Lukas-Fabian Moser <l...@gmx.de> writes:
>> \version "2.22.1"
>>
>> {
>> \clef tenor
>> \repeat volta 2 {
>> c'1
>> \clef bass
>> c'1
>> }
>> \alternative {
>> {
>> c'1
>> \set Staff.clefGlyph = "clefs.C"
>> }
>> { c'1 }
>> }
>> c'1
>> }
>
> While this is technically perfect, I'd strongly advise against doing
> it this way: It's a recipe for disaster regarding the start of the 2nd
> alternative. Half of your cellists (or whatever instrument uses tenor
> and bass clef here) is going to play a g' here, because there's this
> tenor clef directly in front of the the note, separated only by the
> bar line (which is what you're used to in any clef change).
>
> One could do something like
>
> \version "2.22.1"
>
> {
> \clef tenor
> \repeat volta 2 {
> c'1
> \clef bass
> c'1
> }
> \alternative {
> {
> c'1
> \set Staff.clefGlyph = "clefs.C"
>
> \once \override Score.BarLine.stencil =
> #(lambda (grob)
> (grob-interpret-markup
> grob
> #{
> \markup {
> \stencil #(ly:bar-line::print grob)
> \hspace #0.5
> \fontsize #-2 \raise #1 \musicglyph "clefs.F"
> } #}))
> }
> { c'1 }
> }
> c'1
> }
>
> (note that this is very unpolished; a real solution would have to
> check if there's a line break at the repeat sign)
>
> but usually it's much better to just change notation such that there
> is no clef change at the repeat sign at all.
I have
\version "2.22.1"
{
% \override Score.BarNumber.break-visibility = #all-visible
\clef tenor
\repeat volta 2 {
c'1
\clef bass
c'1
}
\alternative {
{
c'1
\clef tenor
}
{ \grace s128
\once\hide Staff.BarLine \bar "|"
\once \omit Score.BarNumber
\clef bass c'1 }
}
c'1
}
but I think it may rely on issue 34 not getting fixed. At least I find
the combination and order of things that "worked" here unconvincing.
--
David Kastrup
