Re: Usability Question
If you look at the definition of voice you will see:
voiceOne = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 0) 'Voice)
voiceTwo = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 1) 'Voice)
voiceThree =#(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 2) 'Voice)
voiceFour = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 3) 'Voice)
So voiceFive shoudl be possible
Bert
Yes! And it *works* !
Rutger
voiceFive = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 4) 'Voice)
<< { \voiceOne g''4 ~ \stemDown g32[ f( es d c b a b64 )g] } \\ {
\voiceThree b4} \\ { \voiceFive d,} \\ { \voiceTwo g,}\\>>
Bert
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Trouble with voices: unwanted clef & time
Dear all,
Is there anyone who could give me some help me with the file below?
For some reason, Lilypond creates an unwanted clef and time signature
(without a staff) above my setting of two voices on one staff. What did I do
wrong?
Also, would you have any clue why the fermatas in the lower part won't go
below the notes?
Many thanks in advance,
Best,
Rutger
\version "2.10.0"
tekst = \lyricmode { Bez kor -- y -- sti be -- zo lzhi, ty be -- zo lzhi!
V_krep -- koy pra -- vde pos -- lu -- zhi!, ty pos -- lu
-- zhi!
Bez kor -- y -- sti be -- zo lzhi
V_krep -- koy pra -- vde, v_krep -- koy pra -- vde pos
-- lu --
zhi!
V_krep -- koy pra -- vde pos -- li -- zhi! }
global = {
\time 2/4
\key es \major
}
Vanya = {
r8 es4->^\markup{\italic {con forza}} c16[( d]) es[( g]) f[( es])
d[( c]) f[( es]) d8 r16
bes16-. es8-. g8-. bes8-. r8 r4
r8 es,4-> c16[( d]) es[( g]) f[( es]) d[( c]) f[( es]) d8 r16
bes16-. es8-. g8-. bes8-. r8 r4
r8 g4-> g16[( f]) es[( d]) es[( f]) g[( f]) g[( a]) bes4. r8
r4 f8 bes8 d8^\fermata bes16 r16^\fermata
g8-> bes-> es,-> g-> c,-> es-> a,4 r4
es'4. c32[( d es f]) g8 f16[( es]) d[( es]) c[( d]) bes8 r8 r4
}
Susanin = {
r8 c4-> a16[( bes]) c[( bes]) a[( g]) f[( es]) d[( c]) bes8 r16
bes'16-. g8-. es8-. bes8-. r8 r4
r8 c'4-> a16[( bes]) c[( bes]) a[( g]) f[( es]) d[( c]) bes8 r16
bes'16-. g8-. es8-. bes8-. r8 r4
r8 es'4-> es16[( d]) es[( d]) c[( b]) c[( d]) es8 d4. r8
r4 d8 d8 bes8_\fermata d16 r16_\fermata
es8-> d-> c-> bes-> a-> g-> f4 r4
c'4. a32[( bes c d]) es8 d16[( c]) bes[( g]) a[( f]) d8 r8 r4
}
{
\new Score <<
\autoBeamOff
\new Staff \relative c'' {
\set Staff.instrumentName = \markup{ \column{ {\small \smallCaps
Van}
{\small \smallCaps Sus} } }
\global
\clef treble
<<
\new Voice = "soprano" { \voiceOne \Vanya }
\new Voice = "bass" { \voiceTwo \Susanin }
>>
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto soprano {\tekst}
>>
}
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Trouble-with-voices%3A-unwanted-clef---time-tf3026881.html#a8409115
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
subdivideBeams behaviour
Hello list,
Using subdivideBeams with manual beaming, as explained
in 6.5.6 in the manual, works fine. However, using it with
automatic beaming with the LilyPond code below, results in
the attached output, which has two problems:
1) The last beam of the first measure is subdivided; a
workaround for this is setting subdivideBeams after the
first note in the second measure, but is there a cleaner
solution? Or is this a bug?
2) The start and end of beams is changed, most notably
a beam end is introduced after 3/8.
I tried using {override,revert}-auto-beam-setting with
various values but I haven't been able to "re-connect" that
beam. Also, in scm/auto-beam.scm there is no default for
3/4 time signature, that specifies a beam end after 3/8, so
this is probably caused by changing Score.beatLength.
Is subdivideBeams not intended to be used with automatic
beaming? Or is there a different solution for this problem
(apart from using manual beaming?)
%% BEGIN LilyPond code
\version "2.10.11" % on Ubuntu Linux 6.10
\paper { ragged-right = ##t }
{
\time 3/4
b16 b b b b b b b b b b b
\set subdivideBeams = ##t
\set Score.beatLength = #(ly:make-moment 1 8)
b16 b b b b b b b b b b b
}
%% END LilyPond code
--
Groeten,
Alard.
