Hi all,
What about a radical alternative?
What if each non-reference part has an additional “tick” barline (numbered
according to the reference context) whereever the barlines don’t line up?
Just a thought…
Kieren.
Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website:
On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 10:38 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Tue 10 Nov 2015 at 13:52:33 (+), Graham King wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600,
On Tue 10 Nov 2015 at 13:52:33 (+), Graham King wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren
On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 09:18 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 11.11.2015 um 01:32 schrieb Graham King:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 22:50 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> >
> > > Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King:
> > > > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> > >
Am 11.11.2015 um 11:14 schrieb Graham King:
>
annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric
scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context.
So to approach the issue one would have to remove \annotationProcessor
from the Score
On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 18:44 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 11.11.2015 um 11:14 schrieb Graham King:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric
> > > > > scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context.
> > > > >
> > > >
Am 11.11.2015 um 01:32 schrieb Graham King:
> On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 22:50 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>> Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King:
>> > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
>> >>
>> >>> (This note
On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
>
> >
> > (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
> > "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
> >
> > I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
> >
Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King:
> On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
>>
>>> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
>>> "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
>>>
>>> I would like to use Urs'
Am 10.11.2015 um 00:56 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Graham,
>
>> I've just realised that, under my system as I described it, a part could
>> have the same bar number twice.
> My proposed solution would be an “analytic continuation” (to borrow a
> mathematical term) of the non-polymetric
Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
> "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
>
> I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
> edition of sixteenth-century polyphony. But, before investing too
> much time, I
On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 22:50 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King:
> > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
> >>
> >>> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
> >>>
Hi Graham,
> On the positive side:
> +1This scheme guarantees a unique id for each bar. The id increases in a
> sensible manner.
> +2The scheme is robust with respect to re-formatting, if systems are
> split or joined.
> +3Since Lilypond's default behaviour is to break lines only
Hi Urs,
> I have no idea if it is also appropriate for ancient music.
Well, the absence of [any] barlines makes barline numbering more complex… ;)
> Aren't there any useful references, how have others dealt with that challenge?
I can’t find any!
Cheers,
Kieren.
Am 10.11.2015 um 14:28 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Urs,
>
>> I have no idea if it is also appropriate for ancient music.
>
> Well, the absence of [any] barlines makes barline numbering more complex… ;)
Of course it depends on the way an edition deals with that.
>
>> Aren't there any
On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> >
> > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > > The very first thing they said to me was,
(This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
"Scholarly footnotes" [1])
I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
edition of sixteenth-century polyphony. But, before investing too much
time, I need to check whether there is now a way for it to cope
Hi Chris,
> What do you need the bar numbers for? I suspect rehearsal marks would fit
> the bill, no? If not, why not?
The score runs 105 measures in the piano part. I have 9 rehearsal marks (A-I),
for an average of ~12 measures per rehearsal mark.
In anticipation of officially
Hi all,
Is there a standard/convention/best practice on measure numbering in polymetric
scores? I’m running into an issue of that myself (in my song “The Country
Wife”), and can’t find anything definitive.
Note: Gould (p. 484) writes, “Bar numbers should not be used in music in which
On 11/09/2015 01:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Is there a standard/convention/best practice on measure numbering in
polymetric scores? I’m running into an issue of that myself (in my
song “The Country Wife”), and can’t find anything definitive.
Note: Gould (p. 484) writes, “Bar numbers should
On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”
That’s sufficient reason for me. =)
Good answer.
In that case, I would pick one part, and force those measure numbers in
as numeric rehearsal marks in the other parts.
On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
>
> On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”
> >
> > That’s sufficient reason for
On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”
> >
> > That’s sufficient reason for me. =)
>
> Good answer.
>
> In that case, I would pick one part, and force
Hi Graham,
> I've just realised that, under my system as I described it, a part could have
> the same bar number twice.
My proposed solution would be an “analytic continuation” (to borrow a
mathematical term) of the non-polymetric measure numbering scheme:
1. A “reference context” would be
24 matches
Mail list logo
