Re: Beam slope across break

Thank you! -- Knute Snortum On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 1:23 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote: > > In short, is there a way to control the slope of the beam after the > break, or > > some other way to deal with the situation? > > \alterBroken positions #'((-6.5 . -3.5) (-3.5 . -1)) Beam > > >

Re: Beam slope across break

> In short, is there a way to control the slope of the beam after the break, or > some other way to deal with the situation?   \alterBroken positions #'((-6.5 . -3.5) (-3.5 . -1)) Beam signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Beam slope across break

I am engraving a piece with a lot of beams crossing breaks. Most of the time LilyPond does fine with these, but once in a while I'd like to adjust the beam slope of the second part of the broken beam. Overriding beam positions seems like a good fit here, but in my case it produces stems too

Re: no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope

Now I recall that I solved the problem before in a very, very, clumsy and adhoc way. And I thought, at that time, that there must be a better solution. MWE3.ly Description: Binary data MWE3.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document 2022/08/13 18:39、TamuraJun のメール:Oops! No key signatur

Re: no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope

Oops! No key signature on the lower staff. MWE2.ly Description: Binary data MWE2.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document 2022/08/13 18:34、TamuraJun のメール:Thanks Jean, for your prompt response.Here is an example.This is a part of the piece I’m type setting now - J. S. Bach’s Sonata fo

Re: no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope

Thanks Jean, for your prompt response.Here is an example.This is a part of the piece I’m type setting now - J. S. Bach’s Sonata for Flute and Harpsichord in B minor BWV 1030. Bar 13 of the harpsichord part of the second movement. I’m literally following Neue Bach Ausgabe (Bärenreiter) edition for t

Re: no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope

Le 13/08/2022 à 10:27, TamuraJun a écrit : Hello, This could be a question that has been asked in the list for zillion times but I can’t find a good answer from the archive. I see the subject warning message often when engraving keyboard music with cross-staff beaming. I believe that what i n

no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope

Hello, This could be a question that has been asked in the list for zillion times but I can’t find a good answer from the archive. I see the subject warning message often when engraving keyboard music with cross-staff beaming. I believe that what i need to do is to widen the distance between t

Re: Cross-staff beam slope and slur colliding with lyrics

Michael Rivers writes: > I'm trying to replicate the attached bar of music from an edition of > Ici-bas! by Fauré. I can't figure out how to flatten the cross-staff beam > to be horizontal. For the slur, I can use \shape to flatten it, or I can > put in an invisible note to push the vocal staff h

Re: What is this warning? “no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope”

On 13.06.2018 03:57, Harold Hausman wrote: I have upgraded. The latest version I could find was 2.19.80 (http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/binaries/linux-64/), where did you get 2.19.81 from? Due to a website problem, 2.19.81 is only available from http://lilypond.org/downloads/binaries/

Re: What is this warning? “no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope”

On 6/12/2018 8:57 PM, Harold Hausman wrote: I am actually a LISP programmer by trade, so this sounds like good news to me. Where can I find documentation for things like `Beam.positions`? Here are a few possible starting points.

Re: What is this warning? “no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope”

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:12 AM, Andrew Bernard wrote: > > Hi Harold, > > Welcome to the Pond. > Andrew, thank you, and thank you for this informative reply. I learned a lot. > Lilypond does a pretty good job (actually, not just pretty good, but amazing) > left to it's own devices, but music sc

Re: What is this warning? “no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope”

Hi Harold, Welcome to the Pond. Lilypond does a pretty good job (actually, not just pretty good, but amazing) left to it's own devices, but music scoring is so rich that there are situations where you may need to help it out a bit. The virtue of lilypond is that there are tweaks and adjustments a

RE: What is this warning? “no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope”

, June 09, 2018 2:59 PM To: lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject: What is this warning? “no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope” Hello, First, thanks for Lilypond. It's patently amazing and I am super-grateful for it. This code: - https://gist.github.com/h

What is this warning? “no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope”

Parsing... Interpreting music... Preprocessing graphical objects... Finding the ideal number of pages... Fitting music on 1 page... Drawing systems... test.ly:27:15: warning: no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope \lh b16

Re: Cross-staff beam slope - can it be specified?

