Re: vibrato squiggle
Am Mittwoch, den 20. Juni 2012 um 08:46:33 Uhr (+0200) schrieb m...@apollinemike.com: > > If you google "vibster lilypond", there used to be a snippet for 2.12 that > did something like this. I'm not sure if it works in 2.14. doesn't seem to work here: GNU LilyPond 2.14.2 Processing `/tmp/contemporary-vibrato.ly' Parsing... Interpreting music... [8][16][24][32] Preprocessing graphical objects... Finding the ideal number of pages... Fitting music on 1 page... Drawing systems...ERROR: Wrong type (expecting pair): () Compilation exited abnormally with code 1 at Wed Jun 20 09:12:31 -- Orm ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
"-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
I just encountered something curious while trying to get a list of fonts on my machine from lilypond. According to the documentation of font selection: lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x This does indeed list of fonts, but the terminal doesn't keep enough lines to see the entire list. So I thought, the UNIX command line stdout redirect should help: lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x >/home/dlm/Documents/ly/show-available-fonts.txt But the output was not redirected. It still went to the terminal window and the new file is empty. Same result piping the output to cat: lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x | cat >/home/dlm/Documents/ly/show-available-fonts.txt Is there a reason why I can't use the usual UNIXy tricks to capture stdout here? hjh -- James Harkins /// dewdrop world jamshar...@dewdrop-world.net http://www.dewdrop-world.net "Come said the Muse, Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted, Sing me the universal." -- Whitman blog: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/words audio clips: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/audio more audio: http://soundcloud.com/dewdrop_world/tracks ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
James Harkins-2 wrote: > > I just encountered something curious while trying to get a list of fonts > on my machine from lilypond. According to the documentation of font > selection: > > > > it goes to stderr - so you have to use (according to http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/usage/command_002dline-usage#invoking-lilypond) lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x 2>... hth Eluze -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/%22-dshow-available-fonts%22-vs.-UNIX-stdout--tp34041386p34041431.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
On 6/20/12, Ramana Kumar wrote: > probably lilypond isn't writing to stdout. maybe stderr? OK, let me refine the question. If it isn't using stdout, is there a good reason why is it using something else? Or is it just a bug? hjh -- James Harkins /// dewdrop world jamshar...@dewdrop-world.net http://www.dewdrop-world.net "Come said the Muse, Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted, Sing me the universal." -- Whitman blog: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/words audio clips: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/audio more audio: http://soundcloud.com/dewdrop_world/tracks ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
At 16:20 on 20 Jun 2012, James Harkins wrote: >I just encountered something curious while trying to get a list of >fonts on my machine from lilypond. According to the documentation of >font selection: > >lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x > >This does indeed list of fonts, but the terminal doesn't keep enough >lines to see the entire list. So I thought, the UNIX command line >stdout redirect should help: > >lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x >>/home/dlm/Documents/ly/show-available-fonts.txt > >But the output was not redirected. It still went to the terminal >window and the new file is empty. Output is to stderr, so: lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x 2> show-available-fonts.txt should do the trick. -- Mark Knoop ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
- Original Message - From: "James Harkins" To: "lily-users" Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:36 AM Subject: Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout? On 6/20/12, Ramana Kumar wrote: probably lilypond isn't writing to stdout. maybe stderr? OK, let me refine the question. If it isn't using stdout, is there a good reason why is it using something else? Or is it just a bug? hjh As a general rule, Unix orientated programs direct the main output of the program to stdout, and other informative messages to stderr. The main output of lilypond is the pdf, which actually goes to a file. The informative messages (e.g. a list of fonts) continue to adopt the principle of going to stderr. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
"Phil Holmes" writes: > - Original Message - > From: "James Harkins" > To: "lily-users" > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:36 AM > Subject: Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout? > > >> On 6/20/12, Ramana Kumar wrote: >>> probably lilypond isn't writing to stdout. maybe stderr? >> >> OK, let me refine the question. If it isn't using stdout, is there a >> good reason why is it using something else? Or is it just a bug? >> >> hjh > > > As a general rule, Unix orientated programs direct the main output of > the program to stdout, and other informative messages to stderr. The > main output of lilypond is the pdf, which actually goes to a file. > The informative messages (e.g. a list of fonts) continue to adopt the > principle of going to stderr. It would be arguable that an explicitly requested list of fonts is not an "informative message". For the record: if you call a typical GNU utility with bad options, it outputs correct usage information to stderr. If, in contrast, you call it with --help, it outputs correct usage information to stdout. In the first case, we are talking about diagnostics, in the second case, we are talking about requested output. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: vibrato squiggle
