Re: Variable length bars

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick or Cynthia Karl" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:53 PM
Subject: Variable length bars




I'm trying to set a John Dowland piece (Come Ye Heavy States of Night) 
which has a single initial time signature of "4/2 2/2" followed by 
measures that are either 4 half-note beats or 2 half-note beats long, in 
quasi-random fashion.


It's clear that if I can get that time signature printed, I can set the 
piece by appropriate use of \set Timing.measureLength.


Can anyone point me to a way to do that?

Thanks


I'm sure someone else can show how to put two time sigs, one after the 
other, but it may be worth noting that this is not true to the original. 
Dowland set it as mensural 4/4 time, with 2/2 in the lute tablature.  See 
http://imslp.org/wiki/The_Second_Book_of_Songes_(Dowland,_John) for the 
original score.


--
Phil Holmes 



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

Re: Variable length bars

[Matthew Collett]

On 27/06/2014, at 9:53 am, Patrick or Cynthia Karl  wrote:

> I'm trying to set a John Dowland piece (Come Ye Heavy States of Night) which 
> has a single initial time signature of "4/2 2/2" followed by measures that 
> are either 4 half-note beats or 2 half-note beats long, in quasi-random 
> fashion.
> 
> It's clear that if I can get that time signature printed, I can set the piece 
> by appropriate use of \set Timing.measureLength.
> 
> Can anyone point me to a way to do that?

I can't recall where I got the attached snippet from, but it has done the job 
for me on a number of occasions.

Best wishes,
Matthew



dualtime.ly
Description: Binary data


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

Re: Variable length bars

[Urs Liska]

Am 26.06.2014 23:53, schrieb Patrick or Cynthia Karl:


I'm trying to set a John Dowland piece (Come Ye Heavy States of Night) which has a single 
initial time signature of "4/2 2/2" followed by measures that are either 4 
half-note beats or 2 half-note beats long, in quasi-random fashion.

It's clear that if I can get that time signature printed, I can set the piece 
by appropriate use of \set Timing.measureLength.

Can anyone point me to a way to do that?

Thanks



You question comes at the right time :-)

I'm sure my last post can help you here
http://lilypondblog.org/2014/06/polymetrics-in-sibelius-vs-lilypond/

Particularly you can go to the link to the openLilyLib snippets repo at 
the end of the article.


HTH
Urs


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

Re: Variable length bars

[Urs Liska]

Am 27.06.2014 10:05, schrieb Urs Liska:

Am 26.06.2014 23:53, schrieb Patrick or Cynthia Karl:


I'm trying to set a John Dowland piece (Come Ye Heavy States of Night)
which has a single initial time signature of "4/2 2/2" followed by
measures that are either 4 half-note beats or 2 half-note beats long,
in quasi-random fashion.

It's clear that if I can get that time signature printed, I can set
the piece by appropriate use of \set Timing.measureLength.

Can anyone point me to a way to do that?

Thanks



You question comes at the right time :-)

I'm sure my last post can help you here
http://lilypondblog.org/2014/06/polymetrics-in-sibelius-vs-lilypond/

Particularly you can go to the link to the openLilyLib snippets repo at
the end of the article.

HTH
Urs




PS: In short: You would print that time signature by overriding the 
stencil and then simply \omit TimeSignature and use regular \time commands.



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

Fwd: Re: Variable length bars

[Malte Meyn]

Forgot CC …


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Variable length bars
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 08:10:52 +0200
From: Malte Meyn 
To: Patrick or Cynthia Karl 

You don’t even need the \set Timing.measureLength, a \time command will
do the same when you set the TimeSignature.stencil to false:

\version "2.19.6"

#(define ((num-double-time-signature num1 den1 num2 den2) grob)
   (grob-interpret-markup grob
 (markup #:override '(baseline-skip . 0) #:number
   (#:line (
(#:center-column (num1 den1))
(#:center-column (num2 den2))
)

#(define ((glyph-double-time-signature glyph num den) grob)
   (grob-interpret-markup grob
 (markup #:override '(baseline-skip . 0) #:number
   (#:line (
(markup (#:musicglyph glyph))
(#:center-column (num den))
)

\relative c' {
  \override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = ##f
  \once \override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil =
#(num-double-time-signature "4" "4" "6" "4")
  \time 4/4
  c4 d e f
  \time 6/4
  g f e f e d
  \time 4/4
  c d e d
  \once \override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil =
#(glyph-double-time-signature "timesig.C44" "6" "4")
  \time 4/4
  c4 d e f
  \time 6/4
  g f e f e d
  \time 4/4
  c d e f
}

This is my solution to a very similar problem in the German LilyPond
forum (www.lilypondforum.de/index.php?topic=1639.msg9143#msg9143)

On 26.06.2014 23:53, Patrick or Cynthia Karl wrote:


I'm trying to set a John Dowland piece (Come Ye Heavy States of Night) which has a single 
initial time signature of "4/2 2/2" followed by measures that are either 4 
half-note beats or 2 half-note beats long, in quasi-random fashion.

It's clear that if I can get that time signature printed, I can set the piece 
by appropriate use of \set Timing.measureLength.

Can anyone point me to a way to do that?

Thanks

___
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: Double key signature

[James]

On 25/06/14 04:14, Keith OHara wrote:

Pierre Perol-Schneider  gmail.com> writes:


On the french list we are working on a Merulo score with an 8 lines

staff, 2 clefs and 2 key signature


As you can notice, I still have to manually set the distance between the

key signatures.

