On 27 February 2010 06:09, George_ <georgexu...@gmail.com> wrote: > So say I have a piece that is five hundred bars long. Say I use > autochange to get Lilypond to automatically change staff for the > music. Say that there are 50 staff changes that are particularly > awkward. You are telling me that the only alternatives I have for > this hypothetical 500-bar piece is to either put up with those 50 > awkward staff changes, or rewrite the piece so that every single one > of the staff changes in those 500 bars is done by hand? Pardon my > frankness, but what a bloody stupid [insert nasty word here] system.
Actually I'm not a pianist, nor some kind of "LilyPond-genius", so my answer was only based on my knowledge of LilyPond (little with keyboard-related stuffs) and also based on your minimal code, which had only one (zero) staff change... Pardon my bloody stupid answer. > No, it's not. Not completely. With the \change in, the output has a > semiquaver rest in the bottom staff, a b, e, g, and f sharp in the > top staff, and the stems point up. > > Without the \change, the output has a semiquaver rest in the bottom > staff, a b in the bottom staff, an e, g and f sharp in the top staff, > and the stems point down (and the beaming looks ridiculous as a > result). What I want here is for both the rest and the b to be on the > top clef and for the beaming to look not ridiculous (I can do that > myself, it's the first part I need help with). However, putting the > \change in front of the rest gives the same output as if the \change > weren't there, and using x16\rest where x is a note doesn't seem to > put it in the right place either; for some reason Lilypond skips > right over most of the top staff. Indeed, looks like a bug. Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer <x.sche...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
