Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> On Fr., 26. Aug. 2011 23:32:39 CEST, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> I checked around, and Rationals (which are used for time) have a
>> representation of -inf. I think it would be a good start if the default
>> grace time component (namely when no grace is present) was
Reading the documentation in Notation:4.2.2: Setting the staff size,
one thinks that one can set the staff size for all scores in an input
file by using the set-global-staff-size function, or one can set the
staff size for each individual score in an input file by using the
layout-set-staff-si
Am Friday, 26. August 2011, 23:05:26 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Well, here's an curious discovery: If you have a global variable
> "simultaneous-ed" into the Voice/Staff context(s), the "extra" skipped
> grace note MUST BE IN THE GLOBAL, not just explicitly placed in the other
> Voice(s)/Staff(s).
On 27 Aug 2011, at 00:51, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> On Fr., 26. Aug. 2011 23:32:39 CEST, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> I checked around, and Rationals (which are used for time) have a
>> representation of -inf. I think it would be a good start if the default
>> grace time component (namely when
Am Friday, 26. August 2011, 22:59:47 schrieb Hans Aberg:
> My impression is that there is a mixture of code, sometimes putting the
> grace-note before the bar, and sometimes after.
>
> A fix might allow one to fine-tune that.
Actually, lilypond's handling is way more abstract. There are no checks
On Fr., 26. Aug. 2011 23:32:39 CEST, David Kastrup wrote:
> I checked around, and Rationals (which are used for time) have a
> representation of -inf. I think it would be a good start if the default
> grace time component (namely when no grace is present) was not set to 0,
> but to -inf, meanin
Hi all,
Well, here's an curious discovery: If you have a global variable
"simultaneous-ed" into the Voice/Staff context(s), the "extra" skipped grace
note MUST BE IN THE GLOBAL, not just explicitly placed in the other
Voice(s)/Staff(s).
\version "2.13"
% skip in voice = fail
global = { \key a
On 26 Aug 2011, at 22:47, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>> I now got it working: just put in a grace note with a skip in the other
>> staff.
>
> I had already tried that in my score — doesn't fix the problem.
To fix the problem, I first commented out the other staff (in fact, some chord
names). When
Hi Hans,
> I now got it working: just put in a grace note with a skip in the other staff.
I had already tried that in my score — doesn't fix the problem.
> However, when trying to use \bar ":||", like in the manual, then all sorts of
> strange things happen.
=(
Kieren.
Wow, this still isn't fixed?
I'll put money towards this, too.
-Jonathan
- Original Message -
> From: Kieren MacMillan
> To: Lilypond-User Mailing List
> Cc: Lilypond Bugreports
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:43 AM
> Subject: grace synchronization
>
> Hello all,
>
> I'm runni
On 26 Aug 2011, at 21:30, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2011, at 17:43, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>
>> I'm running into a rather irritating grace synchronization problem — an
>> acciaccatura in one voice is overriding an explicit page break — and so I
>> wanted to know what it would take to fix t
On 26 Aug 2011, at 17:43, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> I'm running into a rather irritating grace synchronization problem — an
> acciaccatura in one voice is overriding an explicit page break — and so I
> wanted to know what it would take to fix the grace sync problem "once and for
> all".
By coi
Dear list,
I've run into a problem with baseline-skip, and I'm wondering if I've missed
something.
The attached file demonstrates what happens to a column when the staff size
is changed within a layout block. I would expect that the override of
StaffSymbol #'staff-space would also scale the over
Hi,
how can I shorten the first part of a broken hairpin to avoid the printing
under a new KeySignature (or KeyCancellation, TimeSignature etc) at a
linebreak?
I tried (with no success):
\version "2.14.2"
\pointAndClickOff
\paper { ragged-right = ##f }
lengthHairpinBoth =
#(define-music-func
Hello all,
I'm running into a rather irritating grace synchronization problem — an
acciaccatura in one voice is overriding an explicit page break — and so I
wanted to know what it would take to fix the grace sync problem "once and for
all".
I know of Issue 34 (and others) in the tracker, but
Your second example shows the correct beaming as required in Associated
Board theory exams.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Nick Payne wrote:
> According to Gould (p.153, about half way down the page), the Lilypond
> default beaming for 3/4 is incorrect in the following example; it should be
>
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Am Freitag, 26. August 2011, 15:12:16 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Note that this would not agree with Gould. Paraphrasing the gut rule I
>> apply here, this would likely be something like
>>
>> An off-beat can be beamed to the next group if its on-beat is not
>> e
"Dmytro O. Redchuk" writes:
> On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 13:54 David Kastrup wrote:
>> So maybe the "spacer rest" terminology is not doing anybody a favor.
>>
>> Would you have felt more comfortable if my example had used "\skip"
>> instead of "spacer rests"?
> No, not sure. Why "music" should contain
On 26 Aug 2011, at 15:14, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2011, at 13:07, Nick Payne wrote:
>
>> According to Gould (p.153, about half way down the page), the Lilypond
>> default beaming for 3/4 is incorrect in the following example; it should be
>> beamed as in the second bar:
>>
>> \version "2
Am Freitag, 26. August 2011, 15:12:16 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Note that this would not agree with Gould. Paraphrasing the gut rule I
> apply here, this would likely be something like
>
> An off-beat can be beamed to the next group if its on-beat is not
> explicitly present.
The problem is t
On 26 Aug 2011, at 13:07, Nick Payne wrote:
> According to Gould (p.153, about half way down the page), the Lilypond
> default beaming for 3/4 is incorrect in the following example; it should be
> beamed as in the second bar:
>
> \version "2.14.2"
>
> \relative c' {
>\time 3/4
>c4. c8
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Kastrup"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 1:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Default beaming for 3/4
>
>
>> Nick Payne writes:
>>
>>> According to Gould (p.153, about half way down the page), the Lilypond
>>> default beaming for 3/4
On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 13:54 David Kastrup wrote:
> So maybe the "spacer rest" terminology is not doing anybody a favor.
