Re: Relative rhythms across bars for time changes?

Thank you all so very much for helping me with my question - and special thanks to all the proposers of those clever solutions. The final one provided by Jean Abou Samra seems to work wonderfully well (at least in v 2.24.2, which is what I'm using). So I'm going to use it! I can only concur with

Re: Relative rhythms across bars for time changes?

Hi all, When I was in high school, there was a boy named Kenny Wong who was a video game god. Didn’t matter what the game was — Asteroids, Galaga, Ms. Pac-Man, Robotron, you name it — he had the high score on every console in every arcade within a 10 km radius of our school. Whenever we were “i

Re: Relative rhythms across bars for time changes?

\version "2.25.10" tempoChange = #(define-music-function (firstNote secondNote) (ly:music? ly:music?) #{ \tweak font-size -1 \tweak self-alignment-X ##f \textEndMark \markup \put-adjacent #X #LEFT \put-adjacent #X #RIGHT \general-align #X #CENTER " = "

Re: Relative rhythms across bars for time changes?

Hi all, > Thanks, Michael - that's a really nice solution. Agreed! Although I personally still think \rhythm is cleaner: \version "2.25.10" tempoChange = #(define-music-function (alignValue firstNote secondNote) (number? ly:duration? ly:duration?) #{ \tweak self-alignment-X #alignValue

Re: Relative rhythms across bars for time changes?

Thanks, Michael - that's a really nice solution. I wonder if it would be possible to create such a function which automatically puts the = sign over the barline, and the notes to its right and left. Alasdair On Sun, 19 Nov 2023, 1:41 am Michael Werner, wrote: > Hi Alasdair, > > On Fri, Nov 17,

Re: Relative rhythms across bars for time changes?

Hi Alasdair, On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 9:28 AM Alasdair McAndrew wrote: > I'm typesetting some 16th century music which has a lot of time changes. > And I'd like to add equivalences of notes across bar-lines, to indicate for > example, that a quarter note in one bar is equal in time to a half note

Re: Relative rhythms across bars for time changes?

Hi all (including -dev!), > There may be a way to do it with a MetronomeMark — I just don’t know it. I > was surprised to find that I couldn’t make the following (or similar) work: And now I find this: Apparently I “offered an extra bounty for

Re: Relative rhythms across bars for time changes?

From: Kieren MacMillan There may be a way to do it with a MetronomeMark — I just don’t know it. I was surprised to find that I couldn’t make the following (or similar) work: When I was asked to place the = in a rhythm change over the start of a staff (i.e. sticking out to the left), I use

Re: Relative rhythms across bars for time changes?

Hi Alasdair, > The sort of notation I want is in this snippet: > https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.24/Documentation/snippets/rhythms#rhythms-creating-metronome-marks-in-markup-mode > (b) is there an easier way than the markup given in the snippet? Try the [relatively recent] \rhythm function: \relati

Re: Relative rhythms across bars for time changes?

Thanks for the advice - I can certainly give that a go! Alasdair On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 at 06:14, Knute Snortum wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 8:15 AM Alasdair McAndrew > wrote: > >> I'm typesetting some 16th century music which has a lot of time changes. >> And I'd like to add equivalences of

Re: Relative rhythms across bars for time changes?

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 8:15 AM Alasdair McAndrew wrote: > I'm typesetting some 16th century music which has a lot of time changes. > And I'd like to add equivalences of notes across bar-lines, to indicate for > example, that a quarter note in one bar is equal in time to a half note in > the next

Re: Relative Tempo Markings in Lilypond 2.22

Thanks, Carl. I didn't think about convert-ly. It's been a while since I needed it. dB On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 11:10 PM Carl Sorensen wrote: > > > convert-ly will fix this for you. > > The argument for \note changed from a string ( #"8") to a duration > ({8}). See http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/

Re: Relative Tempo Markings in Lilypond 2.22

On 12/29/21, 6:20 PM, "lilypond-user on behalf of David M. Boothe, CAS" wrote: I have a score in 2.18, one section of which uses with the following code: \tempo \markup { \pad-to-box #'(0 . 0) #'(8 . 10) \concat { { \override #'(font-name . "