Ceterum censeo MS Word esse delendam.
subdivideBeams.png
Description: PNG image
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Trouble with voices: unwanted clef & time
Rutger hotmail.com> writes: > Is there anyone who could give me some help me with the file below? > For some reason, Lilypond creates an unwanted clef and time signature > (without a staff) above my setting of two voices on one staff. What did I do > wrong? Try moving the \autoBeamOff to inside the staff e.g. right after the \clef command. This seems to work under 2.10.0. (Arrived at this using the technique in the manual of successively commenting lines until I found the one that was causing troubles...) > Also, would you have any clue why the fermatas in the lower part won't go > below the notes? The two lower fermata look below when I compile it. Perhaps you could clarify the problem? Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Upro gmail.com> writes: > I admit that not finding the function for a simple line brake was not very > smart of me. I have studied the online-manual thouroughly, but it's not easy > to find solutions there, and I haven't found them for the descripbed > problems. Try the PDF version as it is really easy to search. Also you can search within sites with google (haven't tried this, but imagine it works) > Suggestions like condensing a four voiced, polyphonic piece by Bach for an > Urtext edition for one of the major publishers seems to me a strange > reaction to my query. > > Also, fake a solution with invisibile notes is not a solution you would like > to use in an edition of a 65-page manuscript. I think this comes to a rather important issue. Lilypond has not been what I had expected (read: ideally hoped!) when I first came across it. The reality never is as simple we would like it to be, because the reality has to deal with all the contingencies adressed in this archive. BUT, the question is, is there something better out there? Are you willing to PAY for it? If not, then how can one (you) be part of the solution - i.e. making LP better, easier, clearer, more concise etc. even if that only means generating positive constructive criticism. I agree it isn't perfect, it's a work in progress. Remember LP is made up of volunteers, and is not a money making software venture. I find it grates a bit to start a question by saying the software is deficient because ~ I don't have the time (read: am not willing) to learn how to use it. I am also sure that "professional" editors etc. are forced to work around their software to get it to do what they want. I have never used a piece of saftware that didn't require this. I don't see anything "un-professional" about invisible notes, constructing chord in polyphony. Do what it takes - that's what the pro's do. If it isn't good enough for you, try something else. > I'm trying to use lilypond for an important publication, so I'd be glad to > get some real help here! I'll stand behind Graham. The implication here is that his help is not real. Read above comments on volunteers. The folks writing in are human and benefit from a positive like the rest of us. Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Upro escreveu: > Hello! > > I have been using Lilypond some years ago, without needs for too good > formattzig, but now I decided to try to make an edition for a major > publisher with lilypond. Interesting! Which one? > (etc) If it's really important, you could consider reserving a cut of what the publisher pays to sponsor work on LilyPond. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Music Notation http://www.lilypond-design.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Usability Question
Bert wrote:
> >>>
> >> Yes! And it *works* !
> >>
> >> Rutger
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> voiceFive = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 4) 'Voice)
>
> << { \voiceOne g''4 ~ \stemDown g32[ f( es d c b a b64 )g] }
> \\ { \voiceThree b4} \\ { \voiceFive d,} \\ { \voiceTwo g,}\\>>
>
> Bert
>
>
I tried the code and found that it worked, but voiceFive has extra
horizontal shift (i.e. \shiftOnn), so the b and d didn't line up
perfectly. Then I tried making the b and d a chord in voice 3, and
found that it worked as well. So this code provides output that is
_very_ close to the scan that was provided.
%Begin Lilypond Code
#(set-global-staff-size 17)
% \version "2.10.7"
\include"deutsch.ly"
\paper {
#(set-paper-size "a4")
}
voiceFive = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 4) 'Voice)
\header {
title = \markup \center-align \italic { "Sonata 1ma a Violino
Solo senza Basso di J. S. Bach"} }
melody = \relative c' {
\clef treble
\key g \minor
\time 4/4
<< { \voiceOne g''4 ~ \stemDown g32[ f( es d c b a b64 )g] } \\ {
\voiceThree 4} \\ { \voiceTwo g,}\\>>
%<< { \voiceOne g''4 ~ \stemDown g32[ f( es d c b a b64 )g] } \\ {
\voiceThree b4} \\ { \voiceFive d,} \\ { \voiceTwo g,}\\>>
% << { g''4 ~ \stemDown g32[ f( es d c b a b64 )g] }\\{
b4}\\{d,}\\{ g,}\\>>
<< { c'4} \\ \\ { \tieDown g8[ fis~] fis32[ \slurDown
e( d e fis g a c64 b)]} \\ { a,4 } >>
|
<< {fis''4} \\ {\voiceThree \slurDown c8[( c32) \slurUp
d64( c b32 c] \stemDown c16.\trill b64 c d16 a)} \\ {\voiceFour d,8}
>>
}
\score {
\new Staff \melody
\layout { }
}
%End Lilypond Code
Carl
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
Bert wrote:
Yes! And it *works* !
Rutger
voiceFive = #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 4) 'Voice)
<< { \voiceOne g''4 ~ \stemDown g32[ f( es d c b a b64 )g] }
\\ { \voiceThree b4} \\ { \voiceFive d,} \\ { \voiceTwo g,}\\>>
Bert
I tried the code and found that it worked, but voiceFive has extra
horizontal shift (i.e. \shiftOnn), so the b and d didn't line up
perfectly. Then I tried making the b and d a chord in voice 3, and
found that it worked as well.
But the whole point of this \voiceFive thingy is that none of the four
notes in the first quarter should line up, and especially not the three
notes with stem upwards.
Rutger
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Can you put dynamic marks in the lyrics?
Dear all,
I'm sorry for responding so late. I've tried both Bertalan's and
Eduardo's suggestions -- they work -- and here comes the summary of
what I've learned.
If you want to indicate the dynamics (forte, mezzoforte, piano, etc.)
of a verse, then it is possible to set this mark in the "\set stanza"
definition.
(1) Bertalan's suggestion works well, and is IMHO the best solution.
It's based on setting the stanza number *before* entering \lyricmode.