LilyPond supports custom key signatures, and will print this for d\minor
if you ask for an extended range of printed flats:

  \new Staff
   \with {
 \override StaffSymbol.line-count = #8
 \override KeySignature.flat-positions = #'((-7 . 6))
 \override KeyCancellation.flat-positions = #'((-7 . 6))
 % presumably sharps are also printed in both octaves
 \override KeySignature.sharp-positions = #'((-6 . 7))
 \override KeyCancellation.sharp-positions = #'((-6 . 7))
   \override Clef.stencil = #
   (lambda (grob)(grob-interpret-markup grob
   #{ \markup\combine
 \musicglyph #"clefs.C"
 \translate #'(0.9 . -2) \musicglyph #"clefs.F"
#}))
 clefPosition = #1
 middleCPosition = #1
 middleCClefPosition = #1
   } {
   \key d\minor
   \time 4/4 R1
  }

You might like \translate, in units of staff spaces, in place of \vspace.


___


Thanks Keith, I've added that as a snippet and in the Notation Reference

http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3976

James

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

Building documentation: bad PNG output

[Aymeric]

Hello,

I’m tring to build the LilyPond documentation since quite some time, and 
whereas the PDF and HTLM output is great, the PNG are… well… here is a 
sample.

Where do you think it’s coming from, and can you help me solve this, please?

Thanks in advance,
Aymeric
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output

[Federico Bruni]

2014-06-27 12:19 GMT+02:00 Aymeric :

> I’m tring to build the LilyPond documentation since quite some time, and
> whereas the PDF and HTLM output is great, the PNG are… well… here is a
> sample.
> Where do you think it’s coming from, and can you help me solve this,
> please?
>


You should tell us where you find this image in the html documentation. In
which section/paragraph?
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output

[Aymeric]

lilypond-2.18.2/Documentation/out-www/00
But all the PNG images look the same. I tried to export some PNG myself 
with LilyPond from my own .ly files, and I don’t have this error.



On 06/27/2014 12:31 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>
> 2014-06-27 12:19 GMT+02:00 Aymeric  >:
>
> I’m tring to build the LilyPond documentation since quite some time,
> and whereas the PDF and HTLM output is great, the PNG are… well…
> here is a sample.
> Where do you think it’s coming from, and can you help me solve this,
> please?
>
>
>
> You should tell us where you find this image in the html documentation.
> In which section/paragraph?
>

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

Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output

[Federico Bruni]

Don't look there, it's different from what we have. Also, why caring for
images in the directories?
I'm asking: have you seen that image on the html manual? If so, where?
(manual, section, parapraph)


2014-06-27 12:39 GMT+02:00 Aymeric :

> lilypond-2.18.2/Documentation/out-www/00
> But all the PNG images look the same. I tried to export some PNG myself
> with LilyPond from my own .ly files, and I don’t have this error.
>
>
> On 06/27/2014 12:31 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
> >
> > 2014-06-27 12:19 GMT+02:00 Aymeric  > >:
>
> >
> > I’m tring to build the LilyPond documentation since quite some time,
> > and whereas the PDF and HTLM output is great, the PNG are… well…
> > here is a sample.
> > Where do you think it’s coming from, and can you help me solve this,
> > please?
> >
> >
> >
> > You should tell us where you find this image in the html documentation.
> > In which section/paragraph?
> >
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output

[Aymeric]

For example, in the HTML documentation:
file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-2.18.2/html/Documentation/notation/pitches.html
file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-2.18.2/html/Documentation/eb/lily-bd76d922.png 
looks the same as the image I sent before.



On 06/27/2014 12:50 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:

Don't look there, it's different from what we have. Also, why caring for
images in the directories?
I'm asking: have you seen that image on the html manual? If so, where?
(manual, section, parapraph)


2014-06-27 12:39 GMT+02:00 Aymeric mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>>:

lilypond-2.18.2/Documentation/__out-www/00
But all the PNG images look the same. I tried to export some PNG
myself with LilyPond from my own .ly files, and I don’t have this error.


On 06/27/2014 12:31 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
 >
 > 2014-06-27 12:19 GMT+02:00 Aymeric mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>
 > >>:

 >
 > I’m tring to build the LilyPond documentation since quite
some time,
 > and whereas the PDF and HTLM output is great, the PNG are… well…
 > here is a sample.
 > Where do you think it’s coming from, and can you help me
solve this,
 > please?
 >
 >
 >
 > You should tell us where you find this image in the html
documentation.
 > In which section/paragraph?
 >





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

Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output

[Federico Bruni]

Those files names are randomly generated. We don't have them!
Can you see the same issue on the lilypond website?
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/pitches

Or send us a screenshot of your web page.


2014-06-27 12:58 GMT+02:00 Aymeric :

> For example, in the HTML documentation:
> file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-2.18.2/html/Documentation/
> notation/pitches.html
> file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-2.18.2/html/Documentation/eb/lily-bd76d922.png
> looks the same as the image I sent before.
>
>
>
> On 06/27/2014 12:50 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>
>> Don't look there, it's different from what we have. Also, why caring for
>> images in the directories?
>> I'm asking: have you seen that image on the html manual? If so, where?
>> (manual, section, parapraph)
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-27 12:39 GMT+02:00 Aymeric > >:
>>
>> lilypond-2.18.2/Documentation/__out-www/00
>>
>> But all the PNG images look the same. I tried to export some PNG
>> myself with LilyPond from my own .ly files, and I don’t have this
>> error.
>>
>>
>> On 06/27/2014 12:31 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>>  >
>>  > 2014-06-27 12:19 GMT+02:00 Aymeric > 
>>  > >>:
>>
>>
>>  >
>>  > I’m tring to build the LilyPond documentation since quite
>> some time,
>>  > and whereas the PDF and HTLM output is great, the PNG are…
>> well…
>>  > here is a sample.
>>  > Where do you think it’s coming from, and can you help me
>> solve this,
>>  > please?
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > You should tell us where you find this image in the html
>> documentation.
>>  > In which section/paragraph?
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output

