Re: Overlapping notes and midi output

[Janek Warchoł]

2011/3/14 Hinrik Örn Sigurðsson :
> 2011/3/13 Janek Warchoł :
>> Then I suppose that you have more than 16 voices.
>> This is the drawback of this method.
>>
>>> But it does work around the problem, thanks.
>>
>> You're welcome :)
>>
>> cheers,
>> Janek
>
> Actually, the piece in question never has more than four simultaneous
> voices (two in each staff). In the lilypond code, I'm not using 4
> voices throughout the whole piece though. There are 10 sections which
> split into two voices, the rest just being normal one-voice-per-staff
> sections. Could that be causing the warning?

I think yes. When Staff_performer is moved to voice context, Lily
tries to give every voice in score it's own channel.
You may try moving "Staff_performer" from Staff to Voice only for
instruments in which overlapping exists (i.e. not doing this in \midi
block).

> The produced MIDI file sounds just fine though. No dropped notes.

That's perhaps because LilyPond is intelligent :) She said
warning: remapping modulo 16
I suppose this means that some channels are used more than once.
I don't know exactly how this works, though.

cheers,
Janek

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: left-aligning grobs to other grobs

[Gilles THIBAULT]

Attached is a function . . .


Wahoo. Seems to be a very powerfull function. I keep it in my favorites.
Thanks David.

Gilles

NB
If the user enters the value 2 for example as the dir parameter, the 
function fails.

Using = < and >  in the last cond expression avoids that.
(ly:grob-set-property! grob 'extra-offset
`(,(cond ((< $dir 0) (- (ly:grob-relative-coordinate ref sys X)
  default-coord))
  ((= $dir 0)  (- (interval-center (ly:grob-extent ref sys X))
  (interval-center (ly:grob-extent grob sys X
  ((> $dir 0)  (- (cdr (ly:grob-extent ref sys X))
  (cdr (ly:grob-extent grob sys X)

  . ,$corr)
Well, it 's just a nitpick. 




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music

[Graham Percival]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:42:45AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Mike Blackstock
>  wrote:
> > This is F*G great! Especially the Bach BWV 1006 - I could have sworn it
> > really was a kid playing. http://percival-music.ca/audio/bwv-1006_1.wav.mp3
> 
> To my ears, the rhythm sounded eerily exact - don't kids slow down
> their tempo when it gets difficult?

Many do, and Vivi doesn't do that yet.  That comes under the topic
of "expressive music performance", which is a few steps down the
road.  There's a few examples of variable skill (including
applying a normal distribution to the timing) at the bottom of
this page:
http://percival-music.ca/favorites.html

Most research on expressive music performance uses piano or
perhaps guitars -- for those instruments, the sound of a note is
pretty much determined by the initial pitch, time, and velocity.
(leaving aside quibbles like guitar glissando, piano pedaling,
etc)

Cheers,
- Graham

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music

[James Lowe]

Han-wen,

)-Original Message-
)From: lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org
)[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] On
)Behalf Of Han-Wen Nienhuys
)Sent: 14 March 2011 03:43
)To: Mike Blackstock
)Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
)Subject: Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music
)
)On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Mike Blackstock
) wrote:
)> This is F*G great! Especially the Bach BWV 1006 - I could have
)> sworn it really was a kid playing.
)> http://percival-music.ca/audio/bwv-1006_1.wav.mp3
)
)To my ears, the rhythm sounded eerily exact - don't kids slow down their
)tempo when it gets difficult?

These are obviously the Children from Midwich ;)

Actually Graham covered that in his last email and which I had also taken him 
up on...

--snip--
So far, Vivi doesn't do any "expressive music peformance".  I'm aware that it's 
an active research area, especially with Rencon:
http://renconmusic.org/ ...

--snip--

James
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys  writes:

> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Mike Blackstock
>  wrote:
>> This is F*G great! Especially the Bach BWV 1006 - I could have sworn it
>> really was a kid playing. http://percival-music.ca/audio/bwv-1006_1.wav.mp3
>
> To my ears, the rhythm sounded eerily exact - don't kids slow down
> their tempo when it gets difficult?

No.  They practice until they can pick their nose while playing.  When
was the last time you heard a child prodigy?

One problem is that they practice until the listeners can pick their
nose while playing, too.

Everything is there, but you find it hard to care.

I get this sort of double-take when practising accordion rather often:
focusing on playing fast enough that the listener does not get bored.
Of course, the proper approach (and basically my only realistic chance)
is to play it _well_ enough that the listener does not get bored.  With
percussive instruments like a piano or harpsichord, the options for that
are limited.  With a manually sustained instrument like string
instruments, wind instruments, accordions and their directly controlled
ilk (harmoniums only so-so, organs not really), you have what it takes
to fill long notes with musical sense.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Michael Ellis]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:43 AM, David Rogers
wrote:

> * Marc Weber  [2011-03-14 04:01]:
>
>
>  -- O -- (O is the body of a note here)
>> -- O --
>>
>> the interval between both pitches depends on the location.
>> Why?
>>
>> Why should e-g be different from g - h ?
>>
>> Wouldn't it be easier to assign notes (c,d,e,..) natural numbers?
>> then define
>>
>> could be:
>> ---O- nr 16
>> ---O- nr 12
>> ---O- nr 8
>> ---O- nr 4
>> ---O- nr 0
>>
>> to be always 4 semitones?
>>
>> Then many tasks such as transposing music to a different key would
>> become a simple math operation: simply add a number.
>>
>> Many musicians who play occasionally only would benefit a lot.
>>
>> Has anyone else thought about this before?
>>
>
>
>
> Sure, various people have come up with several interesting and
> useful (at least potentially useful) systems. I think in the end the
> trick is not so much coming up with a good system as getting people to
> adopt it. The "installed base" (to mis-use a term) of traditional
> notation is very large, and people who already know any system at all
> are reluctant to learn another unless it will bring them large and
> immediate benefits.
>
> In other words, your system is good but everybody will ignore you
> anyway. Sad, and not ideal, but I think it's true.
>
>
@Marc The website below may be of interest. It has a number of alternative
music notation systems that have been proposed as replacements for
traditional notation.

http://musicnotation.org/musicnotations/index.html

Many of them are quite clever but I think David's comment is correct.  It's
extremely difficult to get people to abandon what they've spent years
learning.

Cheers,
Mike
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[David Kastrup]

David Rogers  writes:

> * Marc Weber  [2011-03-14 04:01]:
>
>>-- O -- (O is the body of a note here)
>>-- O --
>>
>>the interval between both pitches depends on the location.
>>Why?

[...]

> Sure, various people have come up with several interesting and useful
> (at least potentially useful) systems. I think in the end the trick is
> not so much coming up with a good system as getting people to adopt
> it. The "installed base" (to mis-use a term) of traditional notation
> is very large, and people who already know any system at all are
> reluctant to learn another unless it will bring them large and
> immediate benefits.

It brings large and immediate drawbacks.  The _only_ non-fringe (and you
might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_
designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have
their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion.

Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its
controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C
major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation.

Playing notes on a system not matching the controls requires mental
effort.  Which gets worse when we are talking polyphony.  It is the
_main_ deterrent against people playing the chromatic button accordion
in spite of numerous mechanical and musical advantages.  It is also the
main deterrent against guitar players learning to play from notes rather
than tabulature.  Because for guitar players, tabulature naturally
corresponds to the controls on their instrument.

And 99% of all musical literature is _scale-oriented_ rather than
_interval_-oriented.  So even singers tend to be better off with a
notation focusing on scales rather than intervals, unless they happen to
sing Schönberg.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Francisco Vila]

2011/3/14 David Kastrup :
> The _only_ non-fringe (and you
> might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_
> designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have
> their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion.
>
> Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its
> controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C
> major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation.

Let me add Stanley Jordan's guitar tuned by fifths which looks fairly
chromatic to me.  Here, all scales have to be fingered on purpose and
equally no matter the pitch.  Granted, open strings tend to be natural
pitches. Forget open strings.

-- 
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Francisco Vila]

2011/3/14 David Kastrup :
> Francisco Vila  writes:
>
>> 2011/3/14 David Kastrup :
>>> The _only_ non-fringe (and you
>>> might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_
>>> designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have
>>> their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion.
>>>
>>> Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its
>>> controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C
>>> major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation.
>>
>> Let me add Stanley Jordan's guitar tuned by fifths which looks fairly
>> chromatic to me.
>
> What about "_deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that
> string instruments have their controls dictated by physics)" did you not
> understand?

Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic.  I did not mention
fretless instruments.

