2017-02-04 15:10 GMT+01:00 David Sumbler <da...@aeolia.co.uk>:
> A text mark in Lilypond is represented by a grob called a
> RehearsalMark; the grob for a tempo marking is called a MetronomeMark.
>
> I wonder whether perhaps these names reflect something about the
> history of Lilypond: they are certainly not accurate descriptions of
> what the objects are used for - e.g. very often tempo markings make no
> reference to a metronome. I also suspect that history gives a clue to
> why Lilypond allows only one of each of these objects at any point in a
> score unless one performs some sort of programming acrobatics to work
> around the restriction.
>
> In fact this restriction, certainly in the case of RehearsalMark, has
> no logic to it. So either it is somehow hard-wired at a deep level, or
> it must be there presumably because at one time it did make sense.
>
> The clue is in the names, perhaps. It generally does not make sense to
> have more than one actual rehearsal mark at a single point in a piece
> of music (although I can think of rare circumstances in which there
> might be editorial reasons for doing so). But the RehearsalMark object
> is now not used only for rehearsal marks. For instance, even according
> to the documentation it is used for putting a fermata sign over a
> barline. Now, there is no reason on earth why a fermata sign and a
> rehearsal mark should never appear at the same point, yet Lilypond
> throws out a warning and refuses to print one of the objects unless we
> go to extra lengths to get what we actually want.
>
> A RehearsalMark is actually a very useful thing for aligning something
> with a barline - just recently I wanted it for the titles of the
> various sections of a piece. Similarly, there might be times when the
> alignment (or other) characteristics of MetronomeMark are useful for
> some other text, which might or might not occur at the same point as an
> actual tempo marking.
>
> The only case where having more than one of either of these objects
> causes a problem (only for midi output and easy for Lilypond to deal
> with, even then) is if 2 actual metronome marks occur at the same
> point.
>
> Would it not make better sense for Lilypond to accept what is asked for
> without complaining and print all the requested items? We don't
> actually need to have a warning about the supposed error if we can see
> the result in the output. If it is a genuine mistake (e.g. putting
> "Allegro" in most parts and "allegro" in another) then we can see that,
> and it won't take long to locate the error.
>
> So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does not
> allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
>
> If the answer to that question really is "yes", then perhaps we could
> have an additional grob or 2 which have the same characteristics as the
> existing one(s) but without the restriction on numbers. E.g. could we
> have a TextMark grob in addition to RehearsalMark?
>
> David
To add my 2cts:
Consider:
<<
\new Staff {
R1
\override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #RIGHT
\mark "whatever"
R1
}
\new Staff {
R1
\override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
\mark "whatever-else"
R1
}
>>
Where and how should the RehearsalMark(s) be printed?
Meanwhile why not use some of the workarounds?
(1)
\mark \markup <\[center-]column> <args>
(already mentioned)
(2)
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=976
or
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=977
(3)
http://old.nabble.com/Nice-workaround-for-simultaneous-rehearsal-marks-%E2%80%93-thanks-Neil!-td32212763.html
Cheers,
Harm
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