Mike, On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:46 AM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > If you know how to write Scheme code, it'd take about a day to code a clean > version of this. I can give you a hand w/ design stuff if you need it. Didn't you use such squiggly lines in "granini di luce beccucciati da uccelli di silenzio" (http://www.mikesolomon.org/scores/granini.pdf - demonstrated in preface, page 9/vii)? cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: vibrato squiggle
On 20 juin 2012, at 12:29, Janek Warchoł wrote: > Mike, > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:46 AM, m...@apollinemike.com > wrote: >> If you know how to write Scheme code, it'd take about a day to code a clean >> version of this. I can give you a hand w/ design stuff if you need it. > > Didn't you use such squiggly lines in "granini di luce beccucciati da > uccelli di silenzio" (http://www.mikesolomon.org/scores/granini.pdf - > demonstrated in preface, page 9/vii)? > > cheers, > Janek I did, but that was eons ago in LilyPond time and I haven't compiled the piece in years. It's not too hard to recode on the conceptual side: it just takes time and correct math. It requires linking up beziers based on spanner extents. I'd do it, but I'm running on borrowed time until September. Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
FWIW I agree that -dshow--available-fonts should write to stdout. Is it typical to use that argument with any other arguments or an input file? (Maybe that should also be disallowed.) On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:38 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > "Phil Holmes" writes: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "James Harkins" > > To: "lily-users" > > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:36 AM > > Subject: Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout? > > > > > >> On 6/20/12, Ramana Kumar wrote: > >>> probably lilypond isn't writing to stdout. maybe stderr? > >> > >> OK, let me refine the question. If it isn't using stdout, is there a > >> good reason why is it using something else? Or is it just a bug? > >> > >> hjh > > > > > > As a general rule, Unix orientated programs direct the main output of > > the program to stdout, and other informative messages to stderr. The > > main output of lilypond is the pdf, which actually goes to a file. > > The informative messages (e.g. a list of fonts) continue to adopt the > > principle of going to stderr. > > It would be arguable that an explicitly requested list of fonts is not > an "informative message". > > For the record: if you call a typical GNU utility with bad options, it > outputs correct usage information to stderr. If, in contrast, you call > it with --help, it outputs correct usage information to stdout. > > In the first case, we are talking about diagnostics, in the second case, > we are talking about requested output. > > -- > David Kastrup > > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
- Original Message - From: "David Kastrup" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:38 AM Subject: Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout? "Phil Holmes" writes: - Original Message - From: "James Harkins" To: "lily-users" Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:36 AM Subject: Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout? On 6/20/12, Ramana Kumar wrote: probably lilypond isn't writing to stdout. maybe stderr? OK, let me refine the question. If it isn't using stdout, is there a good reason why is it using something else? Or is it just a bug? hjh As a general rule, Unix orientated programs direct the main output of the program to stdout, and other informative messages to stderr. The main output of lilypond is the pdf, which actually goes to a file. The informative messages (e.g. a list of fonts) continue to adopt the principle of going to stderr. It would be arguable that an explicitly requested list of fonts is not an "informative message". For the record: if you call a typical GNU utility with bad options, it outputs correct usage information to stderr. If, in contrast, you call it with --help, it outputs correct usage information to stdout. In the first case, we are talking about diagnostics, in the second case, we are talking about requested output. -- David Kastrup On the other hand, it could be that it's seen as debug output, which should still go to stderr. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
Ramana Kumar wrote: > FWIW I agree that -dshow--available-fonts should write to stdout. Before this goes much further, please realize that this is a matter of opinion. There is no unambiguously correct answer to this issue. The fact is that lilypond writes the output to stderr, and that's the way it is. As long as you know that, there's no problem. Most folks with Unix command-line experience, when noticing that the output wasn't caught in stdout, would automatically try stderr (2>) next. -- Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