-- 
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[David Kastrup]

Francisco Vila  writes:

> 2011/3/14 David Kastrup :
>> The _only_ non-fringe (and you
>> might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_
>> designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have
>> their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion.
>>
>> Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its
>> controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C
>> major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation.
>
> Let me add Stanley Jordan's guitar tuned by fifths which looks fairly
> chromatic to me.

What about "_deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that
string instruments have their controls dictated by physics)" did you not
understand?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[David Kastrup]

Francisco Vila  writes:

> 2011/3/14 David Kastrup :
>> Francisco Vila  writes:
>>
>>> 2011/3/14 David Kastrup :
 The _only_ non-fringe (and you
 might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_
 designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have
 their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion.

 Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its
 controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C
 major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation.
>>>
>>> Let me add Stanley Jordan's guitar tuned by fifths which looks fairly
>>> chromatic to me.
>>
>> What about "_deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that
>> string instruments have their controls dictated by physics)" did you not
>> understand?
>
> Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic.  I did not mention
> fretless instruments.

So please explain how you are would sort frets into a diatonic scale
arrangement corresponding to white keys on a piano, with the frets
corresponding to black keys put someplace else.

The frets in a guitar are not _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic
scale, but because their positioning is dictated by physics.

Contrast that with a flute or a saxophone or anything else with a
_deliberate_ design of controls.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

ly file giving error when trying to generate PDF

[Gabriel Espelleta]

I have tried to generate a PDF out of this here below file, but it does not
work. Any advise?

\version "2.10.3"

 violinoprincipale = {
 \set Staff.instrumentName = \markup { \center-align { "Violino" "principale." 
} }
 \set Staff.midiInstrument = "violin"
 \clef treble
 \key d \major
 \time 4/4
 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 
R1 R1
 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
 r4 \appoggiatura a16 a'4 \appoggiatura cis'16 cis''4 \appoggiatura e'16 e''4
 \appoggiatura g'16 g''4 \appoggiatura a'16 a''4 \appoggiatura cis''16 cis'''4
\appoggiatura e''16 e'''4
 \override TupletNumber #'transparent = ##t
 \override TupletBracket #'transparent = ##t
 \appoggiatura g''16 g'''2\sf~ \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 
4)
 \times 2/3 { g'''8([ fis''' e'''] d'''[ e''' cis''']) }
 \appoggiatura g''16 g'''2\sf~ \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 
4)
 \times 2/3 { g'''8([ fis''' e'''] d'''[ e''' cis''']) g'''\p([ fis''' e''']
d'''[ e''' cis'''] d'''[ b'' cis'''] a''[ b'' g'']
 a''[ fis'' g''] e''[ fis'' d''] e''[ cis'' d''] b'[ cis'' a'] b'[ g' a'] fis'[
g' e'] fis'[ d' e'] cis'[ d' b]
 cis'[ a b] gis[ b a] gis[ b a] gis[ b a]) }
 a16\<( cis') b( d') cis'( e') d'( fis') e'( g') cis'( e') d'( fis') e'( g'\!)
 fis'( a') g'( b') a'( cis'') b'( d'') cis''( e'') a'( cis'') b'( d'') cis''( 
e'')
 d''( fis'') e''( g'') fis''( a'') g''( b'') a''( cis''') b''( d''') cis'''(
e''') d'''( fis''')
 e'''16 g''' e''' d''' cis''' b'' a'' b'' cis''' d''' e''' fis''' g''' a''' b'''
cis
 d4 r4 r4 \times 2/3 { a''8[ d''' fis'''] }
 a'''2_\markup { \italic "dolce" }( b'''2) a'''4( g'''2 fis'''8 g'''16 fis''')
 e'''8( fis'''16 e''' d'''8 e'''16 d''' cis'''8 b''16 cis''' d'''8 cis'''16
d''') e'''4 r4 r2
 g'''2_\markup { \italic "cresc." }( fis'''4 g'''8 a''') ais'''4( b'''2\sf\>)
a'''8( b'''16 a'''\!)
 g'''8( a'''16 g''' fis'''8 g'''16 fis''' e'''8 fis'''16 g''' gis'''8 a'''16
e''') g'''!2( fis'''4) r4 R1
 \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
 \times 2/3 { g8\f([ cis' e'] g'[ cis'' e''] g''[ cis''' e''']) g'''[ g''' g''']
} g'''4 r4 r2
 \times 2/3 { g8([ cis' e'] g'[ cis'' e''] g''[ cis''' e''']) g'''[ b''' b'''] }
 b'''8 b''4 b''8 a'''8_\markup { \italic "dimin." } a''4 a''8 g'''8 g''4 g''8
fis'''8 fis''4 fis''8
 e''16( fis'' e'' dis'' e'' fis'' g'' fis'' e'' fis'' e'' d'' cis'' d'' cis''
b') a'( b' cis'' d'' e'' d'' cis'' b' a' b' a' g' fis' g' fis' e')
 d'4 r4 r2 R1 R1 R1
 R1 R1 R1 R1 \appoggiatura d'16 d''2_\markup { \italic "dolce" }~ d''8 e'16([
e'']) f'( f'') g'( g'')
 a'( a'') b'( b'') cis''( cis''') d''( d''') e''( e''') f''( f''') d'( d'') d'( 
d'')
 e''2~ e''8 g''16( f'') a''( g'') bes''( a'') c'''( bes'') d'''( c''') e'''(
d''') f'''( e''') g'''( f''') a'''( g''') e'( e'') e'( e'')
 \appoggiatura f'16 f''2~ f''16 c'' d'' e'' f'' g'' a'' bes'' c''' a'' bes'' 
c'''
 d'''8.^\markup { \translate #(cons 2 -1) { \musicglyph #"scripts.turn" } }
e'''16 f'''16 c''' d''' e'''
 f'''8.^\markup { \translate #(cons 2 -1) { \musicglyph #"scripts.turn" } }
g'''16 a'''2~
 \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
 \times 2/3 { a'''8[ a'''( dis'''] c'''[ dis''' c'''] b''![ dis''' b''] c'''[
dis''' c'''] b''[ dis''' b''] a''[ dis''' a'']) }
 e'''16 e'' gis'' b'' e''' d'''! c''' b'' d''' c''' b'' c''' d''' c''' b'' a''
gis'' b'' e'' f'' e'' d''! c'' b'
 d'' c'' b' c'' a' b' c'' a' gis' e' gis' b' e'' d'' c'' b' d'' c'' b' c'' a' b'
c'' a'
 gis'16 b' e' f' e' d'! c' b d' c' b c' a b c' a gis\f b e' dis' e' b c' a gis b
e' dis' e' b c' a
 gis b e' dis' e' b gis' fis' e' gis' b' a' gis' b' e'' dis'' e'' b' gis'' fis''
e'' gis'' b'' a'' gis'' a'' fis'' gis''
 e'' fis'' dis'' fis'' e'' fis'' dis'' fis'' e'' fis'' dis'' fis'' e'' fis''
dis'' fis'' e'' fis'' dis'' fis''
 \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
 \times 2/3 { e''8_\markup { \italic "dimin." }[( fis'') dis''\staccato] e''([
gis'' dis''] e''[ fis'' dis''])
 e''[( e''') e''\staccato] } e''1~ \startTrillSpan e''1_\markup { \italic
"dolce" }~ e''1~ e''1~ e''2.
 fis''16( \stopTrillSpan gis'' a'' b'') cis'''4( d''' e''' fis'''8 gis''')
a'''2( e''') fis'''4( d''' b'' e''')
 \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
 \times 2/3 { a''8[ e'\staccato f'\staccato] fis'\staccato[ g'\staccato
gis'\staccato]
 a'[\staccato bes'\staccato b'\staccato] c''\staccato[ d''\staccato 
dis''\staccato]
 e''[ e' e''] d''![ d'! d''] c''[ c' c''] b'[ b b'] a[ a' e'] c''[ a' e''] c''[
a'' e''] c'''[ a'' e''] }
 b16[ e' d'' e'] a[ e' c'' e'] gis[ e' b' e'] a[ e' c'' e']
 \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
 \times 2/3 { gis8[ b' gis'] e''[ b' gis''] e''[ b'' gis''] e'''[ e''' e''']
e'''[ e'' e'''] d'''[ d'' d'''] c'''[ c'' c'''] b''[ b' b'']
 a'\staccato[ gis''( a')] e'\staccato[ dis''( e'')] c'\staccato[ b'( c'')]
a\staccato[ gis'( a')]
 d'[ f'' a'

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Francisco Vila]

2011/3/14 David Kastrup :
> Francisco Vila  writes:
>> Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic.  I did not mention
>> fretless instruments.
>
> So please explain how you are would sort frets into a diatonic scale
> arrangement corresponding to white keys on a piano, with the frets
> corresponding to black keys put someplace else.

I a sense, frets behave like buttons.

> The frets in a guitar are not _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic
> scale, but because their positioning is dictated by physics.