The code:
verse = {
\set stanza = \markup { \dynamic "f" "1. " }
\lyricmode {
Ly -- rics
}
}
(2) Eduardo's suggestion, setting the font of StanzaNumber to
fetaDynamic with an override, also works. The disadvantage is that the
fetaDynamic numbers are very different from the default text; so it
looks better to have the number in normal text, and that's not
possible with this method. The code:
\override StanzaNumber #'font-encoding = #'fetaDynamic
\set stanza = "f 1. "
(3) If the StanzaNumber is too wide then it just extends to the left,
no matter what's in its path. If you've got connected staves, such as
within a ChoirStaff, then the StanzaNumber will tend to collide with
that vertical line that systems have on the left to connect their
staves. I'll file a bug report on this. Example of a Stanzanumber that
"crosses the line":
\markup { \dynamic "mf" "2. " }
Full report in lilypond-bug, of course. (Might be tomorrow.)
(4) You all form an amazingly helpful community. No wonder LilyPond is
improving as quickly as it is! Many thanks. (Köszönöm -- the little
Hungarian I know -- to Bertalan for the best-working solution. ;-)
Regards,
Sietse
Sietse Brouwer
A bunch of keywords, to help future people with this issue find this thread:
dynamic marks in lyrics, stanza, number, stanzanumber, font,
fetaDynamic, override, set, tweak, hack, forte, mezzoforte, piano, f,
mf, p.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Can you put dynamic marks in the lyrics?
Sietse Brouwer wrote: A bunch of keywords, to help future people with this issue find this thread: dynamic marks in lyrics, stanza, number, stanzanumber, font, fetaDynamic, override, set, tweak, hack, forte, mezzoforte, piano, f, mf, p. Instead of keywords in the email archive, why not submit this as a doc update? http://lilypond.org/web/devel/participating/documentation-adding Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Rutger Hofman cs.vu.nl> writes: > > But the whole point of this \voiceFive thingy is that none of the four > notes in the first quarter should line up, and especially not the three > notes with stem upwards. > > Rutger > I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion. The scan that was provided shows two of the stem-up notes aligned. I suppose that that could be an engraving error from the scanned piece. I'm not sure where one goes to find out if the two notes should be aligned or should be separated (which the voiceFive construct does quite nicely). If the piece in question is "properly" engraved, then we might want to have LilyPond produce similar behavior. If not, then there's no reason to go after it. BTW, the scanned piece shows a rising beam on the second set of beamed notes, while LilyPond's is horizontal. This is also an engraving difference that might want to be adjusted, or perhaps not. It all depends on the quality of the scanned piece. Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
> The scan that was provided shows > two of the stem-up notes aligned. I suppose that that could be an engraving > error from the scanned piece. It's a polyphonic Bach violin peace: they are separate voices, not chords, they figure melodies (despite there are notes between in the first noise) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ties between voices
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 08:15:24AM +0200, Joe Neeman wrote:
> We've had a few questions about ties between voices (especially ties from
> polyphony to chords). It seems that you can get this behaviour simply by
> moving the Tie_engraver form the Voice context to the Staff context. Note
> that the Tie_engraver was probably designed to live in the Voice context, so
> it may not work perfectly, but if people will test it and report problems
> then it will get fixed.
>
> \version "2.10.0"
>
> \layout {
> \context {
>\Staff
>\consists "Tie_engraver"
> }
> \context {
>\Voice
>\remove "Tie_engraver"
> }
> }
What a great idea and suggestion! Thank you so much Joe. I'm going to
try this right away on a piano piece with many such between-voice or
multi-voice-to-single-voice ties that has had me stumped for quite a few
weeks now.
Thanks!
Steve D
New Mexico, US
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Trouble with voices: unwanted clef & time
These things happen as soon as you include some command
that can only be done within a Staff or Voice context, before
your own first \new Staff/Voice.
In this case, it's the \autoBeamOff command that causes the
problem. Just move it inside the \new Staff{...}. If you want
the setting to apply to all staves in the piece, you could
look into ly/property-init.ly to figure out what that \autoBeamOff
is simply a shorthand defined as
autoBeamOff = \set autoBeaming = ##f
So, you could either directly insert
\set Score.autoBeaming = ##f
within the code for one of the staves or redefine the default
definition of the Staff context in a \layout{...} block.
I was a bit surprised by your use of \new Score. It certainly
seems to work, but the more conventional structure is to say
\score{
<<
\new Staff ...
\new Lyrics ...
>>
}
/Mats
Rutger wrote:
Dear all,
Is there anyone who could give me some help me with the file below?
For some reason, Lilypond creates an unwanted clef and time signature
(without a staff) above my setting of two voices on one staff. What did I do
wrong?
Also, would you have any clue why the fermatas in the lower part won't go
below the notes?
Many thanks in advance,
Best,
Rutger
\version "2.10.0"
tekst = \lyricmode { Bez kor -- y -- sti be -- zo lzhi, ty be -- zo lzhi!
V_krep -- koy pra -- vde pos -- lu -- zhi!, ty pos -- lu
-- zhi!
Bez kor -- y -- sti be -- zo lzhi
V_krep -- koy pra -- vde, v_krep -- koy pra -- vde pos
-- lu --
zhi!