[Federico Bruni]

Ok, finally I see what's the problem. I never had such a problem and I
cannot make a guess. You got no error when running make doc?
You should check the log files in Documentation:

./Documentation/notation.texi2pdf.log
./Documentation/notation.bigtexi.log
./Documentation/notation.splittexi.log
./Documentation/notation.makeinfo.log

That file is ./Documentation/snippets/pitches-headword.ly
It seems that the lilypond version you are using cannot compile it. Perhaps
a version mismatch?





2014-06-27 13:10 GMT+02:00 Aymeric :

> No, I can see the score.
>
> Here’s a screenshot of how it looks like with my build.
>
>
>
> On 06/27/2014 01:06 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>
>> Those files names are randomly generated. We don't have them!
>> Can you see the same issue on the lilypond website?
>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/pitches
>>
>> Or send us a screenshot of your web page.
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-27 12:58 GMT+02:00 Aymeric > >:
>>
>>
>> For example, in the HTML documentation:
>> file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-__2.18.2/html/Documentation/__
>> notation/pitches.html
>> file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-__2.18.2/html/Documentation/eb/
>> __lily-bd76d922.png
>>
>> looks the same as the image I sent before.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/27/2014 12:50 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>>
>> Don't look there, it's different from what we have. Also, why
>> caring for
>> images in the directories?
>> I'm asking: have you seen that image on the html manual? If so,
>> where?
>> (manual, section, parapraph)
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-27 12:39 GMT+02:00 Aymeric > 
>> >>:
>>
>>  lilypond-2.18.2/Documentation/out-www/00
>>
>>
>>  But all the PNG images look the same. I tried to export
>> some PNG
>>  myself with LilyPond from my own .ly files, and I don’t
>> have this error.
>>
>>
>>  On 06/27/2014 12:31 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>>   >
>>   > 2014-06-27 12:19 GMT+02:00 Aymeric > 
>>  >
>>   > 
>> >
>>
>>   >
>>   > I’m tring to build the LilyPond documentation since
>> quite
>>  some time,
>>   > and whereas the PDF and HTLM output is great, the
>> PNG are… well…
>>   > here is a sample.
>>   > Where do you think it’s coming from, and can you help
>> me
>>  solve this,
>>   > please?
>>   >
>>   >
>>   >
>>   > You should tell us where you find this image in the html
>>  documentation.
>>   > In which section/paragraph?
>>   >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output

[Federico Bruni]

BTW, what's the purpose of building the current stable doc (2.18.2)?
Which source are you using?



2014-06-27 13:16 GMT+02:00 Federico Bruni :

> Ok, finally I see what's the problem. I never had such a problem and I
> cannot make a guess. You got no error when running make doc?
> You should check the log files in Documentation:
>
> ./Documentation/notation.texi2pdf.log
> ./Documentation/notation.bigtexi.log
> ./Documentation/notation.splittexi.log
> ./Documentation/notation.makeinfo.log
>
> That file is ./Documentation/snippets/pitches-headword.ly
> It seems that the lilypond version you are using cannot compile it.
> Perhaps a version mismatch?
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-06-27 13:10 GMT+02:00 Aymeric :
>
> No, I can see the score.
>>
>> Here’s a screenshot of how it looks like with my build.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/27/2014 01:06 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>>
>>> Those files names are randomly generated. We don't have them!
>>> Can you see the same issue on the lilypond website?
>>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/pitches
>>>
>>> Or send us a screenshot of your web page.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-06-27 12:58 GMT+02:00 Aymeric >> >:
>>>
>>>
>>> For example, in the HTML documentation:
>>> file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-__2.18.2/html/Documentation/__
>>> notation/pitches.html
>>> file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-__2.18.2/html/Documentation/eb/
>>> __lily-bd76d922.png
>>>
>>> looks the same as the image I sent before.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/27/2014 12:50 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't look there, it's different from what we have. Also, why
>>> caring for
>>> images in the directories?
>>> I'm asking: have you seen that image on the html manual? If so,
>>> where?
>>> (manual, section, parapraph)
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-06-27 12:39 GMT+02:00 Aymeric >> 
>>> >>:
>>>
>>>  lilypond-2.18.2/Documentation/out-www/00
>>>
>>>
>>>  But all the PNG images look the same. I tried to export
>>> some PNG
>>>  myself with LilyPond from my own .ly files, and I don’t
>>> have this error.
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 06/27/2014 12:31 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>>>   >
>>>   > 2014-06-27 12:19 GMT+02:00 Aymeric >> 
>>>  >
>>>   > 
>>> >>
>>>
>>>   >
>>>   > I’m tring to build the LilyPond documentation since
>>> quite
>>>  some time,
>>>   > and whereas the PDF and HTLM output is great, the
>>> PNG are… well…
>>>   > here is a sample.
>>>   > Where do you think it’s coming from, and can you
>>> help me
>>>  solve this,
>>>   > please?
>>>   >
>>>   >
>>>   >
>>>   > You should tell us where you find this image in the html
>>>  documentation.
>>>   > In which section/paragraph?
>>>   >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output

[Federico Bruni]

Helping you is a hard job and I've just run out of time.
You are not telling us which source you are using. From a linux distro
repository? From lilypond git repository?
You should use git and checkout the 2.18.2 branch, otherwise you won't get
much help from this list probably.