Tim Roberts writes: > Ramana Kumar wrote: >> FWIW I agree that -dshow--available-fonts should write to stdout. > > Before this goes much further, please realize that this is a matter of > opinion. There is no unambiguously correct answer to this issue. The > fact is that lilypond writes the output to stderr, and that's the way > it is. As long as you know that, there's no problem. > > Most folks with Unix command-line experience, when noticing that the > output wasn't caught in stdout, would automatically try stderr (2>) > next. If you are _only_ interested in the output of -dshow-available-fonts, having it interspersed with diagnostics is not going to be helpful. You might argue that one can just switch off diagnostics, but this will actually also switch off the font list. LilyPond is an actively developed project, so "that's the way it is" is not necessarily the same as "that's the way it will always be", and discussing the question "what's the way it should be?" is not pointless. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
Use &> to redirect both stderr and stdout where you want it. Great in any case where you're not too sure which std*** pipe youre looking for, or dont care... ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
forcing two pages
Hello, The music I have written has one page and one line of music. The first page seems very busy and squashed to me so I'd likeit to be spread out over the two pages. Can anyone help? Many thanks Aoileann___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
probably lilypond isn't writing to stdout. maybe stderr? On Jun 20, 2012 9:20 AM, "James Harkins" wrote: > I just encountered something curious while trying to get a list of fonts > on my machine from lilypond. According to the documentation of font > selection: > > lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x > > This does indeed list of fonts, but the terminal doesn't keep enough lines > to see the entire list. So I thought, the UNIX command line stdout redirect > should help: > > lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x > >/home/dlm/Documents/ly/show-available-fonts.txt > > But the output was not redirected. It still went to the terminal window > and the new file is empty. > > Same result piping the output to cat: > > lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x | cat > >/home/dlm/Documents/ly/show-available-fonts.txt > > Is there a reason why I can't use the usual UNIXy tricks to capture stdout > here? > > hjh > > > -- > James Harkins /// dewdrop world > jamshar...@dewdrop-world.net > http://www.dewdrop-world.net > > "Come said the Muse, > Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted, > Sing me the universal." -- Whitman > > blog: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/words > audio clips: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/audio > more audio: http://soundcloud.com/dewdrop_world/tracks > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: forcing two pages
Have you read the Manual, for example http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/changing-spacing? I think one option for you would be to play with the "ragged-bottom" paper block option, or maybe the \noPageBreak command. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Fidler Aoileann wrote: > Hello, > > > > The music I have written has one page and one line of music. > The first page seems very busy and squashed to me so I'd like > > it to be spread out over the two pages. > > > > Can anyone help? > > > > Many thanks > > > > Aoileann > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
utility to create files for a score or book
utility to create files for a score or book I'd like to typeset a piece with 6 parts for 2 guitars - each guitar can have 3 voices with left/right hand fingerings, dynamics and maybe more (eg. string indications) which I'm used to write in separate files. this requires a lot of files: 6 x 2 x 3 x ~4 = 144 or (without fingerings and similar): 6 x 2 x 3 = 36 then of course it would be nice to be able to print each part for each guitar separately or for both. this also requires a few files to include the corresponding parts. now my question: does anybody know a tool/utility which would create all these files and maybe even write the corresponding code into them. if not - what programming language would be useful? thanks for any hints! Eluze -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/utility-to-create-files-for-a-score-or-book-tp34045167p34045167.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: utility to create files for a score or book
Il 20/06/2012 22:10, -Eluze ha scritto: now my question: does anybody know a tool/utility which would create all these files and maybe even write the corresponding code into them. do you know the make example in Usage? http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/usage/make-and-makefiles it's not clear what you mean when you say "and maybe even write the corresponding code into them" anyway, I guess that most people would recommend python or bash scripts -- Federico ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: utility to create files for a score or book
On 20 juin 2012, at 22:10, -Eluze wrote: > > utility to create files for a score or book > > I'd like to typeset a piece with 6 parts for 2 guitars - each guitar can > have 3 voices with left/right hand fingerings, dynamics and maybe more (eg. > string indications) which I'm used to write in separate files. > > this requires a lot of files: 6 x 2 x 3 x ~4 = 144 > or (without fingerings and similar): 6 x 2 x 3 = 36 > > then of course it would be nice to be able to print each part for each > guitar separately or for both. this also requires a few files to include the > corresponding parts. > > now my question: does anybody know a tool/utility which would create all > these files and maybe even write the corresponding code into them. > > if not - what programming language would be useful? > > thanks for any hints! > > Eluze > Have you checked out Abjad? http://packages.python.org/Abjad/ Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reverse Lilypond Book...