- say 10° downwards - and that the stem > > > lengths will automatically be adjusted to allow for this? > > > > > > David > >   > > Hello, > > > > Check out this older post here, it deals with cross beam slopes: > > http://lilypond.1069038.n5.n

Re: Cross-staff beam slope - can it be specified?

he spacing of the staves and hence the slope of > > the > > beam. > > > > Is there any way of ensuring that the beam always has a > > predetermined > > slope - say 10° downwards - and that the stem lengths will > > automatically be adjusted to allow for this?

Re: Cross-staff beam slope - can it be specified?

th cross beam slopes: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Adjusting-beam-slope-with-cross-staff-notes-td140283.html David Nalesnik wrote a function where instead of specifying the absolute values for positions, it allows you to indicate *displacements *from the values LilyPond would use by *defaul

Cross-staff beam slope - can it be specified?

\version "2.19.48" \new PianoStaff {   << { \new Staff = "upper" {   \stemDown c'8. \change Staff = lower \stemUp g16   \change Staff = upper \stemNeutral 2. } } { \new Staff = "lower" {   \clef "bass" s4  2. } }   >> } In the above rather silly example, the beam between the

Re: Warning about beam slope configuration

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Simon Albrecht wrote Sunday, January 22, 2017 11:54 AM > >> Alas, \offset is a 2.19 addition, but undocumented. Is there an entry in >> Changes? >> Anyway, that’s clearly something we need to fix for 2.20. > > See https://sourceforge.net/p

Re: Warning about beam slope configuration

Simon Albrecht wrote Sunday, January 22, 2017 11:54 AM > Alas, \offset is a 2.19 addition, but undocumented. Is there an entry in > Changes? > Anyway, that’s clearly something we need to fix for 2.20. See https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/3830/ Trevor

Re: Warning about beam slope configuration

Now to everyone... On Jan 22, 2017 6:14 AM, "David Nalesnik" wrote: On Jan 22, 2017 5:54 AM, "Simon Albrecht" wrote: On 22.01.2017 12:09, David Sumbler wrote: > Your suggestion is clearly a tweak to Beam.positions, but I can't find > the documentation for the use of \offset. Assuming that

Re: Warning about beam slope configuration

On 22.01.2017 12:09, David Sumbler wrote: Your suggestion is clearly a tweak to Beam.positions, but I can't find the documentation for the use of \offset. Assuming that there is such documentation, could you point me to it, please? Alas, \offset is a 2.19 addition, but undocumented. Is there a

Re: Warning about beam slope configuration

On Sat, 2017-01-21 at 23:47 +0100, Simon Albrecht wrote: > On 21.01.2017 21:46, David Sumbler wrote: > > > > could somebody explain to me what the warning > > actually means, and what I would need to do to stop it appearing? > It signifies problem in the calculation of

Re: Warning about beam slope configuration

On 21.01.2017 21:46, David Sumbler wrote: could somebody explain to me what the warning actually means, and what I would need to do to stop it appearing? It signifies problem in the calculation of beam slope. I get it all the time with kneed beams, even when the printed result is perfectly

Warning about beam slope configuration

s' g' b r4 }   }   \new Staff = "LH" { \clef "bass" \global r4 b,16 fis b \change Staff = RH dis' \change Staff = LH   } >>   >> } The above compiles satisfactorily. However, for some unknown reason,

Re: Settings for automatic beam slope

Hi David, Thanks. That’s a very illuminating article from Mr Spreadbury. I gather, then, that beam-quanting is the method used by lilypond to achieve the cardinal rule of Ross: "The placement of a beam follows the cardinal rule that when it falls within the staff, its ends must either sit [on]