And the logs of 'make doc'?

I give up... Good luck!

2014-06-27 13:27 GMT+02:00 Aymeric :

> I’m trying to build 2.18.2, with… LilyPond 2.18.2, so there should be no
> problem, and, as I said, I can generate PNG files from my own scores. I
> even tried with the file you mentioned:
>
> aymeric[snippets]$ lilypond -dbackend=eps -dno-gs-load-fonts
> -dinclude-eps-fonts --png pitches-headword.ly
> GNU LilyPond 2.18.2
> Processing `pitches-headword.ly'
> Parsing...
> Interpreting music...[8]
> Preprocessing graphical objects...
> Finding the ideal number of pages...
> Fitting music on 1 page...
> Drawing systems...
> Layout output to `pitches-headword.eps'...
> Converting to PNG...
> Layout output to `pitches-headword-1.eps'...
> Writing pitches-headword-systems.texi...
> Writing pitches-headword-systems.tex...
> Writing pitches-headword-systems.count...
> Success: compilation successfully completed
>
> And here’s the output.
>
>
>
> On 06/27/2014 01:18 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>
>> BTW, what's the purpose of building the current stable doc (2.18.2)?
>> Which source are you using?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-27 13:16 GMT+02:00 Federico Bruni > >:
>>
>>
>> Ok, finally I see what's the problem. I never had such a problem and
>> I cannot make a guess. You got no error when running make doc?
>> You should check the log files in Documentation:
>>
>> ./Documentation/notation.texi2pdf.log
>> ./Documentation/notation.bigtexi.log
>> ./Documentation/notation.splittexi.log
>> ./Documentation/notation.makeinfo.log
>>
>> That file is ./Documentation/snippets/pitches-headword.ly
>> 
>>
>> It seems that the lilypond version you are using cannot compile it.
>> Perhaps a version mismatch?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-27 13:10 GMT+02:00 Aymeric > >:
>>
>>
>> No, I can see the score.
>>
>> Here’s a screenshot of how it looks like with my build.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/27/2014 01:06 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>>
>> Those files names are randomly generated. We don't have them!
>> Can you see the same issue on the lilypond website?
>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/__Documentation/notation/
>> pitches
>>
>> > >
>>
>> Or send us a screenshot of your web page.
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-27 12:58 GMT+02:00 Aymeric > 
>> >>:
>>
>>
>>
>>  For example, in the HTML documentation:
>>
>> file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-2.18.2/html/Documentation/_
>> ___notation/pitches.html
>>
>> file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-2.18.2/html/Documentation/
>> eb/lily-bd76d922.png
>>
>>
>>  looks the same as the image I sent before.
>>
>>
>>
>>  On 06/27/2014 12:50 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>>
>>  Don't look there, it's different from what we have.
>> Also, why
>>  caring for
>>  images in the directories?
>>  I'm asking: have you seen that image on the html
>> manual? If so,
>>  where?
>>  (manual, section, parapraph)
>>
>>
>>  2014-06-27 12:39 GMT+02:00 Aymeric
>> mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>
>>   ejisn...@gmail.com>>
>>  >  > >
>>   lilypond-2.18.2/Documentation/__out-www/00
>>
>>
>>
>>   But all the PNG images look the same. I tried
>> to export
>>  some PNG
>>   myself with LilyPond from my own .ly files,
>> and I don’t
>>  have this error.
>>
>>
>>   On 06/27/2014 12:31 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
>>>
>>> 2014-06-27 12:19 GMT+02:00 Aymeric
>> mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>
>>   ejisn...@gmail.com>>
>>   >  > >>
>>> >  > 

Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output

[Phil Holmes]

The key thing to note is that 'make doc' is not designed to produce PNG output: 
these are at best intermediate files and at worst built as a by-product.  The 
only thing it is designed to create is PDF and HTML output: so the question is, 
as before: what does that look like?

--
Phil Holmes


  - Original Message - 
  From: Federico Bruni 
  To: Aymeric 
  Cc: lilypond-user Mailinglist 
  Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:06 PM
  Subject: Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output


  Helping you is a hard job and I've just run out of time.

  You are not telling us which source you are using. From a linux distro 
repository? From lilypond git repository?

  You should use git and checkout the 2.18.2 branch, otherwise you won't get 
much help from this list probably.



  And the logs of 'make doc'?


  I give up... Good luck!



  2014-06-27 13:27 GMT+02:00 Aymeric :

I’m trying to build 2.18.2, with… LilyPond 2.18.2, so there should be no 
problem, and, as I said, I can generate PNG files from my own scores. I even 
tried with the file you mentioned:

aymeric[snippets]$ lilypond -dbackend=eps -dno-gs-load-fonts 
-dinclude-eps-fonts --png pitches-headword.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.18.2
Processing `pitches-headword.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...[8]
Preprocessing graphical objects...
Finding the ideal number of pages...
Fitting music on 1 page...
Drawing systems...
Layout output to `pitches-headword.eps'...
Converting to PNG...
Layout output to `pitches-headword-1.eps'...
Writing pitches-headword-systems.texi...
Writing pitches-headword-systems.tex...
Writing pitches-headword-systems.count...
Success: compilation successfully completed

And here’s the output.



On 06/27/2014 01:18 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:

  BTW, what's the purpose of building the current stable doc (2.18.2)?
  Which source are you using?