Still, frets behave somewhat like buttons.

> Contrast that with a flute or a saxophone or anything else with a
> _deliberate_ design of controls.

That's why I mentioned Stanley Jordan who percutes strings against the
fretboard only, thus allowing complex two-hand polyphony and making
frets look as if they were buttons :-))

-- 
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: ly file giving error when trying to generate PDF

[Dmytro O. Redchuk]

On Mon 14 Mar 2011, 14:50 Gabriel Espelleta wrote:
> I have tried to generate a PDF out of this here below file, but it does not
> work. Any advise?
:-)

1) please, make it more readable! "one measure per line" is excellent rule,
   indeed.
2) send error message?

> 
> \version "2.10.3"
> 
>  violinoprincipale = {
>  \set Staff.instrumentName = \markup { \center-align { "Violino" 
> "principale." } }
>  \set Staff.midiInstrument = "violin"
>  \clef treble
>  \key d \major
>  \time 4/4
>  R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
>  R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 
> R1 R1 R1
>  R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
>  R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
>  r4 \appoggiatura a16 a'4 \appoggiatura cis'16 cis''4 \appoggiatura e'16 e''4
>  \appoggiatura g'16 g''4 \appoggiatura a'16 a''4 \appoggiatura cis''16 cis'''4
> \appoggiatura e''16 e'''4
>  \override TupletNumber #'transparent = ##t
>  \override TupletBracket #'transparent = ##t
>  \appoggiatura g''16 g'''2\sf~ \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 
> 1 4)
>  \times 2/3 { g'''8([ fis''' e'''] d'''[ e''' cis''']) }
>  \appoggiatura g''16 g'''2\sf~ \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 
> 1 4)
>  \times 2/3 { g'''8([ fis''' e'''] d'''[ e''' cis''']) g'''\p([ fis''' e''']
> d'''[ e''' cis'''] d'''[ b'' cis'''] a''[ b'' g'']
>  a''[ fis'' g''] e''[ fis'' d''] e''[ cis'' d''] b'[ cis'' a'] b'[ g' a'] 
> fis'[
> g' e'] fis'[ d' e'] cis'[ d' b]
>  cis'[ a b] gis[ b a] gis[ b a] gis[ b a]) }
>  a16\<( cis') b( d') cis'( e') d'( fis') e'( g') cis'( e') d'( fis') e'( g'\!)
>  fis'( a') g'( b') a'( cis'') b'( d'') cis''( e'') a'( cis'') b'( d'') cis''( 
> e'')
>  d''( fis'') e''( g'') fis''( a'') g''( b'') a''( cis''') b''( d''') cis'''(
> e''') d'''( fis''')
>  e'''16 g''' e''' d''' cis''' b'' a'' b'' cis''' d''' e''' fis''' g''' a''' 
> b'''
> cis
>  d4 r4 r4 \times 2/3 { a''8[ d''' fis'''] }
>  a'''2_\markup { \italic "dolce" }( b'''2) a'''4( g'''2 fis'''8 g'''16 fis''')
>  e'''8( fis'''16 e''' d'''8 e'''16 d''' cis'''8 b''16 cis''' d'''8 cis'''16
> d''') e'''4 r4 r2
>  g'''2_\markup { \italic "cresc." }( fis'''4 g'''8 a''') ais'''4( b'''2\sf\>)
> a'''8( b'''16 a'''\!)
>  g'''8( a'''16 g''' fis'''8 g'''16 fis''' e'''8 fis'''16 g''' gis'''8 a'''16
> e''') g'''!2( fis'''4) r4 R1
>  \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
>  \times 2/3 { g8\f([ cis' e'] g'[ cis'' e''] g''[ cis''' e''']) g'''[ g''' 
> g''']
> } g'''4 r4 r2
>  \times 2/3 { g8([ cis' e'] g'[ cis'' e''] g''[ cis''' e''']) g'''[ b''' 
> b'''] }
>  b'''8 b''4 b''8 a'''8_\markup { \italic "dimin." } a''4 a''8 g'''8 g''4 g''8
> fis'''8 fis''4 fis''8
>  e''16( fis'' e'' dis'' e'' fis'' g'' fis'' e'' fis'' e'' d'' cis'' d'' cis''
> b') a'( b' cis'' d'' e'' d'' cis'' b' a' b' a' g' fis' g' fis' e')
>  d'4 r4 r2 R1 R1 R1
>  R1 R1 R1 R1 \appoggiatura d'16 d''2_\markup { \italic "dolce" }~ d''8 e'16([
> e'']) f'( f'') g'( g'')
>  a'( a'') b'( b'') cis''( cis''') d''( d''') e''( e''') f''( f''') d'( d'') 
> d'( d'')
>  e''2~ e''8 g''16( f'') a''( g'') bes''( a'') c'''( bes'') d'''( c''') e'''(
> d''') f'''( e''') g'''( f''') a'''( g''') e'( e'') e'( e'')
>  \appoggiatura f'16 f''2~ f''16 c'' d'' e'' f'' g'' a'' bes'' c''' a'' bes'' 
> c'''
>  d'''8.^\markup { \translate #(cons 2 -1) { \musicglyph #"scripts.turn" } }
> e'''16 f'''16 c''' d''' e'''
>  f'''8.^\markup { \translate #(cons 2 -1) { \musicglyph #"scripts.turn" } }
> g'''16 a'''2~
>  \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
>  \times 2/3 { a'''8[ a'''( dis'''] c'''[ dis''' c'''] b''![ dis''' b''] c'''[
> dis''' c'''] b''[ dis''' b''] a''[ dis''' a'']) }
>  e'''16 e'' gis'' b'' e''' d'''! c''' b'' d''' c''' b'' c''' d''' c''' b'' a''
> gis'' b'' e'' f'' e'' d''! c'' b'
>  d'' c'' b' c'' a' b' c'' a' gis' e' gis' b' e'' d'' c'' b' d'' c'' b' c'' a' 
> b'
> c'' a'
>  gis'16 b' e' f' e' d'! c' b d' c' b c' a b c' a gis\f b e' dis' e' b c' a 
> gis b
> e' dis' e' b c' a
>  gis b e' dis' e' b gis' fis' e' gis' b' a' gis' b' e'' dis'' e'' b' gis'' 
> fis''
> e'' gis'' b'' a'' gis'' a'' fis'' gis''
>  e'' fis'' dis'' fis'' e'' fis'' dis'' fis'' e'' fis'' dis'' fis'' e'' fis''
> dis'' fis'' e'' fis'' dis'' fis''
>  \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
>  \times 2/3 { e''8_\markup { \italic "dimin." }[( fis'') dis''\staccato] e''([
> gis'' dis''] e''[ fis'' dis''])
>  e''[( e''') e''\staccato] } e''1~ \startTrillSpan e''1_\markup { \italic
> "dolce" }~ e''1~ e''1~ e''2.
>  fis''16( \stopTrillSpan gis'' a'' b'') cis'''4( d''' e''' fis'''8 gis''')
> a'''2( e''') fis'''4( d''' b'' e''')
>  \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
>  \times 2/3 { a''8[ e'\staccato f'\staccato] fis'\staccato[ g'\staccato
> gis'\staccato]
>  a'[\staccato bes'\staccato b'\staccato] c''\staccato[ d''\staccato 
> dis''\staccato]
>  e''[ e' e''] d''![ d'! d''] c''[ c' c''] b'[ b b'] a[ a' e'] c''[ a' e''] 
> c''[
> a'' 

Re: ly file giving error when trying to generate PDF

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gabriel Espelleta" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:50 PM
Subject: ly file giving error when trying to generate PDF



I have tried to generate a PDF out of this here below file, but it does not
work. Any advise?



Please read 
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/learning/dealing-with-errors


The file you have attached is far too large for anyone to spend time trying 
to debug for you.  If you can cut this down to a smaller non-working file, 
you may get more help.


You might also consider upgrading - 2.12.3 is now the main stable version, 
and 2.13.54 is a stable development version.


--
Phil Holmes



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Michael Ellis]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Francisco Vila  wrote:
>
> 2011/3/14 David Kastrup :
> > Francisco Vila  writes:
> >> Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic.  I did not mention
> >> fretless instruments.
> >
> > So please explain how you are would sort frets into a diatonic scale
> > arrangement corresponding to white keys on a piano, with the frets
> > corresponding to black keys put someplace else.
>
> I a sense, frets behave like buttons.
>
> > The frets in a guitar are not _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic
> > scale, but because their positioning is dictated by physics.
>
> Still, frets behave somewhat like buttons.
>
> > Contrast that with a flute or a saxophone or anything else with a
> > _deliberate_ design of controls.
>
> That's why I mentioned Stanley Jordan who percutes strings against the
> fretboard only, thus allowing complex two-hand polyphony and making
> frets look as if they were buttons :-))
>
I'm not familiar with Stanley Jordan's music but a guitar tuned by
fifths,  like a cello or violin, has a very convenient relationship to
diatonic scales because the first 3 modes (ionian, dorian, and
phrygian)  have symmetric tetrachords starting on the 1st and 5th
degrees of each mode.   See the diagram below.

