dax2 wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:53:21 +0200
dax2 wrote:
My previous link to Chopin op.1 bar 7 and following
does not give a valid demonstration of the need for
horizontal-to-the-right movement of a turn, so the example is not
really valid, sorry.
Here is a more relevant explanation
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:53:21 +0200
dax2 wrote:
>
> My previous link to Chopin op.1 bar 7 and following
>
> does not give a valid demonstration of the need for
> horizontal-to-the-right movement of a turn, so the example is not
> really valid, sorry.
Here is a more relevant explanation inclusi
My previous link to Chopin op.1 bar 7 and following
does not give a valid demonstration of the need for
horizontal-to-the-right movement of a turn, so the example is not
really valid, sorry.
Contrary it demonstrates that the figure should "land" on the
middle note (sixteenth-note number 3) and
lilypond
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:03:13 +0200
Mats wrote:
> (Donald)
> > Anyway I am a bit confused about why the turn did not appear
> > between the notes c' and des'
>
> Do you mean vertically? Or that it's partly above the flat?
I mean horizontally.
I have produced an example, which is a bit m
Anyway I am a bit confused about why the turn did not appear
between the notes c' and des'
Do you mean vertically? Or that it's partly above the flat?
/Mats
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinf
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:24:36 +0200
Mats wrote:
> Why not read all emails in the thread? Nicolaus Sceaux sent a
> working example for version 2.5 and Jeff Covey explained in a
> followup how that should be modified to work in version 2.4.
Oh dear, I can't even claim that the threading of my mailer
Why not read all emails in the thread? Nicolaus Sceaux sent a
working example for version 2.5 and Jeff Covey explained in a
followup how that should be modified to work in version 2.4.
/Mats
dax2 wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:23:59 +0200
Mats wrote:
Fairchild wrote:
I believe the ^#". .
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:23:59 +0200
Mats wrote:
> Fairchild wrote:
> > I believe the ^#". . ." also can now be simply ^". . ."; similarly with -#".
> > . ." and _#". . .".
>
> Yes and no! Before version 1.8, ^#"..." was equivalent to ^"...",
> whereas ^#(...) was the old syntax for text markup, i
