> 1. The time signature is written immediately before the |: separating
> the bars of :||: if necessary, unless a repeat alternative ends in a
> different meter than the repeat section begins with, in which case the
> time signature is moved after the |:.
> 2. The time signature is always written
On 10 Aug 2009, at 00:51, David Kastrup wrote:
I figure LilyPond might support what people want to typeset.
Yes, if I tell it explicitly. Short of that, Lilypond should pick the
way that best reflects the art of typesetting, as recognized by the
developers. It is ok if there are manual overr
Hans Aberg writes:
> On 9 Aug 2009, at 21:07, Bernard Hurley wrote:
>
>>> The default rule is really that one should have a minimum number of
>>> time
>>> signatures if the repeat construct is expanded*).
>>
>> That seems like a reasonable rule. But a quick look through my pile
>> of full scores
On 9 Aug 2009, at 21:07, Bernard Hurley wrote:
The default rule is really that one should have a minimum number of
time
signatures if the repeat construct is expanded*).
That seems like a reasonable rule. But a quick look through my pile
of full scores (Mostly Dover reprints of 18th and 19
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 11:41:37PM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2009, at 15:41, Valentin Villenave wrote:
>
>> Er, I got lost in the discussion. Could you sum up your report
>> (possibly with a picture)?
>
> The default rule is really that one should have a minimum number of time
> signatur
On 9 Aug 2009, at 11:13, Valentin Villenave wrote:
2009/8/8 David Kastrup :
Meter changes should occur before an opening repeat sign. If there
is a
closing one immediately adjacently, opening and closing one are
placed
apart, and the meter change in between.
Thanks, I've added it as http
2009/8/8 David Kastrup :
> Meter changes should occur before an opening repeat sign. If there is a
> closing one immediately adjacently, opening and closing one are placed
> apart, and the meter change in between.
Thanks, I've added it as http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=828
Re
On 8 Aug 2009, at 15:41, Valentin Villenave wrote:
Er, I got lost in the discussion. Could you sum up your report
(possibly with a picture)?
The default rule is really that one should have a minimum number of
time signatures if the repeat construct is expanded*). An alternative
way to put
>> Er, I got lost in the discussion. Could you sum up your report
>> (possibly with a picture)?
>
> Meter changes should occur before an opening repeat sign. If there
> is a closing one immediately adjacently, opening and closing one are
> placed apart, and the meter change in between.
I've sent
Valentin Villenave writes:
> 2009/8/8 Werner LEMBERG :
>> Yes. By default, a meter change should be positioned before the
>> repetition sign.
>>
>> This should be added to the bug tracker...
>
> Er, I got lost in the discussion. Could you sum up your report
> (possibly with a picture)?
Meter ch
2009/8/8 Werner LEMBERG :
> Yes. By default, a meter change should be positioned before the
> repetition sign.
>
> This should be added to the bug tracker...
Er, I got lost in the discussion. Could you sum up your report
(possibly with a picture)?
Regards,
Valentin
> I have looked into some Bulgarian sheet music, and they do the same as
> in Hindemith and in your example:
> 1. If the meter shift occurs at a staff break, the staff lines before
> the break gets a courtesy time signature at the very end (without a
> following bar).
> 2. The time signature appea
On 7 Aug 2009, at 08:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Here an example from Brahms Gesamtausgabe, Haydn Variations, which
demonstrates what I mean.
I have looked into some Bulgarian sheet music, and they do the same as
in Hindemith and in your example:
1. If the meter shift occurs at a staff break,
>> Here an example from Brahms Gesamtausgabe, Haydn Variations, which
>> demonstrates what I mean.
>
> Hm, at the ultimate beginning.
No, in the middle of the piece (see the bar number).
> Isn't it customary not to set a repeat sign at all in that case?
You have to indicate the beginning of the
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> In the incipit to the `Repeats' section, I think it should be
>>>
>>>2 |
>>> |:
>>>4 |
>>>
>>> instead of
>>>
>>>| 2
>>>|:
>>>| 4
>>>
>>> Later in the chapter there is a snippet which demonstrates this.
>>
>> Not sure. It would appear to me
>> In the incipit to the `Repeats' section, I think it should be
>>
>>2 |
>> |:
>>4 |
>>
>> instead of
>>
>>| 2
>>|:
>>| 4
>>
>> Later in the chapter there is a snippet which demonstrates this.
>
> Not sure. It would appear to me that
>
> 2 |
> :|:
> 4 |
>
On 6 Aug 2009, at 18:59, David Kastrup wrote:
Werner LEMBERG writes:
In the incipit to the `Repeats' section, I think it should be
2 |
|:
4 |
instead of
| 2
|:
| 4
Later in the chapter there is a snippet which demonstrates this.
Not sure. It would appear to me that
Werner LEMBERG writes:
> In the incipit to the `Repeats' section, I think it should be
>
>2 |
> |:
>4 |
>
> instead of
>
>| 2
>|:
>| 4
>
> Later in the chapter there is a snippet which demonstrates this.
Not sure. It would appear to me that
2 |
:|:
4 |
In the incipit to the `Repeats' section, I think it should be
2 |
|:
4 |
instead of
| 2
|:
| 4
Later in the chapter there is a snippet which demonstrates this.
Werner
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
ht
19 matches
Mail list logo