  HEAD
---
.  .   .  .   .  .
c g  d a  e b
.  .   .  .   f  c
d a  e b  .  .
.  .   f  c  g d
e b  .  .   .  .
f  c  g d  a b



So the major scale patterns are very easy to visualize.  Of course you
need to have huge hands or play high on the neck to execute them
without shifting.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Michael Ellis]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Michael Ellis
 wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Francisco Vila  
> wrote:
>>
>> 2011/3/14 David Kastrup :
>> > Francisco Vila  writes:
>> >> Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic.  I did not mention
>> >> fretless instruments.
>> >
>> > So please explain how you are would sort frets into a diatonic scale
>> > arrangement corresponding to white keys on a piano, with the frets
>> > corresponding to black keys put someplace else.
>>
>> I a sense, frets behave like buttons.
>>
>> > The frets in a guitar are not _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic
>> > scale, but because their positioning is dictated by physics.
>>
>> Still, frets behave somewhat like buttons.
>>
>> > Contrast that with a flute or a saxophone or anything else with a
>> > _deliberate_ design of controls.
>>
>> That's why I mentioned Stanley Jordan who percutes strings against the
>> fretboard only, thus allowing complex two-hand polyphony and making
>> frets look as if they were buttons :-))
>>
> I'm not familiar with Stanley Jordan's music but a guitar tuned by
> fifths,  like a cello or violin, has a very convenient relationship to
> diatonic scales because the first 3 modes (ionian, dorian, and
> phrygian)  have symmetric tetrachords starting on the 1st and 5th
> degrees of each mode.   See the diagram below.
>
>  HEAD
> ---
> .  .   .  .   .  .
> c g  d a  e b
> .  .   .  .   f  c
> d a  e b  .  .
> .  .   f  c  g d
> e b  .  .   .  .
> f  c  g d  a b
>
>
>
> So the major scale patterns are very easy to visualize.  Of course you
> need to have huge hands or play high on the neck to execute them
> without shifting.
>

Oops! Typo in last line of diagram.  Highest note is, of course, "e"
instead of "b".

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[David Rogers]

* David Kastrup  [2011-03-14 14:40]:


And 99% of all musical literature is _scale-oriented_ rather than
_interval_-oriented.  So even singers tend to be better off with a
notation focusing on scales rather than intervals, unless they happen to
sing Schönberg.



Even if they sing Schoenberg frequently, familiarity of notation is more
important than effectiveness or elegance, and so especially in music
that they view as difficult they will insist on traditional notation in
preference over anything touted as "better". People (by and large) are
simply not going to learn a new system of notation until the majority of
others (especially including the majority of music teachers and the
majority of mainstream music publishers) have already adopted it.
Therefore ANY new system of notation is, in practical terms, doomed to
obscurity. A small circle of friends and/or students around each
notation inventor may adopt a system, but it isn't going to go farther
than that unless the advantages provided are orders of magnitude greater
than the advantages already provided by the many well-thought-out,
elegant, and interesting notation systems already swelling the trash
heap of history.

In my opinion, for starters, any new system that requires an explanation
of its features is out. If it isn't obvious without explanation, then
the advantages are probably not great enough to get anybody to switch.

--
David

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: ly file giving error when trying to generate PDF

[Robin Bannister]

Gabriel Espelleta wrote:
I have tried to generate a PDF out of this here below file, 
but it does not work. 
  
  
The Lilypond code you supplied says what the lead violin should play. 
  
This, by itself, is not enough for what you are expecting. 
You must also have code which asks Lilypond to typeset this part, 
e.g. add at the end: 
  
{ \violinoprincipale }
  

2.10.33 generates the PDF without reporting any errors. 
  
  
Cheers, 
Robin


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: ly file giving error when trying to generate PDF

[Trevor Daniels]

Gabriel

Try adding

\score {
 \violinoprincipale
}

to the bottom.

Trevor

- Original Message - 
From: "Gabriel Espelleta" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:50 PM
Subject: ly file giving error when trying to generate PDF


I have tried to generate a PDF out of this here below file, but it 
does not

work. Any advise?

\version "2.10.3"

violinoprincipale = {
\set Staff.instrumentName = \markup { \center-align { "Violino" 
"principale." } }

\set Staff.midiInstrument = "violin"
\clef treble
\key d \major
\time 4/4
R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 
R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 
R1 R1 R1

R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
r4 \appoggiatura a16 a'4 \appoggiatura cis'16 cis''4 \appoggiatura 
e'16 e''4
\appoggiatura g'16 g''4 \appoggiatura a'16 a''4 \appoggiatura 
cis''16 cis'''4

\appoggiatura e''16 e'''4
\override TupletNumber #'transparent = ##t
\override TupletBracket #'transparent = ##t
\appoggiatura g''16 g'''2\sf~ \set tupletSpannerDuration = 
#(ly:make-moment 1 4)

\times 2/3 { g'''8([ fis''' e'''] d'''[ e''' cis''']) }
\appoggiatura g''16 g'''2\sf~ \set tupletSpannerDuration = 
#(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 { g'''8([ fis''' e'''] d'''[ e''' cis''']) g'''\p([ 
fis''' e''']

d'''[ e''' cis'''] d'''[ b'' cis'''] a''[ b'' g'']
a''[ fis'' g''] e''[ fis'' d''] e''[ cis'' d''] b'[ cis'' a'] 
b'[ g' a'] fis'[

g' e'] fis'[ d' e'] cis'[ d' b]
cis'[ a b] gis[ b a] gis[ b a] gis[ b a]) }
a16\<( cis') b( d') cis'( e') d'( fis') e'( g') cis'( e') d'( 
fis') e'( g'\!)
fis'( a') g'( b') a'( cis'') b'( d'') cis''( e'') a'( cis'') b'( 
d'') cis''( e'')
d''( fis'') e''( g'') fis''( a'') g''( b'') a''( cis''') b''( 
d''') cis'''(

e''') d'''( fis''')
e'''16 g''' e''' d''' cis''' b'' a'' b'' cis''' d''' e''' fis''' 
g''' a''' b'''

cis
d4 r4 r4 \times 2/3 { a''8[ d''' fis'''] }
a'''2_\markup { \italic "dolce" }( b'''2) a'''4( g'''2 fis'''8 
g'''16 fis''')
e'''8( fis'''16 e''' d'''8 e'''16 d''' cis'''8 b''16 cis''' d'''8 
cis'''16

d''') e'''4 r4 r2
g'''2_\markup { \italic "cresc." }( fis'''4 g'''8 a''') ais'''4( 
b'''2\sf\>)

a'''8( b'''16 a'''\!)
g'''8( a'''16 g''' fis'''8 g'''16 fis''' e'''8 fis'''16 g''' 
gis'''8 a'''16

e''') g'''!2( fis'''4) r4 R1
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 { g8\f([ cis' e'] g'[ cis'' e''] g''[ cis''' e''']) 
g'''[ g''' g''']

} g'''4 r4 r2
\times 2/3 { g8([ cis' e'] g'[ cis'' e''] g''[ cis''' e''']) 
g'''[ b''' b'''] }
b'''8 b''4 b''8 a'''8_\markup { \italic "dimin." } a''4 a''8 g'''8 
g''4 g''8

fis'''8 fis''4 fis''8
e''16( fis'' e'' dis'' e'' fis'' g'' fis'' e'' fis'' e'' d'' cis'' 
d'' cis''

b') a'( b' cis'' d'' e'' d'' cis'' b' a' b' a' g' fis' g' fis' e')
d'4 r4 r2 R1 R1 R1
R1 R1 R1 R1 \appoggiatura d'16 d''2_\markup { \italic "dolce" }~ 
d''8 e'16([

e'']) f'( f'') g'( g'')
a'( a'') b'( b'') cis''( cis''') d''( d''') e''( e''') f''( f''') 
d'( d'') d'( d'')
e''2~ e''8 g''16( f'') a''( g'') bes''( a'') c'''( bes'') d'''( 
c''') e'''(

d''') f'''( e''') g'''( f''') a'''( g''') e'( e'') e'( e'')
\appoggiatura f'16 f''2~ f''16 c'' d'' e'' f'' g'' a'' bes'' c''' 
a'' bes'' c'''
d'''8.^\markup { \translate #(cons 2 -1) { \musicglyph 
#"scripts.turn" } }