Re: Relative mode

By minimal we mean a piece of code that compiles clean, shows the behavior you want to show and is as short as possible, in this case it could be more like \version "2.22.1" { a'1 \break a'1 } And a solution could look like \version "2.22.1" { a'1 \break a'1 } \layout { indent = #0 } A hint a

Re: Relative mode

On 10/7/21, 9:29 AM, "lilypond-user on behalf of Mahanidhi" wrote: To speak the truth I tried to have the music all together with /break command but what was happening is that the first line was starting not aligned with the other ones. LilyPond has a first-line indent by design. You

Re: Relative mode

To speak the truth I tried to have the music all together with /break command but what was happening is that the first line was starting not aligned with the other ones. Here a minimal example: \version "2.22.1" \language "english" global = { \key gf \major \time 4/4 \override Glissando.st

Re: Relative mode

Leo Correia de Verdier writes: > The ”command global=” is defining a variable with a series of property > settings (mostly), \relative is not a property, it’s a function that > is preformed on the music inside the brackets following it. > > The manual is quite long, but you will eventually need t

Re: Relative mode

Clear thank you. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Il giovedì 7 ottobre 2021 13:37, Leo Correia de Verdier ha scritto: > The ”command global=” is defining a variable with a series of property > settings (mostly), \relative is not a property, it’s a function

Re: Relative mode

Le 07/10/2021 à 12:36, Mahanidhi a écrit : If so why the command  "global=" works for every lines? As Leo said, \global just inserts music content. \relative is not music in itself, it is a function applying to music. When you say { \relative c' { a' b' } { c' d' } } only the { a' b' } is pr

Re: Relative mode

The ”command global=” is defining a variable with a series of property settings (mostly), \relative is not a property, it’s a function that is preformed on the music inside the brackets following it. The manual is quite long, but you will eventually need to go through much of it to get what is

Re: Relative mode

If so why the command "global=" works for every lines? ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Il giovedì 7 ottobre 2021 12:21, Leo Correia de Verdier ha scritto: > What you are doing is not only writing the each line on a separate line, but > also writing each line as a separate (implicitly created)

Re: Relative mode

What you are doing is not only writing the each line on a separate line, but also writing each line as a separate (implicitly created) score. Since they are in different scores they are not the same music expression and you need to write out the \relative for each of them. > 7 okt. 2021 kl. 11

Re: Relative distance of other contexts in stencil callback

"Urs Liska" writes: > Hi all, > > is it possible from a stencil callback to retrieve the relative Y > distance from the grob's staff to another staff given the other > staff's name? > > We want to create frames spanning multiple staves without having to do > so in separate slices (see > https://g

Re: relative offset of systems [WAS: Center-align a score]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:07 PM, David Nalesnik wrote: > Hi Harm, > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Thomas Morley > wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> nice stuff! >> >> Some comments, though: >> >> 2017-04-27 19:27 GMT+02:00 David Nalesnik : >>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:22 PM, David Nalesnik >>> wr

Re: relative offset of systems [WAS: Center-align a score]

Hi Harm, On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Thomas Morley wrote: > Hi David, > > nice stuff! > > Some comments, though: > > 2017-04-27 19:27 GMT+02:00 David Nalesnik : >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:22 PM, David Nalesnik >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I'll just quote the relevant changes with some context. >

Re: relative offset of systems [WAS: Center-align a score]

Hi David, nice stuff! Some comments, though: 2017-04-27 19:27 GMT+02:00 David Nalesnik : > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:22 PM, David Nalesnik > wrote: > >> >> I'll just quote the relevant changes with some context. >> >> Within the function make-page-stencil: >> >> [...] >> I see no advantage to

Re: relative offset of systems [WAS: Center-align a score]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:22 PM, David Nalesnik wrote: > > I'll just quote the relevant changes with some context. > > Within the function make-page-stencil: > > [...] > > (add-to-page (lambda (stencil x y extra-y) Oh, "nota bene" the above line too! > (set! page-stencil >

Re: relative NonMusicalPaperColumn.line-break-system-details offsets?