V_krep -- koy pra -- vde pos -- li -- zhi! }
global = {
\time 2/4
\key es \major
}
Vanya = {
r8 es4->^\markup{\italic {con forza}} c16[( d]) es[( g]) f[( es])
d[( c]) f[( es]) d8 r16
bes16-. es8-. g8-. bes8-. r8 r4
r8 es,4-> c16[( d]) es[( g]) f[( es]) d[( c]) f[( es]) d8 r16
bes16-. es8-. g8-. bes8-. r8 r4
r8 g4-> g16[( f]) es[( d]) es[( f]) g[( f]) g[( a]) bes4. r8
r4 f8 bes8 d8^\fermata bes16 r16^\fermata
g8-> bes-> es,-> g-> c,-> es-> a,4 r4
es'4. c32[( d es f]) g8 f16[( es]) d[( es]) c[( d]) bes8 r8 r4
}
Susanin = {
r8 c4-> a16[( bes]) c[( bes]) a[( g]) f[( es]) d[( c]) bes8 r16
bes'16-. g8-. es8-. bes8-. r8 r4
r8 c'4-> a16[( bes]) c[( bes]) a[( g]) f[( es]) d[( c]) bes8 r16
bes'16-. g8-. es8-. bes8-. r8 r4
r8 es'4-> es16[( d]) es[( d]) c[( b]) c[( d]) es8 d4. r8
r4 d8 d8 bes8_\fermata d16 r16_\fermata
es8-> d-> c-> bes-> a-> g-> f4 r4
c'4. a32[( bes c d]) es8 d16[( c]) bes[( g]) a[( f]) d8 r8 r4
}
{
\new Score <<
\autoBeamOff
\new Staff \relative c'' {
\set Staff.instrumentName = \markup{ \column{ {\small \smallCaps Van}
{\small \smallCaps Sus} } }
\global
\clef treble
<<
\new Voice = "soprano" { \voiceOne \Vanya }
\new Voice = "bass" { \voiceTwo \Susanin }
>>
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto soprano {\tekst}
>>
}
--
=
Mats Bengtsson
Signal Processing
Signals, Sensors and Systems
Royal Institute of Technology
SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
Sweden
Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463
Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe
=
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: usability question - how to search manual
>> I admit that not finding the function for a simple line brake was not very >> smart of me. I have studied the online-manual thouroughly, but it's not easy >> to find solutions there, and I haven't found them for the descripbed >> problems. >Try the PDF version as it is really easy to search. Also you can search >within sites with google (haven't tried this, but imagine it works) It doesn't really matter how easy it is to search the manual if you enter search terms incorrectly - you'll still not find what you're looking for. The original poster spelled "break" wrong, and I doubt the Lilypond manual discusses mechanisms for slowing down a vehicle! Ah, the hazards of the English language. ;-) Tim Reeves ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Usability Question
Bertalan Fodor wrote: > > > The scan that was provided shows > > two of the stem-up notes aligned. I suppose that that could be an > > engraving error from the scanned piece. > > It's a polyphonic Bach violin peace: they are separate > voices, not chords, they figure melodies (despite there are > notes between in the first noise) > Thanks. I've looked more closely at the sacn (at Rutger's suggestion) and now I see the horizontal separation of the middle two stems. I've been working on setting polyphonic classical guitar music, where there are also multiple voices to figure melodies. As I do so, I'll pay more attention to the small increments of horizontal spacing, as shown in the scan. Thanks for your input. Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Bertalan Fodor wrote: The scan that was provided shows two of the stem-up notes aligned. I suppose that that could be an engraving error from the scanned piece. It's a polyphonic Bach violin peace: they are separate voices, not chords, they figure melodies (despite there are notes between in the first noise) These Sonatas and Partitas by Bach are very famous for the beautiful handwriting in his manuscript. Several publishers sell facsimile of this manuscript. An extremely ambituous attempt to imitate the manuscript as closely as possible but still use computer based typesetting can be found in the Werner Icking archive (the typesetting was done by Werner Icking himself, using musixtex), see http://icking-music-archive.org/ByComposer/J.S.Bach.php, scroll down to BWV1001. There you can for example notice that all four notes of the first chord actually were written with stem up, but each slightly offset to the right (corresponding to \voiceOne \voiceThree \voiceFive and \voiceSeven in LilyPond). /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Jonathan Henkelman wrote: Upro gmail.com> writes: I admit that not finding the function for a simple line brake was not very smart of me. I have studied the online-manual thouroughly, but it's not easy to find solutions there, and I haven't found them for the descripbed problems. Try the PDF version as it is really easy to search. Also you can search within sites with google (haven't tried this, but imagine it works) Actually, the index of the manual is fairly ambituous and includes, among others, the search terms "breaking lines" and "line breaks" (not to mention that there's a section title "Line breaking"). I guess the problem is that many people haven't found the index (At www.lilypond.org, click on "Documentation" for your version of Lilypond, then on "User manual" and "LilyPond index". If you find that some obvious index term is missing, please send a hint to the mailing list, (see http://lilypond.org/web/devel/participating/documentation-adding). /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
You have received a large number of answers already, but
I'm not sure how many of your original questions have really
been answered. First of all, here's an alternative version of
your code that hopefully is somewhat closer to what you want.
