extend past their staff. In this case, this is the upper voice.
> To get cross-staff arpeggios, you'd put \arpeggio in both voices
> and use the connectArpeggios property
>
Thank you! Exactly what I was after.
Kind
Le 22/02/2022 à 07:28, Mark Probert a écrit :
Hi, again.
I'm not used to working with piano scores and ran across and example
that required I use \crossStaff. Unfortunately, it is not doing as I
ask it and wonder if someone can point me in the right direction.
In this example I want an
Hi, again.
I'm not used to working with piano scores and ran across and example
that required I use \crossStaff. Unfortunately, it is not doing as I
ask it and wonder if someone can point me in the right direction.
In this example I want an arpeggio line and I want the C in the bass to
be
I am about to transcribe a bunch of older Western folk music in lead sheet
form for an open source tunebook. Am trying to create a robust template so
I don't have to think too much about anything other than getting the notes,
chords, and lyrics right. You can see it below, or rendered by the
Kevin Cole writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have a score with a lot of sections as shown in the attached PNG. I
> see something like what I want to achieve at the end of the section on
> \parallelMusic:
>
> https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/multiple-voices#writing-music-in-parallel
>
> My
Hi,
I have a score with a lot of sections as shown in the attached PNG. I
see something like what I want to achieve at the end of the section on
\parallelMusic:
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/multiple-voices#writing-music-in-parallel
My first thought, to avoid inserting
Yes exactly, because of how our finger to note relation works, the
enhancement in readability with the indication right at the head is
enormous.
L
On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, 18:16 Valentin Petzel, wrote:
> Sure. I suppose for a guitar person having stacked fingerings on top would
> be
> rather
Sure. I suppose for a guitar person having stacked fingerings on top would be
rather confusing, as there is no monotonic relating between finger and pitch.
As such I suppose guitar people would want to use fingerings with left or right
orientations in chords anyway.
Cheers,
Valentin
Am
I suspect we might be saying the same thing, Valentin?
I was saying infix can be a bit awkward if you want 'pianist' chord
fingering (just a stack of numbers above or below), and that your original
-1-2-3 reads quite nicely (as in: it's easy to see in your head what
you will get in the engraving
No, not nescessarily. If we want all Fingerings on top or below there is no
real benefit of doing the chord thing. In fact doing that leads to the exact
same issue of the fingering for d being next to the other ones.
Cheers,
Valentin
21.02.2022 12:38:40 Luca Fascione :
> But wouldn't you
This is neat!
Thansk Valentin your explanation is very clear.
Question: I would have thought it should be the fingering mark to push the
beams away, not the other way around, I'm expecting it's uncool to go
rummage in the setup of the beams/stems in before-line-break? Or is this
how that
But wouldn't you finger that as ? (Didn't check the number,
I'm just meaning going infix vs postfix)
I can see that this idea of mine does have issues for fingering your way
around (which seems to me it's more of a fingering atop thing, like you
would have in a keyboard score)
L
On Mon, 21 Feb
Hello Luca,
changing the X-parent to the NoteHead would mean that we are aligning the
Fingering horizontally wrt. the NoteHead instead of the whole NoteColumn. This
would then mean that if for example due to some chord some note heads are on
the other side of the Stem the alignment of
Hello Luca,
A scheme engraver follows the concept of a closure, so it is some sort of
function that returns different values on different arguments. This is somewhat
the functional approach to OOP. So an engraver can be seen as an object that
has some methods, which (as some sort of callback)
Hello Harm,
That is not exactly true. As I have done in my previous reply we can create an
engraver that acknowledges Fingerings and NoteHeads and store a reference to
the NoteHead grob in the Fingerings details property.
Cheers,
Valentin
Am Montag, 21. Februar 2022, 01:22:18 CET schrieb
Thank you very much - that's a nicer resolution than I had managed (which was
very much a hack - less code for a single example, but poorer spacing).
As for crossStaff and direction, I have certainly found matching to be
necessary in my experience; and it's logical to require the same, because
Hi Thomas,
thanks for your comment, this helps me refine my understanding of what's
going on.
At the same time, while I do see that for other articulations (fermata,
appoggiato) this parenting scheme works very well,
I remain wondering whether for the style of layout of the fingering
indications
18 matches
Mail list logo