+1!! This was my exact thought last time I used this override. - Abraham On Monday, May 25, 2015, Kieren MacMillan [via Lilypond] < ml-node+s1069038n177038...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The title says it all, really: I sometimes resort to using > NonMusicalPaperColumn.line-break-system

Re: relative music inside music functions explodes when used twice

Janek Warchoł writes: > 2014-10-12 12:45 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : >> I'm not even sure I understand _how_ you want the relativization to >> happen. One after the other? > > If you mean \musicII should be relativized after \music, that's > roughly what i want. > >> In that case, you can use >> >

Re: relative music inside music functions explodes when used twice

2014-10-12 12:45 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > I'm not even sure I understand _how_ you want the relativization to > happen. One after the other? If you mean \musicII should be relativized after \music, that's roughly what i want. > In that case, you can use > > voiceDivisi = > #(define-music-func

Re: relative music inside music functions explodes when used twice

Janek Warchoł writes: > Thanks David and Paul - that's helpful. However, while the situation > improved the output is still not what i want: > \version "2.19.13" > > voiceDivisi = > #(define-music-function (parser location m1 m2) (ly:music? ly:music?) >#{ > \tag divI { $m1 } > \tag

Re: relative music inside music functions explodes when used twice

Thanks David and Paul - that's helpful. However, while the situation improved the output is still not what i want: \version "2.19.13" voiceDivisi = #(define-music-function (parser location m1 m2) (ly:music? ly:music?) #{ \tag divI { $m1 } \tag divII { $m2 } \tag together << { \d

Re: relative music inside music functions explodes when used twice

Janek Warchoł writes: > Hi, > > i have a function that takes music as an argument and uses it twice - each > time with a different tag appended, so that later on i can decide what to > output: > > voiceDivisi = > #(define-music-function (parser location m1 m2) (ly:music? ly:music?) >#{ >

Re: relative music inside music functions explodes when used twice

Janek Warchoł wrote > The problem is that when used with relative mode, the output gets crazy: Hi Janek, you just need to use $m1 instead of #m1 in your function. http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/extending/scheme-function-definitions HTH, -Paul \version "2.18.2" voiceDivisi = #(define

Re: relative note size, was: Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 139, Issue 68

Hi, 2014-08-02 17:13 GMT+02:00 Patrick or Cynthia Karl : > What I would like to do is substitute for the "-2" the value "fontSize-2". > Is this possible? If so,how? > \version "2.18.2" mySize = -3 \relative c'' { \once\set fontSize = \mySize } HTH, Pierre _

Re: \relative versus \absolute (was "Re: Macro/multiply notes")

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > David Nalesnik writes: > > > I just discovered that typesetting a piano piece which constantly uses > > temporary voices is much easier in absolute mode. Switching from voice > > to voice no longer gives any register surprises. > > > > Abs

Re: \relative versus \absolute (was "Re: Macro/multiply notes")

David Nalesnik writes: > I just discovered that typesetting a piano piece which constantly uses > temporary voices is much easier in absolute mode. Switching from voice > to voice no longer gives any register surprises. > > Absolute mode also tempts me to skip a few measures when I want to > proc

Re: \relative versus \absolute (was "Re: Macro/multiply notes")

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Knute Snortum wrote: > I am still a novice at using LilyPond (maybe a sophomore) but I'd like to > make one case for relative notes. I'm typesetting a piece where there are > a lot of octave scale runs between both hands. It's very nice to be able > to copy seve

Re: \relative versus \absolute (was "Re: Macro/multiply notes")

Knute Snortum writes: > I am still a novice at using LilyPond (maybe a sophomore) but I'd like to > make one case for relative notes. I'm typesetting a piece where there are > a lot of octave scale runs between both hands. It's very nice to be able > to copy several beats or even bars of notes,

Re: \relative versus \absolute (was "Re: Macro/multiply notes")

Another aspect: on english keyboards, the single quote ' is easily reachable. But on german (and maybe other?) keyboards it’s further on the right and you need the shift key to get it; the neo layout (a german ergonomic layout which I use) also needs an extra key (called mod3, at qwerty’s caps

Re: \relative versus \absolute (was "Re: Macro/multiply notes")

I would imagine that kind of practice, just squeeze musical material into instruments into their suitable range will make you less sensitive to which octave you are composing on. If it works for some, then good. Both in terms of timbre and counterpoint I would want to know excacly if I'm working wi

Re: \relative versus \absolute (was "Re: Macro/multiply notes")

I am still a novice at using LilyPond (maybe a sophomore) but I'd like to make one case for relative notes. I'm typesetting a piece where there are a lot of octave scale runs between both hands. It's very nice to be able to copy several beats or even bars of notes, irrespective of the clef, and p