#(set-global-staff-size 17)
% \version "2.10.7"
\include"deutsch.ly"
\paper {
#(set-paper-size "a4")
}
\header {
title = \markup \center-align \italic { "Sonata 1ma a Violino Solo
senza
Basso di J. S. Bach"}
}
myVoiceOne = {\voiceOne \tieDown}
myVoiceTwo = {\voiceTwo \tieUp}
myVoiceThree = {\voiceThree \tieDown}
myVoiceFive = { #(context-spec-music (make-voice-props-set 4) 'Voice)
\tieDown }
melody = \relative c' {
\clef treble
\key g \minor
\time 4/4
<<
\new Voice {
\voiceOne
g''4 ~ g32[ f( es d c b a b64 )g] \myVoiceThree
g8[ fis~] fis32[ e( d e fis g a c64 )b] |
c8[~ c32 d64( c b32 c] c16.\trill b64 c d16 )a
}
\new Voice {
\myVoiceThree
b4 s \myVoiceOne c s | fis s
}
\new Voice {\myVoiceFive d,}
\new Voice {\myVoiceTwo g,4 s a s | d8 s s4 }
>>
}
\score {
\new Staff \melody
\layout { }
}
What I did here was
- To keep each voice together over a longer section, not split
them up into half beats (this is a matter of taste, but may
save some typing, especially if you want the same tweak to
apply to a longer section).
- Explicitly instantiate voices instead of using the << ... \\ ... >>
feature.
- Correspondingly, I explicitly specify \voiceOne ...
- Since most of your comments related to the fact that the
ties have the same direction as the stems when you use the
default \voiceOne, ... \voiceFour macros, I defined alternative
versions called \myVoiceOne ... \myVoiceFive, that set the
ties in the opposite direction.
Keep asking and keep reading the manual.
/Mats
Upro wrote:
Hello!
I have been using Lilypond some years ago, without needs for too good
formattzig, but now I decided to try to make an edition for a major
publisher with lilypond.
However, I have found that there are several issues that I find too time
consuming and complicated to rate lilypond as "professionally usable".
But being an optimist I decided to post some general questions to see what
others think and know.
My example score is some bars for violin by Bach. Let's go!
1. The score has four voises. All have their own stems. I find it extremely
complicated to arrange stems/notes in the same order (right to left), and
stems in the correct direction.
All solutions I have found in the forum are either rather laborious, or
involve programming. I do not have the intention nor the tie to learn scheme
or improve/recover my knowledge of Python to follow this path.
2. I have not found an easy way to change the placement of ties (over or
below the notes)
3. I have also not found a neatly usable command to try to make a score into
one page, or to force a system/line brake.
4. I have not found a way to make a tie from within a polyphonic passage
into a neiboring honophone section. I used a workaraond by keeping the
adjacent passage within the polyphonic sectin, but I would like to find a
way to avoid that.
I include the cntents of my ilypond file, and a jpg of what I would liem to
see.
I would really appreciate concise and useful help. This is for maybe the
most reknowned publisher and could also be a landmark for lilypond - if I
can achioeve my goal with lilypond (and not Sibelius...).
Here are my comments on the file/score:
a) First chord: I would liem to have the same stem direction/order in my
file as in the image (up-up-up-down from top to bottom)
b) Why do the stems in bar 1, second quarter, point upwards AND the tie is
on top?
c) Bar 1, 4th quarter: Again: Why is the tie on top and not on bottom?
d) 2nd bar, first quarter: As in a) I would like to change the order of the
notes.
e) 2nd bar, first quarter: Two tied eight notes c: Why is the tie not closer
to the noteheads?
f) 2nd bar, second tie: Again, it should be on top.
If I have to continue like this for the rest of this opus magnum I' kill
myself ;-)
TIA, upro
#(set-global-staff-size 17)
% \version "2.10.7"
\include"deutsch.ly"
\paper {
#(set-paper-size "a4")
}
\header {
title = \markup \center-align \italic { "Sonata 1ma a Violino Solo
senza
Basso di J. S. Bach"}
}
melody = \relative c' {
\clef treble
\key g \minor
\time 4/4
<< { g''4 ~ g32[ f( es d c b a b64 )g] }\\{ b4}\\{d,}\\{
g,}\\>>
<< { c'4} \\ \\ { g8[ fis~] fis32[ e( d e fis g a c64 )b]} \\ { a,4
} >>
|
<< {fis''4} \\ {c8[( c32) d64( c b32 c] c16.\trill b64 c d16 )a} \\ {d,8}
>>
}
\score {
\new Staff \melody
\layout { }
}
http://www.nabble.com/file/5663/bach.jpg
--
=
Mats Bengtsson
Signal Processing
Signals, Sensors and Systems
Controlling vertical spacing exactly - mini HOWTO
Hi,
The following might be of interest to folks using proportional
notation. If there's any general interest (of if Graham wants it to be
so) then I'll retype the following as an addition to 11.3.4
"Controlling spacing of individual systems".
Proportional notation gives near-complete control of *horizontal*
spacing. Less obvious is the fact that the NonMusicalPaperColumn grob
gives similar control of *vertical* spacing. The relevant parameter is
the line-break-system-details attribute and the different values you
can assign to it.
Consider the following two-staff score with line-breaking information
entered in a dedicated voice.
%%% BEGIN EX 1 %%%
\version "2.11.7"
\new Score <<
\new Staff <<
\new Voice {
s1 * 6 \break
s1 * 6 \break
s1 * 6 \break
}
\new Voice { \repeat unfold 18 { c'4 c'4 c'4 c'4 } }
>>
\new Staff {
\repeat unfold 18 { d'4 d'4 d'4 d'4 }
}
%%% END EX 1 %%%
Explicit \breaks evenly divide the music into six measures per line.
Vertical spacing results from Lily's defaults.