  2014-06-27 13:16 GMT+02:00 Federico Bruni mailto:fedel...@gmail.com>>:


  Ok, finally I see what's the problem. I never had such a problem and
  I cannot make a guess. You got no error when running make doc?
  You should check the log files in Documentation:

  ./Documentation/notation.texi2pdf.log
  ./Documentation/notation.bigtexi.log
  ./Documentation/notation.splittexi.log
  ./Documentation/notation.makeinfo.log

  That file is ./Documentation/snippets/pitches-headword.ly

  

  It seems that the lilypond version you are using cannot compile it.
  Perhaps a version mismatch?





  2014-06-27 13:10 GMT+02:00 Aymeric mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>>:


  No, I can see the score.

  Here’s a screenshot of how it looks like with my build.



  On 06/27/2014 01:06 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:

  Those files names are randomly generated. We don't have them!
  Can you see the same issue on the lilypond website?

  http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/__Documentation/notation/pitches

  

  Or send us a screenshot of your web page.


  2014-06-27 12:58 GMT+02:00 Aymeric mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>

  >>:



   For example, in the HTML documentation:


  
file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-2.18.2/html/Documentation/notation/pitches.html

  
file:///usr/doc/lilypond-doc-2.18.2/html/Documentation/eb/lily-bd76d922.png


   looks the same as the image I sent before.



   On 06/27/2014 12:50 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:

   Don't look there, it's different from what we have.
  Also, why
   caring for
   images in the directories?
   I'm asking: have you seen that image on the html
  manual? If so,
   where?
   (manual, section, parapraph)


   2014-06-27 12:39 GMT+02:00 Aymeric
  mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>
   >

    

Re:Variable length bars (Phil Holmes)

[Andrew A. Cashner]

>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Phil Holmes" 
> To: "Patrick or Cynthia Karl" , 
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 08:45:46 +0100
> Subject: Re: Variable length bars
> - Original Message - From: "Patrick or Cynthia Karl" <
> pck...@mac.com>
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:53 PM
> Subject: Variable length bars
>
>
>
>> I'm trying to set a John Dowland piece (Come Ye Heavy States of Night)
>> which has a single initial time signature of "4/2 2/2" followed by measures
>> that are either 4 half-note beats or 2 half-note beats long, in
>> quasi-random fashion.
>>
>> It's clear that if I can get that time signature printed, I can set the
>> piece by appropriate use of \set Timing.measureLength.
>>
>> Can anyone point me to a way to do that?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
> I'm sure someone else can show how to put two time sigs, one after the
> other, but it may be worth noting that this is not true to the original.
> Dowland set it as mensural 4/4 time, with 2/2 in the lute tablature.  See
> http://imslp.org/wiki/The_Second_Book_of_Songes_(Dowland,_John) for the
> original score.
>
> --
> Phil Holmes
>
>
With respect and collegiality, I just wanted to clarify that Dowland's
original time signatures are C and "cut C": these mensural time signatures
only look like modern 4/4 or 2/2, but they are not the same. The C
generally means that each tactus or metrical group is made up of two minims
(modern half notes), and the cut C means that each tactus is made up of two
semibreves (modern whole notes). But in this case I think the C meter just
means, "the pulse moves in minims"--it does not indicate a regular grouping
of beats the way a modern meter does. Downand's bar lines, it seems to me,
indicate musical and poetic phrases, not a metrical pattern.

I know there are wide disagreement about this, but in transcribing for
modern performers, I think one should render the original into basic modern
notation--that is, notation that will not surprise modern performers--while
doing the least violence to the original. I don't think you gain any
advantage in a piece like this from having mixed meters, and certainly not
from having two simultaneous meters.

In this case, I would recommend transcribing the piece in 4/2, with perhaps
an odd 2/2 bar where necessary. Even if this means that a phrase ends in
the middle of a bar, I think you can trust modern performers to recognize
that and not automatically put a strong downbeat on the first beat of every
bar.  If you think about how the piece should sound, sensitive performers
will probably produce similar results regardless of where you put the bar
lines.

Best,
Andrew Cashner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output

[James]

Aymeric,

On 27/06/14 13:06, Federico Bruni wrote:

Helping you is a hard job and I've just run out of time.
You are not telling us which source you are using. From a linux distro 
repository? From lilypond git repository?
You should use git and checkout the 2.18.2 branch, otherwise you won't 
get much help from this list probably.


And the logs of 'make doc'?

I give up... Good luck!


:)

Yes diagnosing doc build problems can be very time consuming.

Please make sure that

1. You are following the contributor guide which gives the minimum 
requirements to build documentation successfully:


http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor-big-page#requirements

and

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor-big-page#requirements-for-building-documentation

2. Next, build the latest 2.19 documents from git

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor-big-page#summary-for-experienced-developers

At least prove that that works or does not work. I know it does at the 
moment as I build the documentation daily, so if you are having problems 
with 2.19 then it could simply be an evironmental issue than a code issue.


If you can build it fine and get your PNG files using 2.19 then use the 
same git repo and use the 2.18 branch and then try.


Then at least we can attempt to help, knowing we are all looking at the 
same code as you.


Regards

James





2014-06-27 13:27 GMT+02:00 Aymeric >:


I'm trying to build 2.18.2, with... LilyPond 2.18.2, so there
should be no problem, and, as I said, I can generate PNG files
from my own scores. I even tried with the file you mentioned:

aymeric[snippets]$ lilypond -dbackend=eps -dno-gs-load-fonts
-dinclude-eps-fonts --png pitches-headword.ly

GNU LilyPond 2.18.2
Processing `pitches-headword.ly '
Parsing...
Interpreting music...[8]
Preprocessing graphical objects...
Finding the ideal number of pages...
Fitting music on 1 page...
Drawing systems...
Layout output to `pitches-headword.eps'...
Converting to PNG...
Layout output to `pitches-headword-1.eps'...
Writing pitches-headword-systems.texi...
Writing pitches-headword-systems.tex...
Writing pitches-headword-systems.count...
Success: compilation successfully completed

And here's the output.



