Is Lilypond’s G-Clef too straight?

[lilypond]

Lilypond has a very characteristic G-Clef. I’ve only seen a handful of 
Bärenreiter scores with a similar clef.

I personally find the Lilypond-Clef beautiful, but quite some people find it a 
bit too characteristic. I think part of this could come from the Clef being 
very straight. In most editions the G-Clef has a slant forward, so that the 
right edge is less leaning backward.

So I’ve simply tried to rotate the clef a bit, and I’ve found that with just a 
slight rotation the clef looks much more like a „standard” G-clef.

So what do you think about this? Could it be that the G-clef of Feta is just 
slightly too straight?

Cheers,
Valentin\version "2.22"

slClef = {
  \override Clef.stencil =
  #(lambda (grob)
 (let* ((glyph (ly:grob-property grob 'glyph-name)))
   (cond
((equal? glyph "clefs.G")
 (ly:stencil-translate (ly:stencil-rotate (ly:clef::print grob) -1.5 0 -2) '(-0.06 . 0)))
((equal? glyph "clefs.G_change")
 (ly:stencil-rotate (ly:clef::print grob) -2 0 0))
(else (ly:clef::print grob)
}

slClefII = {
  \override Clef.stencil =
  #(lambda (grob)
 (let* ((glyph (ly:grob-property grob 'glyph-name)))
   (cond
((equal? glyph "clefs.G")
 (ly:stencil-translate (ly:stencil-rotate (ly:clef::print grob) -2.5 0 -1.5) '(-0.06 . 0)))
((equal? glyph "clefs.G_change")
 (ly:stencil-rotate (ly:clef::print grob) -2.8 0 0))
(else (ly:clef::print grob)
}


mI = <<
  \new Staff { \key c\major \grace {\once\hideNotes c64} c''2 e''4 g'' }
  \new Staff {\clef bass \key c\major \grace {\once\hideNotes c64} \once\override Staff.Clef.X-extent = #'(1.5 . 2) \clef "treble" c'8 g' e' g' c' g' e' g' }
>>

<<
  \new PianoStaff \mI
  \new PianoStaff \with {\slClef } \mI
  \new PianoStaff \with {\slClefII } \mI
>>

<<
  \new PianoStaff \transpose c cis \mI
  \new PianoStaff \with {\slClef } \transpose c cis  \mI
  \new PianoStaff \with {\slClefII } \transpose c cis  \mI
>>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Is Lilypond’s G-Clef too straight?

[Xavier Scheuer]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 12:06,  wrote:
>
> Lilypond has a very characteristic G-Clef. I’ve only seen a handful of
> Bärenreiter scores with a similar clef.
>
> I personally find the Lilypond-Clef beautiful, but quite some people find
it a
> bit too characteristic. I think part of this could come from the Clef
being
> very straight. In most editions the G-Clef has a slant forward, so that
the
> right edge is less leaning backward.
>
> So I’ve simply tried to rotate the clef a bit, and I’ve found that with
just a
> slight rotation the clef looks much more like a „standard” G-clef.
>
> So what do you think about this? Could it be that the G-clef of Feta is
just
> slightly too straight?

Hello Valentin,

This reminds me of https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/1752
See also the discussion at
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-07/msg00183.html

Cheers,
Xavier

-- 
Xavier Scheuer 

Re: Is Lilypond’s G-Clef too straight?

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> Lilypond has a very characteristic G-Clef. I’ve only seen a handful
>> of Bärenreiter scores with a similar clef.

Actually, I consider it the most beautiful glyph of Emmentaler.

>> I personally find the Lilypond-Clef beautiful, but quite some
>> people find it a bit too characteristic.  I think part of this
>> could come from the Clef being very straight.  In most editions the
>> G-Clef has a slant forward, so that the right edge is less leaning
>> backward.
>>
>> So I’ve simply tried to rotate the clef a bit, and I’ve found that
>> with just a slight rotation the clef looks much more like a
>> „standard” G-clef.  So what do you think about this?  Could it be
>> that the G-clef of Feta is just slightly too straight?
> 
> This reminds me of https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/1752
> See also the discussion at
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-07/msg00183.html

Your idea is worthwhile to consider.  However, rotation alone doesn't
do it; in particular, it worsens the bottom of the glyph: IMHO, the
bottommost horizontal tangent must touch the outline exactly where it
is now.  Due to rotation, it moves to the right, causing an imbalanced
look for me.  This essentially means that you have to modify the
METAFONT code to get what you suggest.


