On 12/04/13 04:14, dra wrote:
There is no such thing as an authority on music notation, especially
that for guitar. Regards, daveA
Why do you set yourself up as one, then?
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/ma
On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 15:06 +, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG wrote Friday, March 22, 2013 1:31 PM
> >
> >> See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically
> >> aligned. In 2.17.14, they aren't.
> >>
> >> \relative f'' {
> >> \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
> >
On 24/03/13 04:07, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Nick Payne writes:
Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new behaviour
better. What does the literature say?
The great majority of commercial guitar scores I possess align the
fingering vertically on chords, as 2.16 does.
Which means th
Original-Nachricht
Nick Payne writes:
Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new behaviour
better. What does the literature say?
The great majority of commercial guitar scores I possess align the
fingering vertically on chords, as 2.16 does.
Which means that
Nick Payne writes:
>> Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new behaviour
>> better. What does the literature say?
>
> The great majority of commercial guitar scores I possess align the
> fingering vertically on chords, as 2.16 does.
Which means that there is no strict agreement? Th
On 23/03/13 00:31, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically
aligned. In 2.17.14, they aren't.
\relative f'' {
\set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
4
}
Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new behaviour
better. What does the lit
On 22 mars 2013, at 18:32, SoundsFromSound wrote:
> Hmm..I kind of like the new behavior too, it's easier on my eyes. I like how
> it staggers to flow with the score, but I can see why some would want strict
> lined-up fingerings as well.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Ben
>
>
> Werner LEMBERG wr
Hmm..I kind of like the new behavior too, it's easier on my eyes. I like how
it staggers to flow with the score, but I can see why some would want strict
lined-up fingerings as well.
Just my 2 cents.
Ben
Werner LEMBERG wrote
>> See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically
>>
Werner LEMBERG wrote Friday, March 22, 2013 1:31 PM
>
>> See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically
>> aligned. In 2.17.14, they aren't.
>>
>> \relative f'' {
>> \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
>> 4
>> }
>
> Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new beh
James writes:
> Nick/Mike
>
> On 22 March 2013 11:14, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
>
>> On 22 mars 2013, at 11:32, Nick Payne wrote:
>>
>> > See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically aligned.
>> In 2.17.14, they aren't.
>> >
>> > \relative f'' {
>> > \set fingeringOrientati
> See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically
> aligned. In 2.17.14, they aren't.
>
> \relative f'' {
> \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
> 4
> }
Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new behaviour
better. What does the literature say?
Werner
_
Nick/Mike
On 22 March 2013 11:14, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
> On 22 mars 2013, at 11:32, Nick Payne wrote:
>
> > See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically aligned.
> In 2.17.14, they aren't.
> >
> > \relative f'' {
> > \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
> > 4
> > }
>
On 22 mars 2013, at 11:32, Nick Payne wrote:
> See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically aligned. In
> 2.17.14, they aren't.
>
> \relative f'' {
> \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
> 4
> }
> <2.16.2.png>
> <2.17.14.png>
> __
See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically aligned.
In 2.17.14, they aren't.
\relative f'' {
\set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
4
}
<><>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listin
14 matches
Mail list logo