On 06/27/2014 01:18 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:

BTW, what's the purpose of building the current stable doc
(2.18.2)?
Which source are you using?



2014-06-27 13:16 GMT+02:00 Federico Bruni mailto:fedel...@gmail.com>
>>:


Ok, finally I see what's the problem. I never had such a
problem and
I cannot make a guess. You got no error when running make doc?
You should check the log files in Documentation:

./Documentation/notation.texi2pdf.log
./Documentation/notation.bigtexi.log
./Documentation/notation.splittexi.log
./Documentation/notation.makeinfo.log

That file is ./Documentation/snippets/pitches-headword.ly



It seems that the lilypond version you are using cannot
compile it.
Perhaps a version mismatch?





2014-06-27 13:10 GMT+02:00 Aymeric mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>
>>:


No, I can see the score.

Here's a screenshot of how it looks like with my build.



On 06/27/2014 01:06 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:

Those files names are randomly generated. We don't
have them!
Can you see the same issue on the lilypond website?
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/__Documentation/notation/pitches

   



Or send us a screenshot of your web page.


2014-06-27 12:58 GMT+02:00 Aymeric
mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>
>
 

Re: Building documentation: bad PNG output

[Aymeric]

Thank you.

I will do what you say later, and give you as much details as I can. Now 
I know it could be an environment problem, so I’ll dig further.



On 06/27/2014 02:47 PM, James wrote:

Aymeric,

On 27/06/14 13:06, Federico Bruni wrote:

Helping you is a hard job and I've just run out of time.
You are not telling us which source you are using. From a linux distro
repository? From lilypond git repository?
You should use git and checkout the 2.18.2 branch, otherwise you won't
get much help from this list probably.

And the logs of 'make doc'?

I give up... Good luck!


:)

Yes diagnosing doc build problems can be very time consuming.

Please make sure that

1. You are following the contributor guide which gives the minimum
requirements to build documentation successfully:

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor-big-page#requirements

and

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor-big-page#requirements-for-building-documentation

2. Next, build the latest 2.19 documents from git

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor-big-page#summary-for-experienced-developers

At least prove that that works or does not work. I know it does at the
moment as I build the documentation daily, so if you are having problems
with 2.19 then it could simply be an evironmental issue than a code issue.

If you can build it fine and get your PNG files using 2.19 then use the
same git repo and use the 2.18 branch and then try.

Then at least we can attempt to help, knowing we are all looking at the
same code as you.

Regards

James





2014-06-27 13:27 GMT+02:00 Aymeric mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>>:

I’m trying to build 2.18.2, with… LilyPond 2.18.2, so there should
be no problem, and, as I said, I can generate PNG files from my
own scores. I even tried with the file you mentioned:

aymeric[snippets]$ lilypond -dbackend=eps -dno-gs-load-fonts
-dinclude-eps-fonts --png pitches-headword.ly

GNU LilyPond 2.18.2
Processing `pitches-headword.ly '
Parsing...
Interpreting music...[8]
Preprocessing graphical objects...
Finding the ideal number of pages...
Fitting music on 1 page...
Drawing systems...
Layout output to `pitches-headword.eps'...
Converting to PNG...
Layout output to `pitches-headword-1.eps'...
Writing pitches-headword-systems.texi...
Writing pitches-headword-systems.tex...
Writing pitches-headword-systems.count...
Success: compilation successfully completed

And here’s the output.



On 06/27/2014 01:18 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:

BTW, what's the purpose of building the current stable doc
(2.18.2)?
Which source are you using?



2014-06-27 13:16 GMT+02:00 Federico Bruni mailto:fedel...@gmail.com>
>>:


Ok, finally I see what's the problem. I never had such a
problem and
I cannot make a guess. You got no error when running make doc?
You should check the log files in Documentation:

./Documentation/notation.texi2pdf.log
./Documentation/notation.bigtexi.log
./Documentation/notation.splittexi.log
./Documentation/notation.makeinfo.log

That file is ./Documentation/snippets/pitches-headword.ly



It seems that the lilypond version you are using cannot
compile it.
Perhaps a version mismatch?





2014-06-27 13:10 GMT+02:00 Aymeric mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>
>>:


No, I can see the score.

Here’s a screenshot of how it looks like with my build.



On 06/27/2014 01:06 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:

Those files names are randomly generated. We don't
have them!
Can you see the same issue on the lilypond website?
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/__Documentation/notation/pitches




Or send us a screenshot of your web page.


2014-06-27 12:58 GMT+02:00 Aymeric
mailto:ejisn...@gmail.com>
>
 

Re: Variable length bars (Phil Holmes)

[Knute Snortum]

I am working on Mussorgsky's *Pictures at an Exhibition* and in the last
movement he specifically changes from cut time to 2/2.  I am not sure of
the significance of this, but there it is.  (The 2/2 section has a lot of
half note triplets.)