Werner

Re: Is Lilypond’s G-Clef too straight?

[lilypond]

Hello Werner,
 
> Actually, I consider it the most beautiful glyph of Emmentaler.

I fully agree with you there, I’d even say the Feta G-Clef is in some regards 
one of the most beautiful out there.

I do know that rotation is not an actual solution, for more reasons than that 
one, as rotation will mess with the direction of contrast and such stuff. This 
is by no means a proposed solution or anything, but just a quick and dirty 
hack to visualize the difference for the sake of determining if there is such 
an issue. I’m not sure myself if this is an issue.

Valentin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Is Lilypond’s G-Clef too straight?

[Silvain Dupertuis]

Interesting!
As for me, the Lylypond orientation of G clef looks *actually better balanced* that the 
rotated one.

The rotated version seems to fall on the right instead of staying straigth...

I am not sure to understand all the details of the code,
but I tried to check the angles (using a PDF of the clefs and manipulating it 
with Inkscape)
The angles I found do not correspond exactly to the values I see in the code :

Second and third clefs are rotated left of angles of
respectively 1.42° and 2.37° (probably correspond to values 1.5 and 2.5 in the 
code)

measuring here :


Le 12.08.21 à 12:05, lilyp...@petzel.at a écrit :

Lilypond has a very characteristic G-Clef. I’ve only seen a handful of
Bärenreiter scores with a similar clef.

I personally find the Lilypond-Clef beautiful, but quite some people find it a
bit too characteristic. I think part of this could come from the Clef being
very straight. In most editions the G-Clef has a slant forward, so that the
right edge is less leaning backward.

So I’ve simply tried to rotate the clef a bit, and I’ve found that with just a
slight rotation the clef looks much more like a „standard” G-clef.

So what do you think about this? Could it be that the G-clef of Feta is just
slightly too straight?

Cheers,
Valentin



--
Silvain Dupertuis
Route de Lausanne 335
1293 Bellevue (Switzerland)
tél. +41-(0)22-774.20.67
portable +41-(0)79-604.87.52
web: silvain-dupertuis.org 

Re: Is Lilypond’s G-Clef too straight?

[Valentin Petzel]

Hello Silvain,

That is kind of the point. In most editions the G-Clef is not balanced, but 
leans a bit forward. Lilypond’s G-Clef does so too, but very slightly, so the 
I’m asking for aesthetic opinions on whether this might be a slight bit too 
straight.

Valentin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Elision slur below entire syllable

[Valentin Petzel]

Hi Brent,

To achieve such a thing you need to use \concat. This will tell Lilypond to 
join the single markup objects at the edges into one.

Valentin

Am Donnerstag, 12. August 2021, 04:49:36 CEST schrieb Brent Annable:
> Oh just one more thing: how do I get the "love" and the "liest" to join
> together as one word, without a space in between? At the moment I have:
> 
> \column {
> \line {  "See, the love"\undertie"liest""blooming rose," }
>   "   Alleluia!"
>   "From the branch of Jesse grows,"
>   "   Alleluia!"
> }
> 
> But that produces "love" and "liest" as two separate words.
> 
> Brent.
> 
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 03:37, Brent Annable  wrote:
> > Valentin,
> > 
> > Marvellous, thank you!
> > 
> > Brent.
> > 
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, 3:16 am ,  wrote:
> >> Hi Brent,
> >> 
> >> This is usually called an undertie. You can do this in markup with the
> >> \undertie command. Note that you can use any markup in lyricsmode, so you
> >> can
> >> do
> >> 
> >> \new Staff { c' c'} \addlyrics {lov --  \markup\undertie"liest"}
> >> 
> >> to get this even in lyrics.
> >> 
> >> Cheers,
> >> Valentin
> >> 
> >> Am Mittwoch, 11. August 2021, 19:05:20 CEST schrieb Brent Annable:
> >> > Hi everyone,
> >> > 
> >> > Is there any way to place an elision slur below an entire syllable (not
> >> > between syllables), as shown in the example? And does anybody know the
> >> > proper name for this thing?
> >> > 
> >> > Since I'm not interlining the lyrics for this hymn,  I actually want to
> >> 
> >> do
> >> 
> >> > this in a \markup block, not in \lyricmode.
> >> > 
> >> > Any guidance much appreciated!
> >> > 
> >> > Brent.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Broken link in German documentation

[Frank Steinmetzger]

Dear list,

I was reading up on stuff in the documentation and found a broken link.