e'''16 f'''16 c''' d''' e'''
f'''8.^\markup { \translate #(cons 2 -1) { \musicglyph 
#"scripts.turn" } }

g'''16 a'''2~
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 { a'''8[ a'''( dis'''] c'''[ dis''' c'''] b''![ dis''' 
b''] c'''[

dis''' c'''] b''[ dis''' b''] a''[ dis''' a'']) }
e'''16 e'' gis'' b'' e''' d'''! c''' b'' d''' c''' b'' c''' d''' 
c''' b'' a''

gis'' b'' e'' f'' e'' d''! c'' b'
d'' c'' b' c'' a' b' c'' a' gis' e' gis' b' e'' d'' c'' b' d'' c'' 
b' c'' a' b'

c'' a'
gis'16 b' e' f' e' d'! c' b d' c' b c' a b c' a gis\f b e' dis' e' 
b c' a gis b

e' dis' e' b c' a
gis b e' dis' e' b gis' fis' e' gis' b' a' gis' b' e'' dis'' e'' 
b' gis'' fis''

e'' gis'' b'' a'' gis'' a'' fis'' gis''
e'' fis'' dis'' fis'' e'' fis'' dis'' fis'' e'' fis'' dis'' fis'' 
e'' fis''

dis'' fis'' e'' fis'' dis'' fis''
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 { e''8_\markup { \italic "dimin." }[( fis'') 
dis''\staccato] e''([

gis'' dis''] e''[ fis'' dis''])
e''[( e''') e''\staccato] } e''1~ \startTrillSpan e''1_\markup { 
\italic

"dolce" }~ e''1~ e''1~ e''2.
fis''16( \stopTrillSpan gis'' a'' b'') cis'''4( d''' e''' fis'''8 
gis''')

a'''2( e''') fis'''4( d''' b'' e''')
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 { a''8[ e'\staccato f'\staccato] fis'\staccato[ 
g'\staccato

gis'\staccato]
a'[\staccato bes'\staccato b'\staccato] c''\staccato[ d''\staccato 
dis''\staccato]
e''[ e' e''] d''![ d'! d''] c''[ c' c''] b'[ b b'] a[ a' e'] 
c''[ a' e''] c''[

a'' e''] c'''[ a'' e''] }
b16[ e' d'' e'] a[ e' c'' e'] gis[ e' b' e'] a[ e' c'' e']
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\time

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Francisco Vila]

2011/3/14 Michael Ellis :
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Francisco Vila  
> wrote:
>>
>> 2011/3/14 David Kastrup :
>> > Francisco Vila  writes:
>> >> Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic.  I did not mention
>> >> fretless instruments.
>> >
>> > So please explain how you are would sort frets into a diatonic scale
>> > arrangement corresponding to white keys on a piano, with the frets
>> > corresponding to black keys put someplace else.
>>
>> I a sense, frets behave like buttons.
>>
>> > The frets in a guitar are not _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic
>> > scale, but because their positioning is dictated by physics.
>>
>> Still, frets behave somewhat like buttons.
>>
>> > Contrast that with a flute or a saxophone or anything else with a
>> > _deliberate_ design of controls.
>>
>> That's why I mentioned Stanley Jordan who percutes strings against the
>> fretboard only, thus allowing complex two-hand polyphony and making
>> frets look as if they were buttons :-))
>>
> I'm not familiar with Stanley Jordan's music but a guitar tuned by
> fifths,  like a cello or violin, has a very convenient relationship to
> diatonic scales because the first 3 modes (ionian, dorian, and
> phrygian)  have symmetric tetrachords starting on the 1st and 5th
> degrees of each mode.   See the diagram below.

Something very similar applies to chromatic button accordion, it
offers an even more convenient relationship to diatonic scales despite
of the fact that the controls are specifically chromatic.

-- 
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Marc Weber]

Excerpts from David Rogers's message of Mon Mar 14 16:11:47 + 2011:
> In my opinion, for starters, any new system that requires an explanation
> of its features is out. If it isn't obvious without explanation, then
> the advantages are probably not great enough to get anybody to switch.

:) Of course you all are right. Getting trained on music system takes
effort and time. So nobody knowing it will switch.

But you got the point: Its not obvious why e-f is a semitone having the
same visual appearance as let's say c-d.
You have to explain that. You have to learn it. You have to pay
attention to it if you're playing two voices one written in Es, the
other in C...

The last is the main point. My mother started playing the Saxophone
(Es). The other instruments we have at home are Xaphoone's (C,As).

So there is no choice: Either we have to rewrite notes or transpose on
the fly (which means one is waiting for the other).

http://musicnotation.org/musicnotations/gallery.html
The link is fine. And its crazy to see how many different systems have
been tried. However they all are base don the e-f semi step.

I feel that some people playing music only once a year would benefit
from equal appearance meaning equal intervals. This would help them
recognize intervals faster etc.

I know that there is no way rewriting traditional music. There is too
much available.

I still think it should be easier for untrained people to get started
with music. That's all.

Marc Weber

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[David Kastrup]

Marc Weber  writes:

> I feel that some people playing music only once a year would benefit
> from equal appearance meaning equal intervals.

Only if they are playing an instrument where equal intervals are
represented by equal key distances.

Since that is not the case for most instruments (in particular not for
piano keyboards), they have nothing to gain from a notation matching
better what they hear rather than what they need to play.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Marc Weber]

Excerpts from David Kastrup's message of Mon Mar 14 16:32:56 + 2011:
> Since that is not the case for most instruments (in particular not for
> piano keyboards), they have nothing to gain from a notation matching
> better what they hear rather than what they need to play.
First this could be changed (I know nobody will be doing so ..)

Second: You're wrong. By giving pitches numbers you'll naturally feel
than the distance 2-5 is the same as 8-11 and 27-30 and 45-48.

Thus you're brain is more likely to make the association about the same
intervals being equal.

Thus you don't think mentally: I have to play C-E but you think
manually: I have to play 12-16 and every musician who went to school
will instantly know that those are 4 semi tones.

If you try to teach a grown man /woman about intervals it must sound
crazy to them. They will never know instantly that a fifth up on g is a
d. But they will always (instantly!) know that 7 + 7 will be 14 (which would
represent a d)

And this gain will also apply to piano players.

I'm not talking about professionals who are spending 8 hours in front of
the piano each day anyway..

I'm talking about people who have a day job and do this just for fun.

Marc Weber

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[David Kastrup]

Marc Weber  writes:

> Excerpts from David Kastrup's message of Mon Mar 14 16:32:56 + 2011:
>> Since that is not the case for most instruments (in particular not for
>> piano keyboards), they have nothing to gain from a notation matching
>> better what they hear rather than what they need to play.
> First this could be changed (I know nobody will be doing so ..)
>
> Second: You're wrong. By giving pitches numbers you'll naturally feel
> than the distance 2-5 is the same as 8-11 and 27-30 and 45-48.

A piano has keys, not numbers.

> I'm not talking about professionals who are spending 8 hours in front
> of the piano each day anyway..
>
> I'm talking about people who have a day job and do this just for fun.

You'll find that at the end of the day, they sit down at a keyboard
rather than just letting intervals play by numbers in their head.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Bernardo Barros]

2011/3/14 Marc Weber :
> Second: You're wrong. By giving pitches numbers you'll naturally feel
> than the distance 2-5 is the same as 8-11 and 27-30 and 45-48.

And how would you represent quarter-tones? 5.5? And other kinds of
tonal inflections?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Marc Weber]

Excerpts from David Kastrup's message of Mon Mar 14 16:58:39 + 2011:
> You'll find that at the end of the day, they sit down at a keyboard
> rather than just letting intervals play by numbers in their head.
 
*g*. I agree. The goal in all cases is: read a stream of music from
paper, hear it in your head before playing it on any instrument.

I'd expect that you can reach this state faster if notes are represented
more logical. However I don't have an empirical proof yet.

quarter tones? They are seldomly used in Germany. .5 .. why not?

Marc Weber

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[info]

On Mon, March 14, 2011 6:02 pm, Bernardo Barros wrote:
> 2011/3/14 Marc Weber :
>> Second: You're wrong. By giving pitches numbers you'll naturally feel
>> than the distance 2-5 is the same as 8-11 and 27-30 and 45-48.
>
> And how would you represent quarter-tones? 5.5? And other kinds of
> tonal inflections?
>

That's how software like Pure Data deals with it..
As a composer working often with algorythms, number for notes feels
'natural' for me, but i'm afraid it would be hard to convince musicians to
read from them.

one line per note otoh, doesn't seem such a strange system to me. people
who work in 'piano roll' view in sequencers are used to think this way..
i've seen people who 'can't read notes' intuitively create melodies this
way in no time..

cheers,

Kristof


http://soundcloud.com/kristof-lauwers
http://kristoflauwers.domainepublic.net


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Bernardo Barros]

Then you know that 6A is one octave above 5A, etc. Not that crazy
midinote notation..