To set the vertical startpoint of each system explicitly, we can set
the Y-offset pair in the line-break-system-details attribute of the
NonMusicalPaperColumn grob:
%%% BEGIN EX 2 %%%
\version "2.11.7"
\new Score <<
\new Staff <<
\new Voice {
\overrideProperty #"Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn"
#'line-break-system-details #'((Y-offset . 0))
s1 * 6 \break
\overrideProperty #"Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn"
#'line-break-system-details #'((Y-offset . 40))
s1 * 6 \break
\overrideProperty #"Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn"
#'line-break-system-details #'((Y-offset . 80))
s1 * 6 \break
}
\new Voice { \repeat unfold 18 { c'4 c'4 c'4 c'4 } }
>>
\new Staff {
\repeat unfold 18 { d'4 d'4 d'4 d'4 }
}
%%% END EX 2 %%%
Note that line-break-system-details takes an alist of potentially many
values but that we set only one value here.
Now that we have set the vertical startpoint of each system
explicitly, we can also set the vertical startpoint of each staff
within each system manually. We do this using the alignment-offsets
pair which likewise assigns to the line-break-system-details:
%%% BEGIN EX 3 %%%
\version "2.11.7"
\new Score <<
\new Staff <<
\new Voice {
\overrideProperty #"Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn"
#'line-break-system-details #'((Y-offset . 20)
(alignment-offsets . (0 -15)))
s1 * 6 \break
\overrideProperty #"Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn"
#'line-break-system-details #'((Y-offset . 60)
(alignment-offsets . (0 -15)))
s1 * 6 \break
\overrideProperty #"Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn"
#'line-break-system-details #'((Y-offset . 100)
(alignment-offsets . (0 -15)))
s1 * 6 \break
}
\new Voice { \repeat unfold 18 { c'4 c'4 c'4 c'4 } }
>>
\new Staff {
\repeat unfold 18 { d'4 d'4 d'4 d'4 }
}
%%% END EX 3 %%%
Note that here we assign two different values to the
line-break-system-details attribute of the NonMusicalPaperColumn grob.
Though the line-break-system-details attribute alist accepts many
additional spacing parameters (including, for example, a corresponding
X-offset pair), we need only set the Y-offset and alignment-offsets
pairs to control the vertical startpoint of every system and every
staff.
WHO MIGHT FIND THIS USEFUL? As mentioned above, those working with
proportional notation. Also anyone adding complex graphics to LilyPond
output using Illustrator of Inkscape. And possibly also users making
either simple or complex charts or tables of music notation for
precomposition or music education.
WHAT MAKES THESE SETTINGS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO FIND IN THE DOCS? Both
features entered the program during the 2.7 development series and are
documented in the 2.8 NEWS file here:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.8/Documentation/topdocs/NEWS.html. The only
tricky thing is identifying the two pairs that need to be set and
knowing that the values of those pairs may combine freely in the
line-break-system-details alist.
WHAT MAKES THESE SETTINGS DIFFICULT TO TYPE? Most grobs override with
the \override command. The NonMusicalPaperColumn grob overrides with
the special \overrideProperty command. The NonMusicalPaperColumn grob
also likes matching double-quotes as in \overrideProperty
"Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn". Matching double-quotes do not appear in
the overrides to most other grobs.
--
Trevor Bača
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Hi, I also have a usability question. I'm using lilypond-2.10.11 (linux executable) on intel centrino 1.4MHz with 256MB of RAM, and I cannot render 10 page chamber piece of music due to lack of memory. after 15 min I stop "Layout outputting to 'xxx.ps'" and I found outputted 4 pages of 10. If I turn swap off, I'm given "Out of memory error". Last year I prepared 30-page orchestral score and I was forced to cut it into 4 parts and process them separately (lily-2.7.35). I remember I left lilypond rendering this piece for one night. It didn't help. I won't mention some memory segm. faults which disappeared when eg. I changed one tuplet to regular eighths (I had to change the piece, fortunately -- my own). So my question is if I have to buy new hardware to be able to use my preferred software? Or whether it would help if I compiled lily myself? Would I be indecently curious if I ask you about your experiences with large lilypond projects (if 10-page piece can be regarded as "large") and your hardware? In this point I want to defend Upro, who started this thread. This man wants to typeset some bigger thing, but he doesn't want to fail due to technical problems. And probably these masterpieces of Leipzig Cantor will be typeset with Sibelius. I agree that typing lilypond code in is much faster than doing so with (eg.) Sibelius, I agree that result of raw processing with lilypond is much better. One must be very naive to believe that everything can be coded as program/algorithm. But when it comes to fine tuning the score it becomes real pain. Most things are done with trial&error method, which consumes (depending on score of course) lots of time. With mouse it takes seconds to drag'n'drop such elements. What about hard to achieve marks as double-glissando on violin? To complain more: convert-ly simply doesn't work for me. So all my old projects have to be rewritten line by line. Of course some dirty hacks (someone before mention them?) have to be changed usually to some other ones (like controlled aleatorism notation, modifying stencils with scheme). There was pointed somewhere analogy to TeX/LaTeX. But I can process latex files from eighties of last century, but cannot my last year lilypond work. In my case this would be very optimistic variant. That is my choice to use Lilypond. I agee with limitations. I very often supplement printed scores with black pen (mentioned above double-glissandoes, lastly harp part -- all this graphical stuff). But I don't want to be limited to 5-page scores. Upro, and I, and anyone who professionally deal with music, esp. making visual representation of her, in a long run needs reliable environment. But to stop this nonconstructive criticism I must admit I found LP very handy and useful when I was making short excerpts of larger pieces for embedding in book (theory of music, 400p.). Using Finale/Sibelius/who-knows-what-else I had would kill my self. Certainly. best, ak Ps.sorry for my english -- as I've never been in UK/USA I know it only theoretically. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