If you go to
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-attached-to-notes.de.html
and click on the link in “Schnipsel: Expressive marks”, you get a 404.

Cheers.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

What doesn’t kill you mutates and tries again.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Line breaking issue

[Rachel Green]

For some reason, the \break command doesn’t seem to be working in this example. 
I need a new line to start after the first measure so that all the notes of the 
following measure can fit on the same line. Any ideas? I’ve tried adding breaks 
in the cadenza section to see if they work elsewhere using \bar “” \break , but 
I can’t get the line to break anywhere.

Best,
Rachel

[cid:40EAEF33-24D7-4BDF-A7A7-417759FC2330]


\version "2.19.80"

\language "english"
#(set-global-staff-size 20)

\header {
title = \markup \fontsize #2 "Waltz"
  }


Treble = \relative c''
  {
  \clef treble

\tempo "Andante"
\time 6/8
\key df \major
 \voiceOne [f'32( df df af)] \oneVoice [f( df df af)] \voiceOne [f''( df df 
af)] [af'( f df df)] \oneVoice [af( f df df)] \voiceOne [af''( f df df)] 
\oneVoice |
   \break
 \cadenzaOn
   \up \ottava #1 f'64([ df df bf af af f f \ottava #0 df df bf af af f f df df 
bf af af f f
   df df bf af af f f df f f af af bf  df df f f af af bf df df f f af af bf df 
df f f af af)]  |
  \break  \bar ""
   \break
  }

\score {
  \new GrandStaff
  <<
   \new Staff = "treble" { \Treble }
  >>

}

Re: Line breaking issue

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Hi Rachel,

Am 12.08.21 um 19:35 schrieb Rachel Green:
For some reason, the \break command doesn’t seem to be working in this 
example. I need a new line to start after the first measure so that 
all the notes of the following measure can fit on the same line. Any 
ideas? I’ve tried adding breaks in the cadenza section to see if they 
work elsewhere using \bar “” \break , but I can’t get the line to 
break anywhere.


Best,
Rachel



\version "2.19.80"

\language "english"
#(set-global-staff-size 20)

\header {
    title = \markup \fontsize #2 "Waltz"
  }


Treble = \relative c''
  {
  \clef treble

    \tempo "Andante"
    \time 6/8
    \key df \major
 \voiceOne [f'32( df df af)] \oneVoice [f( df df af)] \voiceOne [f''( 
df df af)] [af'( f df df)] \oneVoice [af( f df df)] \voiceOne [af''( f 
df df)] \oneVoice |

   \break
     \cadenzaOn
   \up \ottava #1 f'64([ df df bf af af f f \ottava #0 df df bf af af 
f f df df bf af af f f
   df df bf af af f f df f f af af bf  df df f f af af bf df df f f af 
af bf df df f f af af)]  |

  \break  \bar ""
   \break
  }

\score {
  \new GrandStaff
  <<
   \new Staff = "treble" { \Treble }
  >>

}
Unfortunately, the source code you posted does not compile. It uses 
undefined commands like \up, and I'm surprised to see constructs like 
"[f'32( df df af)]": beams are postfix in LilyPond.


Judging from the picture you attached, I'd suspect that \override 
Beam.breakable = ##t might be helpful in your situation.


Lukas

RE: Line breaking issue

[Mark Stephen Mrotek]

Rachel,

 

Beaming command starts after the first note, e.g., d [ a b c ]

See if the attached works.

 

Mark

 

From: lilypond-user [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] 
On Behalf Of Rachel Green
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 10:36 AM
To: lilypond-user 
Subject: Line breaking issue

 

For some reason, the \break command doesn’t seem to be working in this example. 
I need a new line to start after the first measure so that all the notes of the 
following measure can fit on the same line. Any ideas? I’ve tried adding breaks 
in the cadenza section to see if they work elsewhere using \bar “” \break , but 
I can’t get the line to break anywhere.