Knute Snortum
(via Gmail)


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Andrew A. Cashner  wrote:

>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: "Phil Holmes" 
>> To: "Patrick or Cynthia Karl" , 
>> Cc:
>> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 08:45:46 +0100
>> Subject: Re: Variable length bars
>> - Original Message - From: "Patrick or Cynthia Karl" <
>> pck...@mac.com>
>> To: 
>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:53 PM
>> Subject: Variable length bars
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm trying to set a John Dowland piece (Come Ye Heavy States of Night)
>>> which has a single initial time signature of "4/2 2/2" followed by measures
>>> that are either 4 half-note beats or 2 half-note beats long, in
>>> quasi-random fashion.
>>>
>>> It's clear that if I can get that time signature printed, I can set the
>>> piece by appropriate use of \set Timing.measureLength.
>>>
>>> Can anyone point me to a way to do that?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure someone else can show how to put two time sigs, one after the
>> other, but it may be worth noting that this is not true to the original.
>> Dowland set it as mensural 4/4 time, with 2/2 in the lute tablature.  See
>> http://imslp.org/wiki/The_Second_Book_of_Songes_(Dowland,_John) for the
>> original score.
>>
>> --
>> Phil Holmes
>>
>>
> With respect and collegiality, I just wanted to clarify that Dowland's
> original time signatures are C and "cut C": these mensural time signatures
> only look like modern 4/4 or 2/2, but they are not the same. The C
> generally means that each tactus or metrical group is made up of two minims
> (modern half notes), and the cut C means that each tactus is made up of two
> semibreves (modern whole notes). But in this case I think the C meter just
> means, "the pulse moves in minims"--it does not indicate a regular grouping
> of beats the way a modern meter does. Downand's bar lines, it seems to me,
> indicate musical and poetic phrases, not a metrical pattern.
>
> I know there are wide disagreement about this, but in transcribing for
> modern performers, I think one should render the original into basic modern
> notation--that is, notation that will not surprise modern performers--while
> doing the least violence to the original. I don't think you gain any
> advantage in a piece like this from having mixed meters, and certainly not
> from having two simultaneous meters.
>
> In this case, I would recommend transcribing the piece in 4/2, with
> perhaps an odd 2/2 bar where necessary. Even if this means that a phrase
> ends in the middle of a bar, I think you can trust modern performers to
> recognize that and not automatically put a strong downbeat on the first
> beat of every bar.  If you think about how the piece should sound,
> sensitive performers will probably produce similar results regardless of
> where you put the bar lines.
>
> Best,
> Andrew Cashner
>
> ___
> 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: Re:Variable length bars (Phil Holmes)

[Andrew A. Cashner]

Phil,

You're absolutely right (and I apologize if I suggested you didn't
know that)---as you say, my terms weren't precise either. In medieval
and Renaissance theory, C is tempus imperfectum cum prolatione minore,
"cut C" is tempus imperfectum cum prolatione maiore; in other words,
both are duple meters, one with the "lesser" note values (a semibreve
tactus divided into minims), and one with "greater" note values (a
breve tactus divided into semibreves).

Here's what Richard Rastall says in *Grove Music Online*, s.v. "Time signature":

Some signatures are survivors of the system of proportions and
mensuration signs (see NOTATION, §III, 3(VII), 4(III): [C] s used for
4/4 and [cut C] for 2/2 (also called alla breve). [C] s a relic of the
medieval tempus imperfectum cum prolatione minore, a mensuration where
each long contained two breves and each breve contained two
semibreves. The sign [cut C] is now used to indicate quick duple time,
the beat falling on the minim rather than the crotchet. In medieval
terms the tactus in [C] time fell on the semibreve; in [cut C] time it
fell on the breve.

Best,
Andrew

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Phil Holmes  wrote:
>> With respect and collegiality, I just wanted to clarify that
>> Dowland's original time signatures are C and "cut C": these
>> mensural time signatures only look like modern 4/4 or 2/2, but
>> they are not the same. The C generally means that each tactus
>> or metrical group is made up of two minims (modern half
>> notes), and the cut C means that each tactus is made up of two
>> semibreves (modern whole notes). But in this case I think the
>> C meter just means, "the pulse moves in minims"--it does not
>> indicate a regular grouping of beats the way a modern meter
>> does. Downand's bar lines, it seems to me, indicate musical
>> and poetic phrases, not a metrical pattern.
>>
>>
>> I know there are wide disagreement about this, but in
>> transcribing for modern performers, I think one should render
>> the original into basic modern notation--that is, notation
>> that will not surprise modern performers--while doing the
>> least violence to the original. I don't think you gain any
>> advantage in a piece like this from having mixed meters, and
>> certainly not from having two simultaneous meters.
>>
>>
>> In this case, I would recommend transcribing the piece in 4/2,
>> with perhaps an odd 2/2 bar where necessary. Even if this
>> means that a phrase ends in the middle of a bar, I think you
>> can trust modern performers to recognize that and not
>> automatically put a strong downbeat on the first beat of every
>> bar. If you think about how the piece should sound, sensitive
>> performers will probably produce similar results regardless of
>> where you put the bar lines.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Andrew Cashner
>>
>
> To be honest, I was aware that 4/2 and 2/2 are not the correct descriptions
> of the mensuration signs in the Dowland piece: however, to render them in
> LilyPond you would use these time signatures in a mensural context.
>
> Not convinced that C and cut C are correct either: probably the best
> description for the "C" would be tempus imperfectum and the "cut C" alla
> breve?
>
> --
> Phil Holmes

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

Re: Repeat volta not at beginning of piece doesn't get initial repeat bar line

[Patrick or Cynthia Karl]

> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:20:16 +0200
> From: Marc Hohl 
> Subject: Re: Repeat volta not at beginning of piece doesn't get
>   initial repeat  bar line
> [...]
>> Sorry, that doesn't work for me, result is the same.  I assume you're saying 
>> to replace the \bar "||" with \bar ".|:-||".
> 
> Typo?