Re: Settings for automatic beam slope

On Tue 08 Dec 2015 at 12:34:55 (+1100), Andrew Bernard wrote: [...] > On the same topic, I have come across references to beam-qaunting, with no > explanation of what it is. Is this something to do with beams having to touch > staff lines? What is it exactly? Is this what is causing the flat beams

Re: Settings for automatic beam slope

Hello All, I have only recently begun setting some Early Baroque keyboard music (1592) and it is full to the brim of phrases which are ornaments, 8 sixteenths beamed together. This is very typical, and pervasive. Suddenly I am noticing that the majority of the beaming comes out flat. I have fo

Re: Settings for automatic beam slope

Hi Simon, thank you for that, I think this is really helpful. I think I see a pattern. This doesn't *completely* explain everything but quite a lot. Obviously the decision depends on whethere there are none, one or more notes outside the staff (outside in this context beginning with the notehead

Re: Settings for automatic beam slope

;' b' g' b' g'' d''] \bar "|" b16[ g' d' g' d'' b' g' b' g'' d''] \bar "|" b16[ d' g' d'' b' g' b' g'' d''] \bar "|" b16[ g' d'' b' g' b' g'' d''] \bar "|" b16[ d'' b' g' b' g'' d''] \bar "|" b16[ b' g' b' g'' d''] \bar "|" b16[ g' b' g'' d''] \bar "|" b16[ b' g'' d''] \bar "|" b16[ g'' d''] \bar "|" b16[ d''] \bar "|" } IIb = \modalInversion b' b' \gMajorScale \IIa IIc = \retrograde \IIa IId = \retrograde \IIb test = #(define-music-function (id) (string?) (let ((mus (ly:parser-lookup (string->symbol id #{ \new Staff \with { instrumentName = $id } << \global $mus \\ $mus >> #})) \bookpart { \test Ia \test Ib \test Ic \test Id } \bookpart { \test IIa \test IIb \test IIc \test IId } complex-beam-slope-calc.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Settings for automatic beam slope

Am 20.11.2015 um 12:19 schrieb Andrew Bernard: > Hi Urs, > > Im my work I set almost every beam manually (fiddly and time > consuming, but worthwhile). Well, the usual discussion of automatic engraving. Of course we hope that one day LilyPond will simply produce perfect output. But OTOH "perfect

Re: Settings for automatic beam slope

Hi Urs, Im my work I set almost every beam manually (fiddly and time consuming, but worthwhile). Some useful functions I wrote: setBeamPos = #(define-music-function (left right) (number? number?) "Manually set beam position for next group." #{ \once \override Beam.positions = #(cons

Settings for automatic beam slope

I have a question regarding beam slopes. Consider the first of the attached images where the long beam is quite ugly IMO. I would prefer to have the beam sloped similarly to the shorter ones at the beginning at the example, something like shown in the second attachment. (Eventually it should look

Re: Beam slope tweaking

another consideration: notes below the staff are lengthened to reach the midline of the staff. Another aspect in beam slope is termed "quantization" in the LilyPond docs: beams are oriented to the staff lines--directly above, below, or centered on them. So, while, beams tend to follow the ge

Re: Beam slope tweaking

c8[^"OK" d e f] g,[^"1st stem too short?" a b c] c'[_"OK" b a g] f[ e d c] c[ e g c] c[ g e c] } } } -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Beam-slope-tweaking-tp171183p171197.html Sent fro

Re: Beam slope tweaking

Thank you very much, this fixed my issue. El 28/01/15 a las 13:47, Thomas Morley escibió: \score { \new Staff { \autoBeamOff \override Beam.damping = #0 \override Stem.no-stem-extend = ##t \relative c' { c8[^"sloped beam" d e f] g,[^"non sloped beam" a b c]