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Bernardo Barros]

we have a decimal system and you want to represent a numeral system
based on 12 or 24 like [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B].
You should propose a system base on 12 or 24 then.

In computer science they use the hexadecimal system because it fits
computer's bytes representation, if your object is the 12-tone scale,
be consistent with your system :-)

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[info]

On Mon, March 14, 2011 6:57 pm, Bernardo Barros wrote:
> we have a decimal system and you want to represent a numeral system
> based on 12 or 24 like [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B].
> You should propose a system base on 12 or 24 then.
>
> In computer science they use the hexadecimal system because it fits
> computer's bytes representation, if your object is the 12-tone scale,
> be consistent with your system :-)
>

in practice, most computer programmers think in midi notes: 60 being
middle C, 72 the C above that, ...
as an extension, some software allows 'factional midi notes' (although
they are not in the midi standard, and hardware synths won't understand
them). so 62.33 is on third of a semitone higher then D. this is not as
far fetched as it may seem. i use it e.g. to present overtone scales in
just intonation..




http://soundcloud.com/kristof-lauwers
http://kristoflauwers.domainepublic.net


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Removing Time Signature entirely (not just transparent)

[ctesta]

Hello Everyone,

I am working on some highly customized notation for proportionally notated
phase music. I need all of the beats on the page to take up the same
amount of space so that the rhythms can be clearly seen. What I need to do
now is to take away the time signature in the first line entirely (not
just make it transparent). I need to take it away entirely because if I
make it transparent it still takes up space and makes the first line have
a smaller proportional notation than the rest of the lines.

See attached image.

I tried adding the following in the context field but that works for the
bar numbers but not the time signature.

\layout {
\context {
\Score
\remove "Bar_number_engraver"
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
}

Another issue is that I need the time signature there so that I can
control how many beats are on each line but I don't want it to show up at
all.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Carl<>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Michael Ellis]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:03 PM,   wrote:
>
> On Mon, March 14, 2011 6:57 pm, Bernardo Barros wrote:
>> we have a decimal system and you want to represent a numeral system
>> based on 12 or 24 like [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B].
>> You should propose a system base on 12 or 24 then.
>>
>> In computer science they use the hexadecimal system because it fits
>> computer's bytes representation, if your object is the 12-tone scale,
>> be consistent with your system :-)
>>
>
> in practice, most computer programmers think in midi notes: 60 being
> middle C, 72 the C above that, ...
> as an extension, some software allows 'factional midi notes' (although
> they are not in the midi standard, and hardware synths won't understand
> them). so 62.33 is on third of a semitone higher then D. this is not as
> far fetched as it may seem. i use it e.g. to present overtone scales in
> just intonation..
>

@Marc
I think we're offering too much discouragement here instead of helping
you figure out how to use LilyPond to experiment with your ideas.  So
here's an adaptation of a script I use to generate solfege syllables
using the NoteNames engraver.  By mapping numbers to the Dutch
notenames,  you can print them under the notes.  It's probably not the
complete solution you have in mind and you may want to use a different
numbering scheme but at least you can use it to enter some real music
and see if having the chromatic note numbers under the notes is truly
helpful.

Cheers,
Mike

%
dutchtonumbers =
#`(("ceses" . "10")
   ("ces" . "11")
   ("c" . "0")
   ("cis" . "1")
   ("cisis" . "2")
   ("deses" . "0")
   ("des" . "1")
   ("d" . "2")
   ("dis" . "3")
   ("disis" . "4")
   ("eeses" . "2")
   ("ees" . "3")
   ("e" . "4")
   ("eis" . "5")
   ("eisis" . "6")
   ("feses" . "7")
   ("fes" . "4")
   ("f" . "5")
   ("fis" . "6")
   ("fisis" . "7")
   ("geses" . "5")
   ("ges" . "6")
   ("g" . "7")
   ("gis" . "8")
   ("gisis" . "9")
   ("aeses" . "7")
   ("aes" . "8")
   ("a"  . "9")
   ("ais" . "10")
   ("aisis" . "11")
   ("beses" . "9")
   ("bes" . "10")
   ("b"   . "11")
   ("bis"   . "0")
   ("bisis" . "1")
   )

noteNumbers =
#(lambda (grob)
   (let* ((default-name (ly:grob-property grob 'text))
  (new-name (assoc-get default-name dutchtonumbers)))
 (ly:grob-set-property!
   grob
   'text
   (markup #:italic #:smaller new-name))
 (ly:text-interface::print grob)))

mymusic = \relative c' { c d e f g a b c }

\score {
<<
\new Voice {
\mymusic
}

\context NoteNames \with {
\override NoteName #'stencil = #noteNumbers
} {  \mymusic }

>>
}
%
<>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Removing Time Signature entirely (not just transparent)

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: 

To: 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 6:23 PM
Subject: Removing Time Signature entirely (not just transparent)



Hello Everyone,

I am working on some highly customized notation for proportionally notated
phase music. I need all of the beats on the page to take up the same
amount of space so that the rhythms can be clearly seen. What I need to do
now is to take away the time signature in the first line entirely (not
just make it transparent). I need to take it away entirely because if I
make it transparent it still takes up space and makes the first line have
a smaller proportional notation than the rest of the lines.

See attached image.

I tried adding the following in the context field but that works for the
bar numbers but not the time signature.

\layout {
\context {
\Score
\remove "Bar_number_engraver"
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
}

Another issue is that I need the time signature there so that I can
control how many beats are on each line but I don't want it to show up at
all.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Carl
The Time_signature_engraver is part of the staff context, so you need to 
remove it from that, with something like:


\new Staff \with {
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
}
<<
MusicHere







--
Phil Holmes



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

\score block as variable/function

[Xavier Scheuer]

Hi,

I use  \score  blocks inside  \markup in constructions like this one:

\markup {
  \fill-line {
\score {
  c'1
  \layout {}  % required!
}
\score {
  d'1
  \layout {}
}
  }
}

but it is heavy.

I would like to define the  \score  blocks as variables or as music
functions.  Unfortunately it seems impossible.

I tried

  scoreOne = \score {
c'1
\layout {}  % required!
  }

  \markup {
\column {
  \scoreOne
}
  }

which gives "Error : syntax error, unexpected SCORE_IDENTIFIER".

I tried also

  scoreTwo = #(define-music-function (parser location foo)
 (ly:music?)
#{
  \score {
$foo
\layout {}
  }
#}
  )

  \markup {
\column {
  \scoreTwo d'1
}
  }

but it fails also : "Error : syntax error, unexpected MUSIC_FUNCTION".

Any idea would be welcome!
Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
Xavier

-- 
Xavier Scheuer 

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Removing Time Signature entirely (not just transparent)

[Bernardo Barros]

Hi Carl,

I'm also trying to get as precise as possible proportional notation. I
see you also came up with the idea os positioning the beams in the
middle of the notehead. I got trouble to write a scheme function that
knows when the stem is up or down. You seem to have done this better!

How did you do this?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: left-aligning grobs to other grobs

[David Nalesnik]

On 3/14/11, Gilles THIBAULT  wrote:

>> Attached is a function . . .
>
> Wahoo. Seems to be a very powerfull function. I keep it in my favorites.
> Thanks David.

Glad you can use it!

> NB
> If the user enters the value 2 for example as the dir parameter, the
> function fails.
> Using = < and >  in the last cond expression avoids that.
> (ly:grob-set-property! grob 'extra-offset
>  `(,(cond ((< $dir 0) (- (ly:grob-relative-coordinate ref sys X)
>default-coord))
>((= $dir 0)  (- (interval-center (ly:grob-extent ref sys X))
>(interval-center (ly:grob-extent grob sys X
>((> $dir 0)  (- (cdr (ly:grob-extent ref sys X))
>(cdr (ly:grob-extent grob sys X)
>
>. ,$corr)

Thank you very much!  This also fixes the issue of what to do with decimals.

--David

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Removing Time Signature entirely (not just transparent)

[Marc Hohl]

Am 14.03.2011 19:23, schrieb cte...@wesleyan.edu:

Hello Everyone,

I am working on some highly customized notation for proportionally notated
phase music. I need all of the beats on the page to take up the same
amount of space so that the rhythms can be clearly seen. What I need to do
now is to take away the time signature in the first line entirely (not
just make it transparent). I need to take it away entirely because if I
make it transparent it still takes up space and makes the first line have
a smaller proportional notation than the rest of the lines.

See attached image.

A bit OT: how do you generate the clef?