No, I cut and pasted.

It turns out that in my zeal to come up with a minimal example, I omitted 
"\score { \new Staff { \music }}.  My example compiled, but didn't generate the 
initial repeat bar line.  Putting it in makes it work.  Thanks for the info.

Do you know why omitting the \score info causes the initial repeat to also be 
omitted?

> 
> \version "2.18.2"
> 
> music = \relative b' {
>a1 a a a
>\bar ".|:-||"
> 
>\break
> 
>\repeat volta 2 { a4 b c d }
> }
> 
> \score  {
>   \new Staff { \music }
> }
> 
> compiles for me and yields in a || at the end of the first and a .|: at
> the beginning of the next line.


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

Re: Repeat volta not at beginning of piece doesn't get initial repeat bar line

[David Kastrup]

Patrick or Cynthia Karl  writes:

>> Message: 6
>> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:20:16 +0200
>> From: Marc Hohl 
>> Subject: Re: Repeat volta not at beginning of piece doesn't get
>>  initial repeat  bar line
>> [...]
>>> Sorry, that doesn't work for me, result is the same.  I assume you're 
>>> saying to replace the \bar "||" with \bar ".|:-||".
>> 
>> Typo?
>
> No, I cut and pasted.
>
> It turns out that in my zeal to come up with a minimal example, I
> omitted "\score { \new Staff { \music }}.  My example compiled, but
> didn't generate the initial repeat bar line.  Putting it in makes it
> work.  Thanks for the info.
>
> Do you know why omitting the \score info causes the initial repeat to also be 
> omitted?

Without a score, no PDF file is written, so you get to see the result
from the last run that _did_ produce a PDF.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Crescendos, sforzandos, and "impossible" MIDI volumes

[Knute Snortum]

I want to start a discussion about this and maybe get a change into
LilyPond.

Currently, you can get an "impossible (de)crescendo" error in LilyPond if
your crescendo has a \sf in the middle [1].  It stops the crescendo and if
you restart it, ending in any dynamic mark, you get an error.  This is
because a \sf has a MIDI volume of 100% and this volume continues afterward.

My understanding of a sforzando is that it is an accent.  So my feeling is
that it shouldn't act like a dynamic marking.  The MIDI volume of 100% is
fine for the note this marking is on, but then the volume should go back to
where it was before the sforzando and the crescendo should continue.

Thoughts?  Comments?

% [1] %%%
\version "2.18.2"

\score {
  \relative c' {
c4 \p \cresc d e f |
g a b c |
d \sf \cresc c b a |
g f e d \f |
c1
  }
  \layout {
  }
  \midi {
\tempo 4 = 140
  }
}

Knute Snortum
(via Gmail)
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Crescendos, sforzandos, and "impossible" MIDI volumes

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 27.06.2014 20:42, schrieb Knute Snortum:
I want to start a discussion about this and maybe get a change into 
LilyPond.


Currently, you can get an "impossible (de)crescendo" error in LilyPond 
if your crescendo has a \sf in the middle [1].  It stops the crescendo 
and if you restart it, ending in any dynamic mark, you get an error. 
 This is because a \sf has a MIDI volume of 100% and this volume 
continues afterward.


My understanding of a sforzando is that it is an accent.  So my 
feeling is that it shouldn't act like a dynamic marking.  The MIDI 
volume of 100% is fine for the note this marking is on, but then the 
volume should go back to where it was before the sforzando and the 
crescendo should continue.
I agree that the MIDI volume should go back to the previous value 
(whatever that is...) after \sf. This correctly reflects its musical 
meaning for what I think. However, I don't think it is wrong for \sf to 
stop a (de)crescendo. In any case, it makes much more sense to me to 
start another one after the \sf than for a (de)crescendo to continue 
"through" the \sf. So it's essentially good for \sf to be interpreted as 
dynamic mark.
I am getting the impression that we are reaching the boundaries of an 
automatic, numerical determination of the intended dynamic values. In 
other words, ambiguities arise, which are no problem for a human 
interpreter, who may then decide in accordance with the context (for 
better or worse...), and needn't be eradicated, as I already stated in a 
similar discussion.
What do you think of defining \sf so that it plays only the affected 
note, say, 30% louder than the surroundings? Which leads to problems if 
the previous volume isn't precisely defined, as in Knute's example:


  \relative c' {
c4 \p \cresc d e f |
g a b c |
% crescendo arriving at 70% ?
d \sf \cresc c b a |
% d played at 100%, the next crescendo starting again from 70% ?
g f e d \f |
c1
  }

(Note that I have no idea how this is currently or might in future be 
implemented...)


Just my 2cts,
Simon
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: BreathingSigns and automatic beams

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> I fully understand what you say, and similar symbols are used for
>> singers, too, however, I think this somehow contradicts what
>> lilypond is intended to do: engraving well-formatted music.  It's
>> not lilypond's job to imitate hand-written marks!  In other words,
>> I want to see some *printed* editions with such entries so that we
>> can adjust lilypond accordingly, if necessary.
> 
> * 
> http://imslp.org/wiki/200_%C3%89tudes_nouvelles_m%C3%A9lodiques_et_progressives_pour_cor_(Alphonse,_Maxime)
>  [...]

Thanks for the samples.  Basically all of them (except in the Franz
Strauss Notturno) look as if the breathing marks were added to the
already engraved plates...  Honestly, I think that this is ugly and
not good engraving.  However, it clearly shows that this symbol can be
positioned exactly on the bar if necessary :-)


Werner

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