>
> Would you have felt more comfortable if my example had used "\skip"
> instead of "spacer rests"?
No, not sure. Why "music" should contain any "skips" to be "typeset" nicely?
W
Dear community,
although I think I can understand why the crescendi and decrescendi are not
played back correctly on the longer notes in the below quoted snippet,
I wonder why I can't hear at least the difference between forte and piano
in bar 3 and 4.
Is there a possibility to get a more accurate
Am Freitag, 26. August 2011, 14:22:27 schrieb David Kastrup:
> I think if
> a note or "spacer rest" creates an implicit Voice context for the rest
> of sequential music in { c ... } then it should do the same for << c
> ... >>. Can anybody think of music where this would be a bad idea? I
> am not
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Default beaming for 3/4
Nick Payne writes:
According to Gould (p.153, about half way down the page), the Lilypond
default beaming for 3/4 is incorrect in the following example; it
sho
Nick Payne writes:
> According to Gould (p.153, about half way down the page), the Lilypond
> default beaming for 3/4 is incorrect in the following example; it
> should be beamed as in the second bar:
>
> \version "2.14.2"
>
> \relative c' {
> \time 3/4
> c4. c8 c c
> c4. c8 c[ c]
> }
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Am Friday, 26. August 2011, 12:48:28 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
>> On 08/26/2011 10:28 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > It's pretty much along the lines of the given verbal description. You
>> > could also do something like
>> >
>> > << c1 { s4\< s2\! s4 } >>
>>
>> Is t
"Dmytro O. Redchuk" writes:
> On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 11:59 David Kastrup wrote:
>> Your complaint about my code focused on the consequences of doing the
>> crescendo in a separate voice. Which I did not do.
> I am sorry.
>
>> So could you focus your critique on << c1 { s4 s2\< s4\! } >> (or
>> what
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Payne"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 12:07 PM
Subject: Default beaming for 3/4
According to Gould (p.153, about half way down the page), the Lilypond
default beaming for 3/4 is incorrect in the following example; it should
be beamed as in the seco
Am Friday, 26. August 2011, 12:48:28 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
> On 08/26/2011 10:28 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > It's pretty much along the lines of the given verbal description. You
> > could also do something like
> >
> > << c1 { s4\< s2\! s4 } >>
>
> Is this a new notation for 2.14, or is it
Joseph Wakeling wrote Friday, August 26, 2011 11:48 AM
On 08/26/2011 10:28 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
It's pretty much along the lines of the given verbal description.
You
could also do something like
<< c1 { s4\< s2\! s4 } >>
Is this a new notation for 2.14, or is it missing the \\ ?
I as
According to Gould (p.153, about half way down the page), the Lilypond
default beaming for 3/4 is incorrect in the following example; it should
be beamed as in the second bar:
\version "2.14.2"
\relative c' {
\time 3/4
c4. c8 c c
c4. c8 c[ c]
}
<>___
On 08/26/2011 10:28 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> It's pretty much along the lines of the given verbal description. You
> could also do something like
>
> << c1 { s4\< s2\! s4 } >>
Is this a new notation for 2.14, or is it missing the \\ ?
I ask because when compiling this under 2.12 I get two sta
On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 11:59 David Kastrup wrote:
> Your complaint about my code focused on the consequences of doing the
> crescendo in a separate voice. Which I did not do.
I am sorry.
> So could you focus your critique on << c1 { s4 s2\< s4\! } >> (or
> whatever the exact timing was) rather than
"Dmytro O. Redchuk" writes:
> On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 11:12 David Kastrup wrote:
>> > You can do this in a separate voice
>>
>> If you think this is a separate voice
> No, I wrote "you can do it in a separate voice". Also.
>
> Both ways, as for me, are not very elegant.
Your complaint about my code
On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 11:12 David Kastrup wrote:
> > You can do this in a separate voice
>
> If you think this is a separate voice
No, I wrote "you can do it in a separate voice". Also.
Both ways, as for me, are not very elegant.
I can be wrong, sorry for the noise.
--
Dmytro O. Redchuk
"Dmytro O. Redchuk" writes:
> On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 10:28 David Kastrup wrote:
>> "Dmytro O. Redchuk" writes:
>> > I am not a composer at all, but... is this a "musical" approach?
>>
>> It's pretty much along the lines of the given verbal description. You
>> could also do something like
>>
>> <
On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 10:28 David Kastrup wrote:
> "Dmytro O. Redchuk" writes:
> > I am not a composer at all, but... is this a "musical" approach?
>
> It's pretty much along the lines of the given verbal description. You
> could also do something like
>
> << c1 { s4\< s2\! s4 } >>
Yes, I know ,)
"Dmytro O. Redchuk" writes:
> On Thu 25 Aug 2011, 23:51 David Kastrup wrote:
>> c1*1/4 s1*3/4\p
>>
>> c1*1/4 s1*3/4\<
>>
>> c1*1/4 s1*5/8\< s1*1/8\!
> I am not a composer at all, but... is this a "musical" approach?
It's pretty much along the lines of the given verbal description. You
could a
On Thu 25 Aug 2011, 23:51 David Kastrup wrote:
> c1*1/4 s1*3/4\p
>
> c1*1/4 s1*3/4\<
>
> c1*1/4 s1*5/8\< s1*1/8\!
I am not a composer at all, but... is this a "musical" approach?
--
Dmytro O. Redchuk"Easy to use" is easy to say.
Bug Squad
41 matches
Mail list logo