First of all, here's an alternative version of your code that hopefully is somewhat closer to what you want. Mats, this also says clashing notecolumns in the first note (and merges them to one position) (with 2.10.11) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Hello, Andrzej: your experiences with large lilypond projects [...] and your hardware? I recently typeset my 42-page chamber opera score (in Lilypond 2.9). If I recall correctly, it took between 1 and 2 minutes to generate the full score (on an Apple MacBook with 2GHz Intel Core Duo). Hope this helps! Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Andrzej Kopec wrote: I also have a usability question. I'm using lilypond-2.10.11 (linux executable) on intel centrino 1.4MHz with 256MB of RAM, and I cannot render 10 page chamber piece of music due to lack of memory. after 15 min I stop "Layout outputting to 'xxx.ps'" and I found outputted 4 pages of 10. If I turn swap off, I'm given "Out of memory error". Han-Wen has just fixed a large number of memory leaks; try the same file with 2.10.12 when it's released. You don't need to buy new hardware or anything like that. To complain more: convert-ly simply doesn't work for me. That's one of the issues in my "odd jobs" list. I welcome any help. Ps.sorry for my english -- as I've never been in UK/USA I know it only theoretically. That's ok; people in the USA don't even know English theoretically! :) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Again: rest on wrong side
Dear Han Wen, under http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=240 I found Your comment to the bug report with rest on wrong side. Your comment: The voice containing the rests should have stems/stemdown set, otherwise lily will mess up with collisions, whether they contain rests or notes. I can't aggree with that for the following two reasons: 1. The piece, working on which I found this BUG, is Chopin's Study Opus 10 No. 1 in C-major. It contains 79 bars, and each second bar has this staff changing with holding the stems up. The edition from Herrmann Scholz, on which the mutopia contribution shall rely, has the stem direction I want as well as my edition from G. Henle, as well as my edition from Wilhelm Hansen, Kopenhagen. 2. In lilypond version 2.8 and earlier it was possible to notate as I'm wanting, so the newest lilypond version is a regress compared with earlier versions, and I'm insisting, that this is a bug. I think, such changings in the behaviour of lilypond shouldn't happen, because they are creating frustration for working on with lilypond. For the case, that I did misunderstand Your comment (English is still sometimes very hard for me), I beg Your pardon and Your patience. ;-) Best Regards Roland ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Andrzej Kopec escreveu: > I also have a usability question. I'm using lilypond-2.10.11 (linux > executable) on intel centrino 1.4MHz with 256MB of RAM, and I cannot > render 10 page chamber piece of music due to lack of memory. after > 15 min I stop "Layout outputting to 'xxx.ps'" and I found outputted > 4 pages of 10. If I turn swap off, I'm given "Out of memory error". Try 2.11/10.12. I've implemented some new memory tracing tools, which indicated that the use of (ice-9 format) routine was eating tremendous amounts of memory. With .12, the memory use should be almost halved. > I won't mention some memory segm. faults which disappeared when > eg. I changed one tuplet to regular eighths (I had to change the > piece, fortunately -- my own). Well, you mentioned them anyway. I take memory corruption and other sorts of heisenbugs *very* seriously, and I want to hear about them. I can't recall reading your bugreport about this. Bugs such as these get priority "high" in the bugtracker, and they're the first on my list to fix. > So my question is if I have to buy new hardware to be able to use my > preferred software? Or whether it would help if I compiled lily > myself? Would I be indecently curious if I ask you about your > experiences with large lilypond projects (if 10-page piece can be > regarded as "large") and your hardware? I think your best bet is to see if you can upgrade RAM of your machine. Most of the improvements of lilypond seem to come at the expense of memory usage. Other than that, over the years we've added lots more automated formatting tweaks, which should make most of the exotic, hand-coded tweaks superfluous. However, we have to pay for this with CPU and memory. The use of skyline spacing, both horizontal and vertical, comes to mind as an example. > Upro, and I, and anyone who professionally deal with music, > esp. making visual representation of her, in a long run needs > reliable environment. Unfortunately, that's something I can't guarantee, especially for free. However, managing different branches has become a lot easier now that we use GIT. That's why so many of the bugfixes in 2.11 have made it back into 2.10. Still, it's work. I for one, would welcome it if someone would help with backporting bugfixes. With GIT it's not that difficult, but it requires moderate programming knowledge. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Music Notation http://www.lilypond-design.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Controlling vertical spacing exactly - mini HOWTO
Hi Trevor, hi everyone,
> The following might be of interest to folks using proportional
> notation. If there's any general interest (of if Graham wants it to be
> so) then I'll retype the following as an addition to 11.3.4
> "Controlling spacing of individual systems".
Awesome!! This is exactly what I thought might be of use to many people.
I only recently discovered the "alignment-offsets" property somewhere in
the regression tests and found it to be of great use. For some reason I
missed "Y-extent", though, and am more than happy to learn about it from
your email because it provides precisely the functionality I felt was
missing. I am sure it would be of great value to have it in the docs and
strongly encourage you to retype and include it. One suggestion, though:
I thing using _different_ values of "Y-offset"/"alignment-offsets" for
different staves better emphasizes the effect it has on the output.