 

Best,

Rachel

 



 

 

\version "2.19.80"

 

\language "english"

#(set-global-staff-size 20)

 

\header {

title = \markup \fontsize #2 "Waltz"

  }

 

 

Treble = \relative c''

  {

  \clef treble

 

\tempo "Andante"

\time 6/8

\key df \major

 \voiceOne [f'32( df df af)] \oneVoice [f( df df af)] \voiceOne [f''( df df 
af)] [af'( f df df)] \oneVoice [af( f df df)] \voiceOne [af''( f df df)] 
\oneVoice |

   \break

 \cadenzaOn

   \up \ottava #1 f'64([ df df bf af af f f \ottava #0 df df bf af af f f df df 
bf af af f f

   df df bf af af f f df f f af af bf  df df f f af af bf df df f f af af bf df 
df f f af af)]  |

  \break  \bar ""

   \break

  }

 

\score {

  \new GrandStaff

  <<

   \new Staff = "treble" { \Treble }

  >>

 

}

 

 

\version "2.19.80"

\language "english"
#(set-global-staff-size 20)

\header {
title = \markup \fontsize #2 "Waltz"
  }


Treble = \relative c''
  {
  \clef treble

\tempo "Andante"
\time 6/8
\key df \major
\voiceOne f'32[( df df af)] \oneVoice f[(df df af)]
\voiceOne f''[( df df af)] af'[( f df df)]
\oneVoice af[( f df df)] \voiceOne af''[( f df df)] \oneVoice |
   \break
   \cadenzaOn
   \ottava #1 f'64([ df df bf af af f f
   \ottava #0 df df bf af af f f df df bf af af f f
   df df bf af af f f df f f af af bf  df df f f af af bf df df f f af af bf df df f f af af)]  |
  \break  \bar ""
   \break
  }

\score {
  \new GrandStaff
  <<
   \new Staff = "treble" { \Treble }
  >>

}

Re: Line breaking issue

[Silvain Dupertuis]

Several things do not work when I open the piece with version 22
Notablly, the [ sign must be after the note, not before
f'32[( df df af)] and not [f'32( df df af)]
\up is refused for me

As for the \break, _it works if you add an invisible bar _
\bar ""
before it

\voiceOne {

   f'32[( df df af)] \oneVoice f[( df df af)] f''[( df df af)] af'[( f df df)] 
\oneVoice af[( f df df)] \voiceOne af''[( f df df)] \oneVoice |

   \bar ""

   \break

 }


Le 12.08.21 à 19:35, Rachel Green a écrit :
For some reason, the \break command doesn’t seem to be working in this example. I need a 
new line to start after the first measure so that all the notes of the following measure 
can fit on the same line. Any ideas? I’ve tried adding breaks in the cadenza section to 
see if they work elsewhere using \bar “” \break , but I can’t get the line to break 
anywhere.


Best,
Rachel



\version "2.19.80"

\language "english"
#(set-global-staff-size 20)

\header {
    title = \markup \fontsize #2 "Waltz"
  }


Treble = \relative c''
  {
  \clef treble

    \tempo "Andante"
    \time 6/8
    \key df \major
 \voiceOne [f'32( df df af)] \oneVoice [f( df df af)] \voiceOne [f''( df df af)] [af'( f 
df df)] \oneVoice [af( f df df)] \voiceOne [af''( f df df)] \oneVoice |

   \break
     \cadenzaOn
   \up \ottava #1 f'64([ df df bf af af f f \ottava #0 df df bf af af f f df df 
bf af af f f
   df df bf af af f f df f f af af bf  df df f f af af bf df df f f af af bf df df f f 
af af)]  |

  \break  \bar ""
   \break
  }

\score {
  \new GrandStaff
  <<
   \new Staff = "treble" { \Treble }
  >>

}




--
Silvain Dupertuis
Route de Lausanne 335
1293 Bellevue (Switzerland)
tél. +41-(0)22-774.20.67
portable +41-(0)79-604.87.52
web: silvain-dupertuis.org 

Re: Line breaking issue

[Valentin Petzel]

Hello Rachel,

As others have said before, the Beam syntax is wrong, you need to specify

Note[ note note note]

Instead of

[note note note note]

(the same way as slurs work). The big problem here is that Lilypond by default 
forbids breaks during Beams, which is normally only relevant when you do have 
Beaming over Measures. But in your case Lilypond is so confused, that it 
basically does not know exactly, where the beams are. So it thinks you have a 
beam going on when you haven’t. Fix the beams and it will work! If everythings 
works, Lilypond will in fact break this by itself, without you telling it to.