Re: Beam slope tweaking

2015-01-28 18:13 GMT+01:00 Víctor : > Thank you for your quick response Pierre. Your solution fixes ascending > music, but descending music has now horizontal beams too: > > \version "2.19.15" > > \score { > \new Staff { > \autoBeamOff > %\override Beam.damping = #0 > \offset position

Re: Beam slope tweaking

Thank you for your quick response Pierre. Your solution fixes ascending music, but descending music has now horizontal beams too: \version "2.19.15" \score { \new Staff { \autoBeamOff %\override Beam.damping = #0 \offset positions #'(0 . 1) Beam \relative c' { c8[^"slope

Re: Beam slope tweaking

Thank you Victaor, How about : \version "2.19.15" \score { \new Staff { \autoBeamOff %\override Beam.damping = #0 \offset positions #'(0 . 1) Beam \relative c' { c8[^"sloped beam" d e f] g,[^"non sloped beam" a b c] } } } HTH Pierre 2015-01-28 17:53 GMT+01:

Re: Beam slope tweaking

I'm sorry, here it is: \version "2.19.15" \score { \new Staff { \autoBeamOff \override Beam.damping = #0 \relative c' { c8[^"sloped beam" d e f] g,[^"non sloped beam" a b c] } } } El 28/01/15 a las 10:37, Pierre Perol-Schneider escibió: Hi Victor, Please send

Re: Beam slope tweaking

Hi Victor, Please send a tiny example. Cheers, Pierre 2015-01-28 17:23 GMT+01:00 Víctor : > Hello everyone: > > I'm trying to make beam slopes parallel to the music, or at least more > evident. So I'm using \override Beam.damping = #0 wich works mostly ok, but > beams in the center of the staves

Beam slope tweaking

Hello everyone: I'm trying to make beam slopes parallel to the music, or at least more evident. So I'm using \override Beam.damping = #0 wich works mostly ok, but beams in the center of the staves are still very horizontal. I've also tried to mess around with Beams.details list, but I can't fi

Re: Adjusting beam slope with cross-staff notes

From: David Nalesnik > > >Hi Javier, > > >On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Javier Ruiz-Alma >wrote: > >>I have first beamed note in the bass, and 3 more in the treble staff.  I wish >>to adjust the beam slope using "\override Beam #'positions"

Re: Adjusting beam slope with cross-staff notes

Hi Javier, On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Javier Ruiz-Alma wrote: > I have first beamed note in the bass, and 3 more in the treble staff. I > wish to adjust the beam slope using "\override Beam #'positions", as the > automatically-calculated beam slope is overinflue

Adjusting beam slope with cross-staff notes

I have first beamed note in the bass, and 3 more in the treble staff.  I wish to adjust the beam slope using "\override Beam #'positions", as the automatically-calculated beam slope is overinfluenced by the lone cross-staff note. However, the adjustment values are anchored

Re: beam slope

2012/2/25 Helge Kruse : > that looks great. I can control the exact position of the beam. But default beam slopes are still getting confused by staff changes . See examples. The upper beam slope is the reverse of what one expects, when compared to the lower one. -- Francisco Vila. Bada

Re: beam slope

Am 25.02.2012 07:58, schrieb David Kastrup: "Helge Kruse" writes: Hello list, I already sent this inquiry yesterday. Unfortunately it didn't appear in the list. It did. Twice, under different names. It is possible that it was delayed in moderation in case you are (or were) not subscribed.

Re: beam slope

"Helge Kruse" writes: > Hello list, > > I already sent this inquiry yesterday. Unfortunately it didn't appear > in the list. It did. Twice, under different names. It is possible that it was delayed in moderation in case you are (or were) not subscribed. -- David Kastrup ___

Re: beam slope

Am 25.02.2012 07:24, schrieb Nick Payne: You can manually specify the positions of the beam ends with \once \override Beam #'positions = #'(a . b) where a and b are the position in staff units of the left- and right-hand ends of the beam, with 0 being the center line of the staff. Nick, tha