Marc


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[David Nalesnik]

> @Marc
> I think we're offering too much discouragement here instead of helping
> you figure out how to use LilyPond to experiment with your ideas.  So
> here's an adaptation of a script I use to generate solfege syllables
> using the NoteNames engraver.  By mapping numbers to the Dutch
> notenames,  you can print them under the notes.  It's probably not the
> complete solution you have in mind and you may want to use a different
> numbering scheme but at least you can use it to enter some real music
> and see if having the chromatic note numbers under the notes is truly
> helpful.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>

Mike,

Beautiful!  Now I can prepare set-theory examples for classes!

--David

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Removing Time Signature entirely (not just transparent)

[ctesta]

Hello Bernardo,

I created a custom notehead. Include this somewhere in your file and then
call it before your notation using \headCir

headCir = {
  \override NoteHead #'(stem-attachment) = #'(0 . 0)
  \override NoteHead #'stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
  \override NoteHead #'text = \markup {
  \halign #-0.7 \draw-circle #0.5 #0.2 ##t
  }

The bit that positions the stem in the middle is the #'(stem-attachment)
part. I made the notehead a circle because otherwise it looks strange to
use the oval shaped notehead.

Best,
Carl


> Hi Carl,
>
> I'm also trying to get as precise as possible proportional notation. I
> see you also came up with the idea os positioning the beams in the
> middle of the notehead. I got trouble to write a scheme function that
> knows when the stem is up or down. You seem to have done this better!
>
> How did you do this?
>
>



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Removing Time Signature entirely (not just transparent)

[ctesta]

Hi Marc,

Ahh yes, the custom clef. I have been having some fun with that. I am
copying some handwritten music and I'm trying to retain the character of
the music as much as possible. The clef is a design of someone else's so I
won't include how to do it. But here is the basic premise.

Here is a good snippet on the subject.
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=401

And here is the basic code I am using (with a Diamond clef instead of the
large treble clef)

%Diamond Clef
diamondClefStencil =
  #(ly:make-stencil
`(path 0.2 %thickness
  `(rmoveto 0 0 %draw the clef
rlineto 1 2
rlineto 1 -2
rlineto -1 -2
rlineto -1 2))
 (cons -0.5 1) %boundaries
 (cons -3 5))

diamondClef = { \override Staff.Clef #'stencil = \diamondClefStencil }
normalClefs = { \revert Staff.Clef #'stencil }

When you want to use the clef just place \diamondClef before hand and then
call whatever clef note positions you want to use. So it might be.

\diamondClef
\clef treble

Then you will get the diamond clef with note positions for a normal treble
clef.

I am loving how customizable Lilypond is. Computer notation doesn't have
to be generic!

Best,
Carl

> Am 14.03.2011 19:23, schrieb cte...@wesleyan.edu:
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> I am working on some highly customized notation for proportionally
>> notated
>> phase music. I need all of the beats on the page to take up the same
>> amount of space so that the rhythms can be clearly seen. What I need to
>> do
>> now is to take away the time signature in the first line entirely (not
>> just make it transparent). I need to take it away entirely because if I
>> make it transparent it still takes up space and makes the first line
>> have
>> a smaller proportional notation than the rest of the lines.
>>
>> See attached image.
> A bit OT: how do you generate the clef?
>
> Marc
>
>
>



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[David Kastrup]

i...@kristoflauwers.domainepublic.net writes:

> On Mon, March 14, 2011 6:57 pm, Bernardo Barros wrote:
>> we have a decimal system and you want to represent a numeral system
>> based on 12 or 24 like [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B].
>> You should propose a system base on 12 or 24 then.
>>
>> In computer science they use the hexadecimal system because it fits
>> computer's bytes representation, if your object is the 12-tone scale,
>> be consistent with your system :-)
>>
>
> in practice, most computer programmers think in midi notes: 60 being
> middle C, 72 the C above that, ...
> as an extension, some software allows 'factional midi notes' (although
> they are not in the midi standard, and hardware synths won't understand
> them). so 62.33 is on third of a semitone higher then D. this is not as
> far fetched as it may seem. i use it e.g. to present overtone scales in
> just intonation..

This sort of linear-think is not necessarily helpful.  Just right now I
discussed how to put Werckmeister 3 into Roland's tuning tables.  Roland
has thought it a good idea to divide a half tone into 128 steps rather
than 100 cents.  Higher resolution.

Unfortunately, a pure fifth is almost exactly 2cents off.  Werckmeister
has eight pure fifths, and four compensating fifths that are 4 cent off.

Roland's "higher resolution" means that you can't really make anything
reasonably close to Werckmeister tuning.  You get intervals that are not
pure, and the compensating fifths are not all of the same size.  All a
mess because computer scientists decided they'd do something clever.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: [OT] Vivi, the Virtual Violinist, plays LilyPond music

[Shane Brandes]

   As a random aside on the whole electronic music effort. On the
one hand the technology and science is very interesting, but on the
other it is somehow disturbing. I suppose since I have spent so much
of my life attempting to master keyboard instruments and having watch
so many students progress in their own studies that it seems to me
that one cold never hope to replicate a human at an instrument. There
are all sorts of odd philosophical ramifications of trying and already
certain deficits are occurring especially in the film industry on
account of such efforts. As a tool and a method of rationalizing
musical praxis it is certainly useful and convenient, but where will
the limits be? And no this not a forum for such discussion, but we
should all be conscious of these questions.
  An example of the limits of our technological advance might be
supplied by the following technical issue. The piano which is my
primary instrument, if not the primary performance vehicle, (church
organist) is an instrument that I have studied in depth, not that I
have or ever will realize any sort of mastery over it, but being
exposed to some of the great teachers on the planet has really altered
my view of what is possible. I once heard someone say that with the
advent of touch sensitive keyboards pianos were obsolete, and perhaps
years ago I might have agreed, but the mechanics of that instrument
are such that I find it doubtful that it will be ever replicated by a
electronic device for a whole host of reasons. One of my favorite
examples is that of vibrato. It never would have occurred to me that
it is possible or even relevant to piano until it was demonstrated to
me, but yet at the same time it can be achieved simply by the action
of your fingers upon the keys after they have been struck. The
difference in tone is of course not terribly obvious but yet it can
yield a completely different character to the chords thus being
treated. There are certainly other examples, but that is the one that
I find least likely to ever be replicated.  As is the simple fact that
no two people ever draw the same tone from the same instrument and
that can be startlingly different.
   Anyway sorry about the wasted bandwidth, but I really needed to do
something aimlessly constructive. And have been following this thread
all week.

regards,
Shane Brandes

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:41 AM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys  writes:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Mike Blackstock
>>  wrote:
>>> This is F*G great! Especially the Bach BWV 1006 - I could have sworn it
>>> really was a kid playing. http://percival-music.ca/audio/bwv-1006_1.wav.mp3
>>
>> To my ears, the rhythm sounded eerily exact - don't kids slow down
>> their tempo when it gets difficult?
>
> No.  They practice until they can pick their nose while playing.  When
> was the last time you heard a child prodigy?
>
> One problem is that they practice until the listeners can pick their
> nose while playing, too.
>
> Everything is there, but you find it hard to care.
>
> I get this sort of double-take when practising accordion rather often:
> focusing on playing fast enough that the listener does not get bored.
> Of course, the proper approach (and basically my only realistic chance)
> is to play it _well_ enough that the listener does not get bored.  With
> percussive instruments like a piano or harpsichord, the options for that
> are limited.  With a manually sustained instrument like string
> instruments, wind instruments, accordions and their directly controlled
> ilk (harmoniums only so-so, organs not really), you have what it takes
> to fill long notes with musical sense.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

How to print to \score { } constructs next to each other instead of underneath

[James Lowe]

Hello

A simple example

---

\version "2.13.40"

top = \relative c'' {
\clef "treble"
a b c d
}

bottom = \relative c {
\clef "bass"
a b c d
}

\score {
<<
\new Staff { \top }
\new Staff { \bottom }
>>
}

\score {
<<
\new Staff { \top }
\new Staff { \bottom }
>>
}

\score {
<<
\new Staff { \top }
\new Staff { \bottom }
>>
}

---

This prints 3 grouped staves underneath each other, how would one go about 
getting them so the three scores are running left to right instead?

I have tried things like

\score {
<<
\new Staff { \top \stopStaff s1 \startStaff \top \stopStaff s1 \startStaff \top 
\stopStaff s1 \startStaff \top }
\new Staff { \bottom \stopStaff s1 \startStaff \bottom \stopStaff s1 
\startStaff \bottom }
>>
}

But I have to then fiddle with 'forceClef' and 'full size clef' and even then 
the clef is behind the barline that gets printed, I could then remove that bar 
line manually but then it starts to get a bit complicated. So I just wondered 
if there was a way to tell LP to print a new \score to the right instead of 
underneath the one before it?