Hi all! This has probably been asked before, but I haven't found it anywhere, so I ask it myself. Excuse any repetition, and please direct me there if it exists and you can find it easily. With lilypond-book and co, what I understood is that one writes a LaTeX document with lilypond snippets. Essentially, it is a text document, and has some musical examples. LaTeX is the boss. What if we want to do the exact opposite? Like, a music book with snippets of TeX or LaTex-formatted text. An ideal situation would be for prefaces, contents, etc. to be in LaTex, or TeX or whatever, and then the music in lilypond, and all of this inside the lilypond file. I suppose that each LaTeX snippet would be a small LaTeX document with its own preamble etc, and most page-formatting variables dictated by lilypond, which would do the analogous of what lilypond-book does, but in reverse. Such a case would be great if one wants to write a music book, but using the Tex text functionality for any big chunks of text, like cover pages, prefaces, contents, etc. Is any of this possible? -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Reverse-Lilypond-Book...-tp34046085p34046085.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: forcing two pages
Am 19.06.2012 20:10, schrieb Fidler Aoileann: Hello, The music I have written has one page and one line of music. The first page seems very busy and squashed to me so I'd likeit to be spread out over the two pages. Can anyone help? Many thanks Aoileann Last time I wanted to spread the notes a bit I use the method described in Notation Reference 4.5.3 "Changing horizontal spacing". Probably you also want to change the ragged-last-buttom in the paper block. Helge ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:26:10 -0700 From: Tim Roberts > Most folks with Unix command-line experience, when noticing that the > output wasn't caught in stdout, would automatically try stderr (2>) next. Thanks for the helpful suggestions. In fact, my UNIX commandline chops are mediocre at best. I knew about redirects but not about 2> or &>. Now I know :) > Before this goes much further, please realize that this is a matter of > opinion. There is no unambiguously correct answer to this issue. The > fact is that lilypond writes the output to stderr, and that's the way it > is. As long as you know that, there's no problem. Sure -- it's *possible* to extract the output by redirecting stderr. The remaining question is whether this is the most intuitive behavior. The argument in favor of the current behavior is that LP's primary output is (always) beautifully formatted music notation, and anything else should not go to the stdout stream. But, as others have noted, in this case LP is not being asked to render a .ly source file, so it seems peculiar to expect notation as the output. I find the argument to change the behavior to be more convincing. Ask for a list of fonts, and the primary, expected output would be... the list of fonts. So, okay, a matter of opinion, but opinions may be evaluated based on criteria that are standard in software development. Those are also matters of opinion :) but more standardized, such as "Principle of least surprise." If it's really better to send the list to stderr (and it might actually be better that way), then the documentation should advise the unsuspecting user of this. There is no mention of it here: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/fonts#single-entry-fonts hjh -- James Harkins /// dewdrop world jamshar...@dewdrop-world.net http://www.dewdrop-world.net "Come said the Muse, Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted, Sing me the universal." -- Whitman blog: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/words audio clips: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/audio more audio: http://soundcloud.com/dewdrop_world/tracks ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Reverse Lilypond Book...
Am 21.06.2012 01:50, schrieb Sami: Hi all! This has probably been asked before, but I haven't found it anywhere, so I ask it myself. Excuse any repetition, and please direct me there if it exists and you can find it easily. With lilypond-book and co, what I understood is that one writes a LaTeX document with lilypond snippets. Essentially, it is a text document, and has some musical examples. LaTeX is the boss. What if we want to do the exact opposite? Like, a music book with snippets of TeX or LaTex-formatted text. An ideal situation would be for prefaces, contents, etc. to be in LaTex, or TeX or whatever, and then the music in lilypond, and all of this inside the lilypond file. I suppose that each LaTeX snippet would be a small LaTeX document with its own preamble etc, and most page-formatting variables dictated by lilypond, which would do the analogous of what lilypond-book does, but in reverse. Such a case would be great if one wants to write a music book, but using the Tex text functionality for any big chunks of text, like cover pages, prefaces, contents, etc. Is any of this possible? I remember that the following post http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-09/msg4.html showed an example of calling xelatex within lilypond, perhaps this could serva as a starting point. HTH, Marc ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Reverse Lilypond Book...
On 21 juin 2012, at 01:50, Sami wrote: > > Hi all! > > This has probably been asked before, but I haven't found it anywhere, so I > ask it myself. Excuse any repetition, and please direct me there if it > exists and you can find it easily. > > With lilypond-book and co, what I understood is that one writes a LaTeX > document with lilypond snippets. Essentially, it is a text document, and has > some musical examples. LaTeX is the boss. > > What if we want to do the exact opposite? Like, a music book with snippets > of TeX or LaTex-formatted text. An ideal situation would be for prefaces, > contents, etc. to be in LaTex, or TeX or whatever, and then the music in > lilypond, and all of this inside the lilypond file. > > I suppose that each LaTeX snippet would be a small LaTeX document with its > own preamble etc, and most page-formatting variables dictated by lilypond, > which would do the analogous of what lilypond-book does, but in reverse. > Such a case would be great if one wants to write a music book, but using the > Tex text functionality for any big chunks of text, like cover pages, > prefaces, contents, etc. > > Is any of this possible? Nicolas Sceaux is the master of this sort of thing. http://nicolas.sceaux.free.fr/ He's very generous about sharing his code, so I'm sure you can contact him for ideas. Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