Re: beam slope

Am 25.02.2012 07:57, schrieb Janek Warchoł: Usually it's better to use \voiceOne, \voiceTwo etc. rather than \stemUp/Down. The results might not be perfect; cross-staff beams aren't extremely well supported in Lily now. Janek, many thanks for the reply. The kneed beam looks very nice. But in

Re: beam slope

Hi Helge, On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Helge Kruse wrote: > Lilypond calculates a very nice slope for the beams. But it fails when I add > a staff change. What's wrong with my Lilypond code? You have to explicitely tell lily that you want a kneed beam. Set stem directions or use "direction

Re: beam slope

On 25/02/12 16:28, Helge Kruse wrote: Hello list, I already sent this inquiry yesterday. Unfortunately it didn't appear in the list. Therefore I try it again. I hope this doesn't look like any kind of spam. Lilypond calculates a very nice slope for the beams. But it fails when I add a staff c

beam slope

Hello list, I already sent this inquiry yesterday. Unfortunately it didn't appear in the list. Therefore I try it again. I hope this doesn't look like any kind of spam. Lilypond calculates a very nice slope for the beams. But it fails when I add a staff change. What's wrong with my Lilypond cod

beam slope in staff change

Lilypond calculates a very nice slope for the beams. But it fails when I add a staff change. What's wrong with my .ly? How can I convince Lilypond to add a slope or tweak it by myself? I would like to get a layout in the second measure with slopes similar to the first measure. Regards, Helge

How to control beam slope in staff change

Hello list, Lilypond calculates a very nice slope for the beams. But it fails when I add a staff change. What's wrong with my .ly? How can I convince Lilypond to add a slope or tweak it by myself? I would like to get a layout in the second measure with slopes similar to the first measure.

Re: Can beam slope warning be suppressed?

On 17 January 2012 07:20, Nick Payne wrote: > I'm using Lilypond to engrave Sor's Op 59 from a 19th century edition, and > it has quite a number of constructs like the below, each of which puts an > entry in the log: "warning: no viable initial configuration found: may no

Re: Can beam slope warning be suppressed?

Nick Payne writes: > I'm using Lilypond to engrave Sor's Op 59 from a 19th century edition, > and it has quite a number of constructs like the below, each of which > puts an entry in the log: "warning: no viable initial configuration > found: may not find good bea

Can beam slope warning be suppressed?

I'm using Lilypond to engrave Sor's Op 59 from a 19th century edition, and it has quite a number of constructs like the below, each of which puts an entry in the log: "warning: no viable initial configuration found: may not find good beam slope". Is it possible to suppre

Re: Beam slope

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:08:51 -0700, Ralph wrote: I'm currently using version 2.12.3. I've noticed that sometimes Lilypond uses sloped beams, and sometimes uses level beams, in places that appear to be almost identical. Specifically, see the snippet in the Learning Manual, Section 1.1 Background

Beam slope

Greetings - I'm currently using version 2.12.3. I've noticed that sometimes Lilypond uses sloped beams, and sometimes uses level beams, in places that appear to be almost identical. Specifically, see the snippet in the Learning Manual, Section 1.1 Background => What symbols to engrave, %ly snippet

Re: Short TextSpanners do not follow beam slope

On 02/09/10 08:37, Neil Puttock wrote: On 1 September 2010 04:33, Nick Payne wrote: When I look at commercially engraved guitar scores that I have, short text spanners, such as string number indications, follow the slope of a beam. If there are several of them along a sloping beam, they des

Re: Short TextSpanners do not follow beam slope

On 1 September 2010 04:33, Nick Payne wrote: > When I look at commercially engraved guitar scores that I have, short text > spanners, such as string number indications, follow the slope of a beam. If > there are several of them along a sloping beam, they descend or ascend along > with the beam so

Short TextSpanners do not follow beam slope

When I look at commercially engraved guitar scores that I have, short text spanners, such as string number indications, follow the slope of a beam. If there are several of them along a sloping beam, they descend or ascend along with the beam so that there is a constant spacing between each span