Hi Kieren, Am Samstag, den 18. April 2015 um 17:54:44 Uhr (-0400) schrieb Kieren MacMillan: > > Would love to see it, but the link didn’t work for me… =\
that's strange. I just tried again and it works for me. Could it be that your browser complained because of a missing certificate as the system uses https? You have to ignore this message, the server doesn't have an official certificate. Here's the link again: https://www.selma.hfmdk-frankfurt.de/selmafile/f/4e45ac51ea/ Let me know if you still encounter problems and I'll send it in a private separate mail. > Curious! For my 57-part orchestra piece, I only used one source file > for the notes, and one each for the score and part(s). How do you > break up all your files (beyond, I’m assuming, a notes-source file > for each instrument), and what do you see as the big benefit(s) of > having so many source files? I split up the music of each individual instrument part plus a file for the time-signatures and for the tempos into separate files plus a template for each part and the full score. The music was split up in different sections, so the number of music parts have to get multiplied by the number of sections. On top of this I generated lilypond files for each part and each section which basically just contained include references for the music and the templates. I chose this setup because 1. I was not sure how I'd keep the project manageable before I started as I feared long rendering times and I wanted to be able to write the piece in non-consecutive order and instrumented the piece directly into the lilypond score. 2. With the separation of score files and music I could decide at a later point how to handle divisi parts in the strings and whether they needed separate parts or not. To get this done I wrote a lisp script which would generate all the empty music and lilypond score and part files and the templates in separate directories and generate the dependencies in the makefile. That was quite some work but after generating and checking in with git everything else was downhill... > This is a big one for me. I would love to see — and would be happy > to help fund — a GUPPY (Grand Unified Partcombiner Project, Yay!) to > tackle a rewrite from the ground up, taking into account all the > recent advances in divisi writing (still only in openlilylib, I > believe), etc. I would take part in it as well. Another thing: For me, also the implementation of transposing instruments is less than ideal (I prefer to write the pitches in concert pitch and have them transposed for the parts, rather than the other way around, as it is implemented at the moment). I would be very willing to sponsor this. -- Orm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