Re: \relative versus \absolute (was "Re: Macro/multiply notes")

2014-06-13 19:19 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan : Hello all, > Hi Kieren, > I now code everything in absolute mode, and cannot believe how such a > little change has improved my life. > +1 > But, as you say, “that’s just me”. =) > Not just you, Kieren... ;) Cheers, Pierre

Re: relative pitch with song sections

Man, what a flame I'm ingited :) I've read all your answers with real interest. First of all, I'm not in classical music. I play pop-rock-jazz. So I played in big bands, but don't know the orchestral world. As an electric bass player, I know that I play a transposing instrument, but as you said

Re: relative pitch with song sections

Matthew Collett writes: > On 16/05/2014, at 10:08 am, Simon Albrecht wrote: > >> At first I was also inclined towards saying that it’s correct to add >> the 8 and it doesn’t hurt anyone, so why not just leave it where >> Lily puts it by default. >> Then I thought of a counter-example: some orche

Re: relative pitch with song sections

On 16/05/2014, at 10:08 am, Simon Albrecht wrote: > At first I was also inclined towards saying that it’s correct to add the 8 > and it doesn’t hurt anyone, so why not just leave it where Lily puts it by > default. > Then I thought of a counter-example: some orchestra instruments (most notably

Re: relative pitch with song sections

Am 15.05.2014 18:53, schrieb Brian Barker: At 06:30 15/05/2014 +1000, Nick Payne wrote: I would say, based on my fairly extensive collection of guitar scores, collected over about 40 years, that there are probably more commercially engraved editions that omit the "8" than those that show it.

Re: relative pitch with song sections

At 06:30 15/05/2014 +1000, Nick Payne wrote: I would say, based on my fairly extensive collection of guitar scores, collected over about 40 years, that there are probably more commercially engraved editions that omit the "8" than those that show it. This is surely no different from the practic

Re: relative pitch with song sections

Thomas Morley writes: > 2014-05-14 22:30 GMT+02:00 Nick Payne : > >> I would say, based on my fairly extensive collection of guitar scores, >> collected over about 40 years, that there are probably more commercially >> engraved editions that omit the "8" than those that show it. > > True. > And a

Re: relative pitch with song sections

El 14/05/2014 22:32, "Nick Payne" escribió: > > On 15/05/2014 5:53 AM, Francisco Vila wrote: >> >> >> El 14/05/2014 21:16, "Thomas Morley" escribió: >> > >> > 2014-05-14 20:45 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider >> > : >> > > 2014-05-14 18:43 GMT+02:00 Tim Roberts : >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> If

Re: relative pitch with song sections

2014-05-14 22:30 GMT+02:00 Nick Payne : > On 15/05/2014 5:53 AM, Francisco Vila wrote: > > > El 14/05/2014 21:16, "Thomas Morley" escribió: >> >> 2014-05-14 20:45 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider >> : >> > 2014-05-14 18:43 GMT+02:00 Tim Roberts : >> > >> > >> >> >> >> If the notes really do sound

Re: relative pitch with song sections

On 15/05/2014 5:53 AM, Francisco Vila wrote: El 14/05/2014 21:16, "Thomas Morley" > escribió: > > 2014-05-14 20:45 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider > >: > > 2014-05-14 18:43 GMT+02:00 Tim Roberts >

Re: relative pitch with song sections

El 14/05/2014 21:16, "Thomas Morley" escribió: > > 2014-05-14 20:45 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider > : > > 2014-05-14 18:43 GMT+02:00 Tim Roberts : > > > > > >> > >> If the notes really do sound an octave below what is written, then the "8" > >> under the clef is exactly the right notation. If

Re: relative pitch with song sections

2014-05-14 20:45 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider : > 2014-05-14 18:43 GMT+02:00 Tim Roberts : > > >> >> If the notes really do sound an octave below what is written, then the "8" >> under the clef is exactly the right notation. If they don't sound an octave >> below what is written, then your tra

Re: relative pitch with song sections

2014-05-14 18:43 GMT+02:00 Tim Roberts : > If the notes really do sound an octave below what is written, then the "8" > under the clef is exactly the right notation. If they don't sound an > octave below what is written, then your transposition is not correct. > I cannot think of any rules rega

