On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 04:52:18PM -0700, David Bellows wrote: > > Do you use the \voiceOne, \voiceTwo, \voiceThree commands in the > > generated parts? Sometimes those can help, by rendering rests for > > each voice separately. Not sure if this is the solution you're > > looking for, though. > > I had been but keeping it all straight and making the process > infinitely expandable became a headache so now I use << voice1 // > voice2 // voice3 >> etc which is easy to just keep adding to. Would > using \voiceOne (etc) make that much of a difference?
You can try it and see? In my experience, it does help with placement of notes especially when you have rests in multiple voices. Lilypond is generally quite good at handling shifting notes/rests horizontally to make them fit, but that depends on how complex the music is. Some cases may be so complex it will always require manual intervention. I'm not sure about using << ... // ... >> to make it "infinitely expandable"... wouldn't the output become illegible past 4 voices? If you're mechanically generating these parts, I'd say keep it to 2 voices per staff, which is least problematic. In theory, it should be easy for the program to allocate a new Staff for every two voices, right? You could have more, up to 4 per staff, if you use \voiceOne, \voiceTwo, ... \voiceFour, but then there would be cases where collisions become inevitable and lilypond may just give up trying to figure it out. At least, it would require manual intervention (recently I've been working on a complex 4-voice piano score and lots of manual intervention were needed to keep things straight and not turn into spaghetti on the page). T -- If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution. -- Robert Sewell _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