Just a remark: You are using \voiceOne and \oneVoice for what I assume to be 
different hands. This is not good, as \oneVoice will change it’s behaviour 
depending on the note position, so if you were to change the clef or transpose 
the piece or something this might change the direction. Instead you can either 
use \voiceOne/\voiceTwo or \stemUp/\stemDown.

Cheers,
Valentin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Line breaking issue

[David Kastrup]

Valentin Petzel  writes:

> Hello Rachel,
>
> As others have said before, the Beam syntax is wrong, you need to specify
>
> Note[ note note note]
>
> Instead of
>
> [note note note note]
>
> (the same way as slurs work). The big problem here is that Lilypond by 
> default 
> forbids breaks during Beams, which is normally only relevant when you do have 
> Beaming over Measures. But in your case Lilypond is so confused, that it 
> basically does not know exactly, where the beams are. So it thinks you have a 
> beam going on when you haven’t. Fix the beams and it will work! If 
> everythings 
> works, Lilypond will in fact break this by itself, without you telling it to.
>
> Just a remark: You are using \voiceOne and \oneVoice for what I assume to be 
> different hands. This is not good, as \oneVoice will change it’s behaviour 
> depending on the note position, so if you were to change the clef or 
> transpose 
> the piece or something this might change the direction. Instead you can 
> either 
> use \voiceOne/\voiceTwo or \stemUp/\stemDown.

\stemUp/\stemDown is pretty much always a very bad idea to use in
anything but the definitions of more complex voice-changing commands
that also cater for notehead collision strategies and other stuff.

It was probably a mistake to make those explicit commands rather than
requiring them to be entered as overrides.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Line breaking issue

[Rachel Green]

Thanks all! That did fix the problem. A student typeset this for me, and I was 
so fixated on the cadenza measure, I did not check the syntax of the first 
measure well. 

Rachel 

> On Aug 12, 2021, at 12:24 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Valentin Petzel  writes:
> 
>> Hello Rachel,
>> 
>> As others have said before, the Beam syntax is wrong, you need to specify
>> 
>> Note[ note note note]
>> 
>> Instead of
>> 
>> [note note note note]
>> 
>> (the same way as slurs work). The big problem here is that Lilypond by 
>> default 
>> forbids breaks during Beams, which is normally only relevant when you do 
>> have 
>> Beaming over Measures. But in your case Lilypond is so confused, that it 
>> basically does not know exactly, where the beams are. So it thinks you have 
>> a 
>> beam going on when you haven’t. Fix the beams and it will work! If 
>> everythings 
>> works, Lilypond will in fact break this by itself, without you telling it to.
>> 
>> Just a remark: You are using \voiceOne and \oneVoice for what I assume to be 
>> different hands. This is not good, as \oneVoice will change it’s behaviour 
>> depending on the note position, so if you were to change the clef or 
>> transpose 
>> the piece or something this might change the direction. Instead you can 
>> either 
>> use \voiceOne/\voiceTwo or \stemUp/\stemDown.
> 
> \stemUp/\stemDown is pretty much always a very bad idea to use in
> anything but the definitions of more complex voice-changing commands
> that also cater for notehead collision strategies and other stuff.
> 
> It was probably a mistake to make those explicit commands rather than
> requiring them to be entered as overrides.
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup

Uke tab questions

[Paulo Matos]

Hi,

I have just started using lilypond to transcribe some music and 
automatically get an ukulele tablature for it.


I am a bit surprised by some fingering choices. For example, a simple 
scale starting in middle-c:


\version "2.22.0"

global = {
  \key c \major
  \time 4/4
}

ukulele = \relative c' {
  \global
  c cis d dis e f fis g gis a ais b c cis d dis e f fis g gis a ais b c
}

\score {
  \new StaffGroup \with {
\consists "Instrument_name_engraver"
instrumentName = "Ukulele"
  } <<
\new Staff \with {
  midiInstrument = "acoustic guitar (steel)"
} \ukulele
\new TabStaff \with {
  stringTunings = #ukulele-tuning
} \ukulele
  >>
  \layout { }
  \midi {
\tempo 4=100
  }
}

I am surprised that with this example, none of the notes show up as 
being played in the G string. The G string seems to be the obvious 
string to play for the high (above middle-c) G (open G string), as well 
as the high G# (G string 1st fret). Why were these not chosen?