Re: relative pitch with song sections

Carlo Vanoni wrote: > > I just noticed that using \clef "bass_8"will print a small "8" under > the clef. Not nice. > How to get rid of it? Well, hang on a moment. If the notes really do sound an octave below what is written, then the "8" under the clef is exactly the right notation. If they don

Re: relative pitch with song sections

Great! Il Mercoledì 14 Maggio 2014 11:16, Pierre Perol-Schneider ha scritto: 2014-05-14 11:08 GMT+02:00 Carlo Vanoni : I just noticed that using \clef "bass_8" will print a small "8" under the clef. Not nice. >How to get rid of it? >  \new Staff \with { \omit ClefModifier }_

Re: relative pitch with song sections

2014-05-14 11:08 GMT+02:00 Carlo Vanoni : > I just noticed that using \clef "bass_8" will print a small "8" under the > clef. Not nice. > How to get rid of it? > \new Staff \with { \omit ClefModifier } ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.o

Re: relative pitch with song sections

I just noticed that using \clef "bass_8" will print a small "8" under the clef. Not nice. How to get rid of it? Il Lunedì 12 Maggio 2014 12:51, Carlo Vanoni ha scritto: Uh, "bass_8"... that's a news. I still use the relative to prevent some ' and , from the code. Since I also have (in the re

Re: relative pitch with song sections

Uh, "bass_8"... that's a news. I still use the relative to prevent some ' and , from the code. Since I also have (in the real code) also fingering and sting numbers, it will become a real mess otherwise. Here is the now working code: % \version "2.18.0" verse = \rel

Re: relative pitch with song sections

2014-05-12 11:42 GMT+02:00 Carlo Vanoni : > As said, this set all verse/note to the correct pitch, but the tabs pitch > will be wrong (the \relative definition in the TabScore section will be > ignored). > Hi Carlo, If you want to have the right pitch you have to put the right clef in the staff

Re: relative pitch with song sections

El 12/05/2014 11:42, "Carlo Vanoni" escribió: > > Hi Francisco, > > thanks for the reply. > But... I didn't understand it very well... > Did you mean to do something like this? > > verse = > { Yes. This brace is not needed. > \relative c, > {

Re: relative pitch with song sections

Hi Francisco, thanks for the reply. But... I didn't understand it very well... Did you mean to do something like this? verse = {     \relative c,     {         a'4 b c a | a b c a | \break     } } chorus = {     \relative c,     {         a'4 b c d | d

Re: relative pitch with song sections

Using relative per variable at the moment of their definition is robust pitchwise. Sorry for top posting El 12/05/2014 10:48, "Carlo Vanoni" escribió: > Hi everyone, > > I'm transcribing a song that is, as usual, versex2-chorus-verse-chorus. > Instead of copying all the notes of the verse/chorus

Re: \relative { } in 2.17.15

Eluze writes: > Paul Scott-4 wrote >> So you believe the old ("startpitch" optional) behavior will be restored >> after >> the testing? > > no idea - I've got used to the optional start pitch myself (i.e. I > nearly never used a pitch with my laziness); I wouldn't mind if it > came back (also in

Re: \relative { } in 2.17.15

Paul Scott writes: > Hi, > > I thought I had followed the discussion about \relative without startpitch. > > I liked the idea and started using it. Uh, you started using it? The previous behavior of \relative { ... } was to be equivalent to \relative c' { ... }, so you have been using somethin

Re: \relative { } in 2.17.15

Paul Scott-4 wrote > So you believe the old ("startpitch" optional) behavior will be restored > after > the testing? no idea - I've got used to the optional start pitch myself (i.e. I nearly never used a pitch with my laziness); I wouldn't mind if it came back (also in the form of f' being the def

Re: \relative { } in 2.17.15

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:09:24AM -0700, Eluze wrote: > Paul Scott-4 wrote > > Hi, > > > > I thought I had followed the discussion about \relative without > > startpitch. > > > > I liked the idea and started using it. In 2.17.15 this feature no longer > > seems to work. I get an error. > >

Re: \relative { } in 2.17.15

Paul Scott-4 wrote > > It's not mandatory in 2.17.14. It works quite well. but in 2.17.15 it is as the links I sent explain! Eluze -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/relative-in-2-17-15-tp143745p143752.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nab