Another thing which I think should not go unmentioned because it drove
me nearly mad and which I considered a bug until I found out the correct
behaviour: If you have lyrics with the music then the lyrics lines
behave like staves of their own with respect to alignment-offsets. For
example if you have an upper and a lower staff, each with lyrics beneath
them, then the four numbers in alignment-offsets control the vertical
position of the first staff, the first lyrics line, the second staff and
the second lyrics line, respectively (by the way, is there a
setting/property which controls the distance of lyrics and the
corresponding staff? I found it to require a certain amount of tweaking
to get the "correct" distance from lyrics to staff when manually setting
alignment-offsets; it would be nice to at least know some default
distance). Here is a small code example illustrating the aforementioned
behaviour.
%% Example of alignment-offsets with lyrics
%\version "2.11.10" % on Debian Linux
\paper{ ragged-right = ##t }
<<
{ \overrideProperty #"Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn"
#'line-break-system-details
#'((alignment-offsets . (0 -10 -30 -65)))
c'1
}
\addlyrics { one }
{ e'1 }
\addlyrics { two }
>>
Maybe it would also be a good idea to mention that the numbers are
interpreted as multiples of the distance between adjacent staff lines
and that positive numbers move the staves/lyrics up and negative values
move them down (better to read it in the docs than having to cook up an
example to find out by trial and error).
Thanks again for your contribution! As I said, I strongly engourage you
to include it in the docs.
Cheers
Max
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Hi! For the compiling time, I am surprised that sometimes it takes almost a minute to compile only 3 pages of music for alto, double bass and piano! The fastest is 30 seconds. I am using LilyPond 2.11.11 on a MacBook Intel Core Duo with 512 Mb. For the interface, the best thing for a text entry based interface is that the format and the offset you put on the notes and other symbols will stay the same if you don't change the code in that part of the piece. That is the most annoying with the WYSIWYG interface of Sibelius. Even the beam format might change if you add a note in the measure! And I am not talking about the quality of the font. The stems fall a little besides the notehead and off the beams. It shows in printing. The Feta font is A LOT better. But Sibelius is excellent for its intuitive interface. The entering of most notes and symbols and, most important, the change of position of the symbols is far more easy to do than in LilyPond. For example, entering tempo indications and text spanners in Sibelius is a piece of cake, while working with LilyPond needs good programming skills to do the same, especially if you want it at the place you want it. Thanks to LilyPondTool, moving some symbols (but unfortunately not all) are a little easier. But a GUI interface would be great to see immediately the changes of position of some symbols on the score. This topic had been already discussed in an article on LilyPond by Han-Wenn. LilyPondTool does that partially for some symbols, but not for everything. I am not a programmer. I can't start to program myself to make an interface. But I may suggest some clues for design. It may be possible to have the best of both worlds : text and graphic inputs. Remember WordPerfect? One of the reasons for its success in the 80/90s was the option to enter relatively WYSIWIGly the text (remember the different colors to say Bold or Italic, brrr!) but to be able to SEE the code underneath the format and change it. Maybe it would be a way to design an interface for LilyPond : to be able to enter code by GUI or text. Also, if ever a team want to start to work on this thing, I suggest to look at Berlioz, an almost unknown notation program designed solely for engraving. Here is the site : www.berlioz.tm.fr (only in French) The font is not as inviting as LilyPond (but it is nicely lighter in some ways), but the quality of the layout of notes and the design of slurs is amazing. The way it is designed make it possible to do everything you want without much tweaking and unorthodox ways to bypass the program standards. It is divided in three procedures. The last procedure is almost like an SVG editor where you can move and place everything you want. But one problem about this program is its price : over 600 euros!! If a parallel team could work for an interface which would use the code of Lilypond for engraving but would be easy for a non-programmer to use, many more people would gain interest to it. The text entry alone is allright, but gets very complicated when you want to use all the possibilities of LilyPond to do elaborate scores. I would have give up if it wasn't for LilyPondTool to remind me of the format of the tweaks. That are my big two cents. Regards, Frederic Chiasson ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Time for compiling with 2.11.12
Hi! I tried to compile with the new development version. It takes 44 seconds for 4 pages of music for alto, double bass and piano. But there is two things to notice : 1- I am using JEdit with LilyPondTool, might add some seconds. 2- I ask for a MIDI file, which is the longest process of the piece compiling (about 20 seconds) Without the MIDI file, the compiling time goes from 20 to 48 seconds (why such difference?) Frederic ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
ps redundancy
I'm looking at the ps output of Lilypond ('cause I'm writing a completely
unrelated program that also outputs ps) and see this:
/set-ps-scale-to-lily-scale {
lily-output-units output-scale mul
lily-output-units output-scale mul scale
} bind def
Couldn't you say
/set-ps-scale-to-lily-scale {
lily-output-units output-scale mul dup scale
} bind def
?
Pierre
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Usability Question
Frédéric Chiasson wrote: Hi! For the compiling time, I am surprised that sometimes it takes almost a minute to compile only 3 pages of music for alto, double bass and piano! The fastest is 30 seconds. I am using LilyPond 2.11.11 on a MacBook Intel Core Duo with 512 Mb. There have been bug reports complaining about that 2.11.11 is much slower than 2.11.10 and earlier versions, so I'm not sure your numbers are representative for LilyPond in general. /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