Thanks as usual for your time.

James



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Marc Weber]

 
> Bernardo Barros
0,1,...,A,B (base 12)

Yes, you're right. Tell me one programmer who can count in Hex by heart. I can
do so on paper. But I can't tell you instantly what B*C gives. (11 * 13 = ..
back to hex? let me use a calculator).

You're right. Base 12 would be fun. But its not tought in school. Thus its
harder to learn. That's why I chose 10.

I have to think about whether 6A 7A being one actove is worth this effort.
This would be a thing which must be tested in real life.

> Mike:
I'm a programmer. I know many languages upside down (unfortunately not lisp)
And I experienced the replies as being full of interest and doubts.
And there doubts are correct. I could not move to the local music orchestra
asking anybody to adopt a foreign system because they all have been trained on
the Do Re Mi .. thing for years. (They call it C D .. but its the same)

There are at least two skill sets: 
  1) make your fingers move what notes say
  2) hear and recognize sound and make your fingers move

By using alternative notations (eg write notes by using intervals: +2 +2 +2 -1 
+7)
and making pupils play it they will get a feeling for intervals faster. Thus
they will listen to the radio and start thinking: +2 -4 +8 .. and you won.
They can use this thinking on and instrument. That's what will make them appear
somewhat smarter than others.

This all only makes sense if I can make a business out of it which means:
- print music yourself
- find teachers
- find stutends
- hope that the students learn faster than using traditional systems.

After 3min practise I can write down numbers myself. That's not the real point 
right now.
Anyway thanks for your contribution :) It has helped someone else.
If I do some real tests I have to hack the core somehow. don't think
it'll be too hard though.

> David Kastrup
I'm lacking knowldege here. All I know is that in simple orchestras are using
electronic tuners here. So they don't care about whether a note is 2 cents
higher or not.

whether you have 100 cents or 128 or whether you say +20,34345 cents is only a
matter of representing a number.

I've never seen pitch annotations such as +10cent on notes. So most music huge
masses plays from paper doesnt care about it. It depends on the musician
playing.

All I wonder is: Is it worth learning that 3rd+ is the same as a 4th etc ?
Its nice to learn about history and what some componists thought about using
which notes which had assigned what char. But is it important to most musicians
today?

In Germany there is even a song such as "C A F F E, drink nicht soviel Kaffee"
which is translated to C A F F E E don't trink so much coffee. and you guess
it: the first tones are C A F F E E.  But those are corner cases.

So in this regard my ideas don't improve anything neither do they anyhting bad.


Thanks for all of your ideas!

Marc Weber

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: How to print to \score { } constructs next to each other instead of underneath

[Janek Warchoł]

2011/3/14 James Lowe 
>
> A simple example
> [...]
>
> This prints 3 grouped staves underneath each other, how would one go about 
> getting them so the three scores are running left to right instead?

Perhaps inserting scores in a markup will work for you?
See Notation Reference 1.8.2
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/formatting-text#music-notation-inside-markup

example:

top = \relative c'' {
\clef "treble"
a b c d
}

bottom = \relative c {
\clef "bass"
a b c d
}

\markup {
\line {
\score {
{c' d' e' f' g' a' b' c' }
\layout {}
  }
\score {
<<
  \new Staff { \top }
  \new Staff { \bottom }
>>
\layout {}
  }
  }
  }

HTH,
Janek

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Marc Weber schreef op ma 14-03-2011 om 21:01 [+]:

> I'm a programmer. I know many languages upside down (unfortunately not lisp)

Your brackets already match, I hear that's the hardest bit ;-)

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen  | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar®  http://AvatarAcademy.nl  


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

RE: How to print to \score { } constructs next to each other instead of underneath

[James Lowe]

Janek,

From: Janek Warchoł [lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 March 2011 21:30
To: James Lowe
Cc: LilyPond User (lilypond-user@gnu.org)
Subject: Re: How to print to \score { } constructs next to each other instead 
of underneath

2011/3/14 James Lowe 
>
> A simple example
> [...]
>
> This prints 3 grouped staves underneath each other, how would one go about 
> getting them so the three scores are running left to right instead?

Perhaps inserting scores in a markup will work for you?
See Notation Reference 1.8.2
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/formatting-text#music-notation-inside-markup

example:

top = \relative c'' {
\clef "treble"
a b c d
}

bottom = \relative c {
\clef "bass"
a b c d
}

\markup {
\line {
\score {
{c' d' e' f' g' a' b' c' }
\layout {}
  }
\score {
<<
  \new Staff { \top }
  \new Staff { \bottom }
>>
\layout {}
  }
  }
  }

HTH,
Janek

-

I appreciate that. 

That has suddenly opened up a lot of other possibilities (once I discovered 
that \textLengthOn works with this construct) and may just have just solved 
another problem I had completely forgotten about.

Have a good evening

James

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: \score block as variable/function

[Neil Puttock]

On 14 March 2011 19:11, Xavier Scheuer  wrote:

> I would like to define the  \score  blocks as variables or as music
> functions.  Unfortunately it seems impossible.
>
> I tried
>
>  scoreOne = \score {
>    c'1
>    \layout {}  % required!
>  }
>
>  \markup {
>    \column {
>      \scoreOne
>    }
>  }
>
> which gives "Error : syntax error, unexpected SCORE_IDENTIFIER".
>
> I tried also
>
>  scoreTwo = #(define-music-function (parser location foo)
>                                     (ly:music?)
>    #{
>      \score {
>        $foo
>        \layout {}
>      }
>    #}
>  )
>
>  \markup {
>    \column {
>      \scoreTwo d'1
>    }
>  }
>
> but it fails also : "Error : syntax error, unexpected MUSIC_FUNCTION".
>
> Any idea would be welcome!

You want a markup identifier, so all you need to do is put \markup
before \score:

 scoreOne = \markup \score {
   c'1
   \layout {}  % required!
 }

 \markup {
   \column {
 \scoreOne
   }
 }

Cheers,
Neil

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: RemoveEmptyStaffContext should keep at least one staff alive?

[Andrew Hawryluk]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Paul Scott  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2.13.54
>
> Does it ever make sense for RemoveEmptyStaffContext to remove all staves?
>  Should not at least one be kept alive showing the rests?
>
> Is there a way to force this behavior?  I haven't gotten the following to
> work yet to see whether it will do what I want:
>
> 
>
> TIA,
>
> Paul Scott
> Librarian
> Southern Arizona Symphony Orchestra
>
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>

Not to distract from the interesting question, but if there really
were that many rests in a real score, wouldn't you rather display that
section as a big multi-measure rest? In that case you would always be
left with some notes in each system...

Andrew

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: RemoveEmptyStaffContext should keep at least one staff alive?

[Paul Scott]

On 03/14/2011 09:00 PM, Andrew Hawryluk wrote:

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Paul Scott  wrote:
   

Hi,

2.13.54

Does it ever make sense for RemoveEmptyStaffContext to remove all staves?
  Should not at least one be kept alive showing the rests?

Is there a way to force this behavior?  I haven't gotten the following to
work yet to see whether it will do what I want:



TIA,

Paul Scott
Librarian
Southern Arizona Symphony Orchestra



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

 

Not to distract from the interesting question, but if there really
were that many rests in a real score, wouldn't you rather display that
section as a big multi-measure rest? In that case you would always be
left with some notes in each system...
   



Andrew

   


Let's say this was a French-scored bass trombone and tuba part where 
both instruments were resting for a long time which went through several 
sections.  There would be several multi-measure rests with several 
rehearsal letters in between.  This could easily take up one or more 
lines.  Currently RemoveEmptyStaffContexts removes the staves and only 
leaves the bar numbers and rehearsal marks.


In the case I'm working on now I'm adding a voice staff to my reed part 
since we are playing without a conductor.  The original typically has 4 
bars per line and there is a 4 bar rest in the reed part which should 
take up one line.


Paul


--
Paul Scott
Librarian
Southern Arizona Symphony Orchestra



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multiple LilyPond Versions

[Wilbert Berendsen]

Op vrijdag 11 maart 2011 schreef PMA:

> How can I control the installation-process's file distribution?

see the output of lilypond-x.y.z-1.linux-x86.sh --help

The --prefix option can be given a path all directories (lilypond and bin) 
will be created under. I use a prefix like ~/lilypond_bin/x.y.z-1/ so every 
version is in its own dir. Then alias lilypond to 
~/lilypond_bin/x.y.z-1/bin/lilypond to make that version accessible by simply 
typing lilypond.

best regards,
Wilbert Berendsen

-- 
Frescobaldi, LilyPond editor for KDE: http://www.frescobaldi.org/
Nederlands LilyPond forum: http://www.lilypondforum.nl/

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user