On Tue 10 Nov 2015 at 13:52:33 (+0000), Graham King wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+0000), 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 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. > > Otherwise, you’d need a translation guide... > > ~Chris > > I guess Gould has a point. I've just realised that, under my system as > I > > described it, a part could have the same bar number twice. For > example, in the > > attachment below, T has two bars "9". But apart from an ill-chosen > number (in > > this case), one could regard the "bar numbers" as "numeric rehearsal > marks". > > Different mechanism, different formatting, same result. In practice, > for the > > sort of music I'm dealing with, the polymetric sections tend to be > quite short > > so, for the most part, bar numbers are more helpful than rehearsal > marks. > > This is avoidable if each new bar is numbered with 1+(number of the > bar—looking across all the parts—that most recently finished). Not > something I could automate with my zero knowledge of scheme. > > Very logical. > Advantages: > +1 Might be amenable to automation. > +2 Robust with respect to re-formatting. > +3 Supports any variation of Staff.BarNumber.break-visibility (I think). > > Disadvantages: > -1 On a given line, bar numbers increase in strange and surprising ways, > giving potential for confusion.
That's unavoidable by any scheme. Where a player has a part that has many bars in one line (eg a slow-moving bass part where some other parts have many more notes), the player will see multiple jumps in their line, each where your "reference part" starts a new line in its score. These jumps could be forwards or backwards. > One cannot just count from the start of the > line and announce a bar number. Oh, I don't think you can get away without labelling every bar in every part. We're just discussing what those labels will say. > For that reason alone, I'm inclined to favour: > o Counting the bars of the top visible staff of the system, whilst > o Allowing discontinuity at the start of each line to accommodate other > parts that might have more bars in the previous line. The "start of each line" will be different in each and every score: the full score, the vocal score, the choral score, and all the parts. *Their* discontinuities will be all over the place, with jumps backwards and forwards! Exciting stuff. So I see further advantages than just those in your list: +4 Bar numbers monotonically increase throughout every part. +5 Bar numbers are a defined and intrinsic property of the music, not an accident of one particular layout. In other words, the bar number of every bar is known *before* LP tries to calculate linebreaks and pagebreaks. > But that's just a personal preference. I wouldn't want to impose it on anyone > else! (and I'm prepared to accept the need to fiddle with bar numbers > manually > at a late stage in the editing process). So what you're saying is (correct me if I'm wrong) you typeset the music *in it's final form*, then sit down with the printout and annotate the "reference part" bar numbers, then re-edit the source putting in all the \set Score.currentBarNumber commands for each and every line of the reference part. Now comes the interesting bit: figuring out the bar numbers for all the other parts and forcing them to match the reference part. And if a late correction has the effect of shifting a bar from one line to another in the reference part, you're scuppered. Hm. I want LP to do the work for me, not the other way round. Cheers, David. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