Regarding chords I was also surprised by lilypond. The simple A7 chord 
is generally played on an ukulele by simply strumming all strings and 
pressing the C string on the first fret. Yet, when doing:


\version "2.22.0"

global = {
  \key c \major
  \time 4/4
}

ukulele = {
  \chordmode { a:7 }
}

\score {
  \new StaffGroup \with {
\consists "Instrument_name_engraver"
instrumentName = "Ukulele"
  } <<
\new Staff \with {
  midiInstrument = "acoustic guitar (steel)"
} \ukulele
\new TabStaff \with {
  stringTunings = #ukulele-tuning
} \ukulele
  >>
  \layout { }
  \midi {
\tempo 4=100
  }
}

Which I expect to typeset (or do you say engrave?) an A7 chord, it shows 
A string fret 10, E string fret 12, C string fret 13 and nothing on the 
G string with the warning:


/tmp/frescobaldi-knffjkxj/tmpw0203nsz/HighG-Ukulele-Chords.ly:9:16: 
warning: No string for pitch # (given frets (13 12 10))


  \chordmode {

   a:7 }


What's going on here?


Thanks for lilypond btw - it's pretty impressive.


--

Paulo Matos

Re: Uke tab questions

[Carl Sorensen]

Dear Paulo,

The automatic fret generation code only works for instruments with monotonic 
(steadily increasing or decreasing) string pitches.  Since the ukulele has 
non-monotonic string pitches, the algorithms do not work.  See Known issues and 
warnings under 
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/common-notation-for-fretted-strings#automatic-fret-diagrams


You can work around this by using the predefined fret diagrams for ukulele.

\include "predefined-ukulele-fretboards.ly"

See 
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/common-notation-for-fretted-strings#predefined-fret-diagrams

Hope this helps,

Carl

Re: Line breaking issue

[Hwaen Ch'uqi]

Aww, buried in this explanation is the fact that you are "sharing the
gospel" of LilyPond with your students: Fantastic!!!

Hwaen Ch'uqi


On 8/12/21, Rachel Green  wrote:
> Thanks all! That did fix the problem. A student typeset this for me, and I
> was so fixated on the cadenza measure, I did not check the syntax of the
> first measure well.
>
> Rachel
>
>> On Aug 12, 2021, at 12:24 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>
>> Valentin Petzel  writes:
>>
>>> Hello Rachel,
>>>
>>> As others have said before, the Beam syntax is wrong, you need to
>>> specify
>>>
>>> Note[ note note note]
>>>
>>> Instead of
>>>
>>> [note note note note]
>>>
>>> (the same way as slurs work). The big problem here is that Lilypond by
>>> default
>>> forbids breaks during Beams, which is normally only relevant when you do
>>> have
>>> Beaming over Measures. But in your case Lilypond is so confused, that it
>>>
>>> basically does not know exactly, where the beams are. So it thinks you
>>> have a
>>> beam going on when you haven’t. Fix the beams and it will work! If
>>> everythings
>>> works, Lilypond will in fact break this by itself, without you telling it
>>> to.
>>>
>>> Just a remark: You are using \voiceOne and \oneVoice for what I assume to
>>> be
>>> different hands. This is not good, as \oneVoice will change it’s
>>> behaviour
>>> depending on the note position, so if you were to change the clef or
>>> transpose
>>> the piece or something this might change the direction. Instead you can
>>> either
>>> use \voiceOne/\voiceTwo or \stemUp/\stemDown.
>>
>> \stemUp/\stemDown is pretty much always a very bad idea to use in
>> anything but the definitions of more complex voice-changing commands
>> that also cater for notehead collision strategies and other stuff.
>>
>> It was probably a mistake to make those explicit commands rather than
>> requiring them to be entered as overrides.
>>
>> --
>> David Kastrup
>
>

Re: Broken link in German documentation

[Federico Bruni]

Thanks for the report, but it's a known problem of the translation 
infrastructure.
The name in the URL of the snippet manual is translated but it 
shouldn't:

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-attached-to-notes.de.html
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/snippets/ausdrucksbezeichnungen




On Thu, Aug 12 2021 at 16:38:10 +0200, Frank Steinmetzger 
 wrote:

Dear list,

I was reading up on stuff in the documentation and found a broken 
link.


