In 2 of the set of 6 songs I have (rather slowly) been setting, I want
2 sets of words: the original, and an English version. In each of the
other 4 songs there is just one set of words.
After much experimentation and a lot of failures, I found a way of
doing what I wanted, which is to use manual
David Sumbler writes:
> In 2 of the set of 6 songs I have (rather slowly) been setting, I want
> 2 sets of words: the original, and an English version. In each of the
> other 4 songs there is just one set of words.
>
> After much experimentation and a lot of failures, I found a way of
> doing wh
- Original Message -
From: "David Sumbler"
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 2:49 PM
Subject: Melisma with manual syllable durations
In 2 of the set of 6 songs I have (rather slowly) been setting, I want
2 sets of words: the original, and an English version. In each of t
On Sun 19 Feb 2017 at 14:49:57 (+), David Sumbler wrote:
> In 2 of the set of 6 songs I have (rather slowly) been setting, I want
> 2 sets of words: the original, and an English version. In each of the
> other 4 songs there is just one set of words.
>
> After much experimentation and a lot of
On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 14:49 +, David Sumbler wrote:
> In 2 of the set of 6 songs I have (rather slowly) been setting, I
> want
> 2 sets of words: the original, and an English version. In each of
> the
> other 4 songs there is just one set of words.
>
> After much experimentation and a lot of
David Sumbler writes:
> On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 14:49 +, David Sumbler wrote:
>
> Thank you for the responses to my question.
>
> Unfortunately, I now realise that the question was not clearly
> expressed. It was not intended to be "is there a way to get melisma in
> upper and lower voices", b
On Mon 20 Feb 2017 at 18:37:15 (+), David Sumbler wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 14:49 +, David Sumbler wrote:
> > In 2 of the set of 6 songs I have (rather slowly) been setting, I
> > want
> > 2 sets of words: the original, and an English version. In each of
> > the
> > other 4 songs ther
On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 19:49 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> David Sumbler writes:
>
> >
> > On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 14:49 +, David Sumbler wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for the responses to my question.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I now realise that the question was not clearly
> > expressed. It was no
On Wed 22 Feb 2017 at 16:21:27 (+), David Sumbler wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 19:49 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> > David Sumbler writes:
> >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 14:49 +, David Sumbler wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for the responses to my question.
> > >
> > > Unfortuna
On 2017-02-22 17:21, David Sumbler wrote:
> [...]
> So I experimented. I find that, not only does it not matter which
> voice or stave I name as "associatedVoice", but it does not even matter
> whether such a voice exists! [...]
Wrong. Compare the extenders in:
\version "2.18.2"
\paper { ragge
Alexander Kobel writes:
> On 2017-02-22 17:21, David Sumbler wrote:
>> [...]
>> So I experimented. I find that, not only does it not matter which
>> voice or stave I name as "associatedVoice", but it does not even matter
>> whether such a voice exists! [...]
>
> Wrong. Compare the extenders in:
David Kastrup wrote Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:29 PM
> Alexander Kobel writes:
>
>> It might be surprising that a non-existing voice does not even produce
>> a warning; but there *is* a (very sensible) difference.
>
[snip]
> If searchForVoice is set (a context property) and this voice has
12 matches
Mail list logo
