Michael Gerdau writes:
>> Why would you use \\ for creating separate voices here?
>
> Lack of a better way to solve the problem :)
> (read: my ignorance)
>
>> At any rate, that sounds like you want \after
>>
>> after =
>> #(define-music-function (delay ev main) (ly:duration? ly:music?
> Why would you use \\ for creating separate voices here?
Lack of a better way to solve the problem :)
(read: my ignorance)
> At any rate, that sounds like you want \after
>
> after =
> #(define-music-function (delay ev main) (ly:duration? ly:music? ly:music?)
>#{ \context Bottom << {
On 21.05.19 15:37, Michael Gerdau wrote:
I'm probably having some subtlety wrong. The following code creates the
attached image.
%%%
\version "2.21.0"
{ << R1 { s2. s4^"some markup" } >> }
{ << { \oneVoice R1 } \\ { s2. s4^"some markup" } >> }
%%%
The lower akkolade is what I
I'm probably having some subtlety wrong. The following code creates the
attached image.
%%%
\version "2.21.0"
{ << R1 { s2. s4^"some markup" } >> }
{ << { \oneVoice R1 } \\ { s2. s4^"some markup" } >> }
%%%
The lower akkolade is what I want this to look like while the upper
> > The use case is this
> >
> > %%%
> > \version "2.21.0"
> > { R1*3/4 s4^\markup "some markup" |}
> > %%%
> >
> > Of course I could achieve that by
> > %%%
> > \version "2.21.0"
> > { << { \oneVoice R1 } \\ { s2. s4^\markup "some markup" |} >> }
> > %%%
> > but
Michael Gerdau writes:
>> > the following MWE triggers a barcheck failure. Is that intended or a bug?
>> > And if it is intended I'd like to understand the rationale.
>> >
>> > %
>> > \version "2.21.0"
>> > { R1*3/4 s4 | }
>> > %
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> that’s
Hi Michael,
The use case is this
%%%
\version "2.21.0"
{ R1*3/4 s4^\markup "some markup" |}
%%%
Of course I could achieve that by
%%%
\version "2.21.0"
{ << { \oneVoice R1 } \\ { s2. s4^\markup "some markup" |} >> }
%%%
but that seems ugly and at least to me
> what about
>
> \new Voice { << R1 { s2. s4^"some markup" } >> }
>
> ? The \new Voice should not even be necessary in a typical score, with
> blocks like
>
> \score {
><<
> \new Staff <<
>% clef, time, etc.
>\new Voice \thisIsWhereMyMusicComesFrom
> >>
>>>
>
Hi Michael,
what about
\new Voice { << R1 { s2. s4^"some markup" } >> }
? The \new Voice should not even be necessary in a typical score, with
blocks like
\score {
<<
\new Staff <<
% clef, time, etc.
\new Voice \thisIsWhereMyMusicComesFrom
>>
>>
}
(It's only because
> > the following MWE triggers a barcheck failure. Is that intended or a bug?
> > And if it is intended I'd like to understand the rationale.
> >
> > %
> > \version "2.21.0"
> > { R1*3/4 s4 | }
> > %
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> that’s intended: R is used for full/multi-measure
Moreover, if you're working on you favorite Pi tribute choral in 3/14
time (granted, unusual), you'd be out of luck without fractions:
{ \time 3/14 R1*15/14 }
;-)
On 21.05.19 13:16, Malte Meyn wrote:
Am 21.05.19 um 13:08 schrieb J Martin Rushton:
The notation reference for 2.18.2 doesn't
Am 21.05.19 um 13:08 schrieb J Martin Rushton:
The notation reference for 2.18.2 doesn't seem to mention using
fractions with multi-measure rests. Using just {R1*3/4} generates
programming errors and no rest is output.
The fraction is not the problem:
{ \time 3/4 R1*3/4 }
This works
Hi Michael,
TL;DR: It's intended.
As the name implies, "FULL measure rests" are supposed to span full
measures. In particular, they are always rendered as if they do, so your
input should be virtually indistinguishable from R1. And it's also
indistinguishable from R1. in 3/2 time, or R1*2 in
The notation reference for 2.18.2 doesn't seem to mention using
fractions with multi-measure rests. Using just {R1*3/4} generates
programming errors and no rest is output.
On 21/05/2019 11:51, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> the following MWE triggers a barcheck failure. Is that intended
Am 21.05.19 um 12:51 schrieb Michael Gerdau:
the following MWE triggers a barcheck failure. Is that intended or a bug?
And if it is intended I'd like to understand the rationale.
%
\version "2.21.0"
{ R1*3/4 s4 | }
%
Hi Michael,
that’s intended: R is used for
Hi list,
the following MWE triggers a barcheck failure. Is that intended or a bug?
And if it is intended I'd like to understand the rationale.
%
\version "2.21.0"
{ R1*3/4 s4 | }
%
Kind regards,
Michael
--
Michael Gerdau email: m...@qata.de
GPG-keys available on request
16 matches
Mail list logo