If you go to
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-attached-to-notes.de.html
and click on the link in “Schnipsel: Expressive marks”, you get a 
404.


Cheers.

--
Grüße | Greetings | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social 
network.


What doesn’t kill you mutates and tries again.

Re: Uke tab questions

[Valentin Petzel]

Hello Paolo, hello Carl,

This is actually very easy to fix. By default the algorithm works like this: 
We try to put each note to the lowest possible fret. To do this we assume the 
strings are in falling pitch and then we just walk through all strings and 
stop once we get one that works.

To get this to work with non-monotonous strings, one has to simply change this 
to: Instead of always getting the next string, try to find the next highest 
string. And then you’re done.

I’ve included a quick and moderately unefficient (but then, how many strings 
might we get?) patch for scm/translation-functions.scm which solves this 
issue.

Cheers,
Valentin

Am Freitag, 13. August 2021, 00:03:47 CEST schrieb Carl Sorensen:
> Dear Paulo,
> 
> The automatic fret generation code only works for instruments with monotonic
> (steadily increasing or decreasing) string pitches.  Since the ukulele has
> non-monotonic string pitches, the algorithms do not work.  See Known issues
> and warnings under
> https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/common-notation-for-f
> retted-strings#automatic-fret-diagrams
 
> 
> You can work around this by using the predefined fret diagrams for ukulele.
> 
> \include "predefined-ukulele-fretboards.ly"
> 
> See
> https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/common-notation-for-f
> retted-strings#predefined-fret-diagrams
 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Carl
> 
> 
> 
--- translation-functions.scm~	2021-08-13 01:01:57.847581707 +0200
+++ translation-functions.scm	2021-08-13 01:20:24.542215309 +0200
@@ -465,6 +465,17 @@
  (list string #f finger)))
defined-strings defined-fingers))
 
+(define (find-next-open-string free-strings pitch)
+  (define (iter-strings strings best-string best-pitch)
+ (if (null? strings)
+ best-string
+ (if (and best-pitch (ly:pitch

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

How to shift tempo text on the right of the rehearsal mark in the conductor score?

[Marco Bagolin]

Hello all
I would like to shift tempo text on the right of the rehearsal mark in the
conductor score.

Conductor score is a file where all instruments files are called

\version "2.20.0"

\include "01_fluteI.ly"
\include "03_oboe.ly"
\include "04_clarinetI.ly"
\include "06_bassclarinet.ly"
\include "07_bassoon.ly"


I tried typing the following code in every instrument file, but it doesn't
work:

\version "2.20.0"



R1*3 \! |
%082-083-084

\mark \default
\once \override Score.BarNumber.stencil = ##f % nasconde, se necessario, il
numero di inizio riga

\time 6/4
-\tweak self-alignment-X #-2.5
\tempo \markup \column { \line {"Molto allegro"}
\line \raise #1.0 \normal-text
\fontsize #-1 {\italic { \char ##x0022 "Descent Into Mystery"
\char ##x0022 }}} 4 = 140
R1*6/4 |




Where is the mistake?
I can't find it...
who can help me?

Thank you in advance

Regards

How to shift tempo text on the right of the rehearsal mark in the conductor score? (see the image attached)

[Marco Bagolin]

[image: Schermata 2021-08-13 alle 07.40.54.png]

Hello all
I would like to shift tempo text on the right of the rehearsal mark in the
conductor score.

Conductor score is a file where all instruments files are called

\version "2.20.0"

\include "01_fluteI.ly"
\include "03_oboe.ly"
\include "04_clarinetI.ly"
\include "06_bassclarinet.ly"
\include "07_bassoon.ly"


I tried typing the following code in every instrument file, but it doesn't
work:

\version "2.20.0"



R1*3 \! |
%082-083-084

\mark \default
\once \override Score.BarNumber.stencil = ##f % nasconde, se necessario, il
numero di inizio riga

\time 6/4
-\tweak self-alignment-X #-2.5
\tempo \markup \column { \line {"Molto allegro"}
\line \raise #1.0 \normal-text
\fontsize #-1 {\italic { \char ##x0022 "Descent Into Mystery"
\char ##x0022 }}} 4 = 140
R1*6/4 |




Where is the mistake?
I can't find it...
who can help me?

Thank you in advance

Regards