Re: \relative { } in 2.17.15

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:09:24AM -0700, Eluze wrote: > Paul Scott-4 wrote > > Hi, > > > > I thought I had followed the discussion about \relative without > > startpitch. > > > > I liked the idea and started using it. In 2.17.15 this feature no longer > > seems to work. I get an error. > >

Re: \relative { } in 2.17.15

Paul Scott-4 wrote > Hi, > > I thought I had followed the discussion about \relative without > startpitch. > > I liked the idea and started using it. In 2.17.15 this feature no longer > seems to work. I get an error. > > What did I miss? yes, it's mandatory to use a pitch after \relative, s

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

Anthonys Lists writes: > On 13/03/2013 19:24, nothingwaver...@gmail.com wrote: >> Here's the idea. >> >> 1. Define absolute octave syntax with the @-sign (let it be a >> mnemonic for _A_bsolute) to be the syntax for temporarily specifying >> an ABSOLUTE PITCH within a \relative block, such that t

RE: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

> On 13/03/2013 19:24, nothingwaver...@gmail.com wrote: >> 1. Define absolute octave syntax with the @-sign (let it be a mnemonic for _A_bsolute) >> to be the syntax for temporarily specifying an ABSOLUTE PITCH within a \relative block, >> such that the next pitch, if it doesn't use the @-sign also

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

On 13/03/2013 19:24, nothingwaver...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the idea. 1. Define absolute octave syntax with the @-sign (let it be a mnemonic for _A_bsolute) to be the syntax for temporarily specifying an ABSOLUTE PITCH within a \relative block, such that the next pitch, if it doesn't use the

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

David Kastrup writes: > The main problematic time will be when they are using an older version > of LilyPond while consulting examples and online documentation for a > newer one. That can lead to befuddlement of more than just a few > minutes, and this is not exactly unheard of. If we want to c

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

Kieren MacMillan writes: > I feel that the original proposal, as specified elsewhere, violates > the principle of least surprise for existing users starting new > projects (not using convert-ly) with the new LilyPond. > > I'm not sure I understand why that's true… As I understand the proposal, >

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

nothingwaver...@gmail.com writes: > I can't help but suspect that several long-time unsuspecting users in > the habit of writing \relative { ... } This has not been documented or recommended for quite a few years. > and expecting the first note to be relative to c' will upgrade to a > new versio

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

Hi, > I feel that the original proposal, as specified elsewhere, violates the > principle of least surprise for existing users starting new projects (not > using convert-ly) with the new LilyPond. I'm not sure I understand why that's true… As I understand the proposal, \relative { c''' d e

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

NEW IDEA Thanks for the feedback, Mr. Kastrup and others. The objections I hear from you and others on what I proposed are mainly these: 1. people not thrilled about their having (or other people having) to learn/use/implement a new syntax 2. objections to using up a new special symbol characte

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

Hi, please be careful with using caps. On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, wrote: > Why a new syntax? I frequently find that if I jump to the end of a big, long > \relative { ... }, then frequently I don't remember which octave I'm in. Maybe using Frescobaldi would solve this problem for you?

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

Werner LEMBERG writes: >>> However there is no fundamental need for the first pitch being an >>> absolute pitch in the first place. >> >> It can be relative to f if we want to. That adds the least amount >> of information to the first pitch. > > It seems to me that we should completely avoid th

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

>> However there is no fundamental need for the first pitch being an >> absolute pitch in the first place. > > It can be relative to f if we want to. That adds the least amount > of information to the first pitch. It seems to me that we should completely avoid the word `absolute' if we speak ab

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:44 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Olivier Biot writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, wrote: > > > > Examples: > > > > 1. { c4 c' c@'' c@, } > > > > These are interpreted as absolute pitches, so the @-signs are > > redundant here. > > They coul

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

Olivier Biot writes: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, wrote: > > Examples: > > 1. { c4 c' c@'' c@, } > > These are interpreted as absolute pitches, so the @-signs are > redundant here. > They could be silently ignored, or the at signs could be an error > outsi

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, wrote: > Examples: > > 1. { c4 c' c@'' c@, } > > These are interpreted as absolute pitches, so the @-signs are > redundant here. > They could be silently ignored, or the at signs could be an error > outside of \relative blocks. > > What do peo

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

>> But the first entry of a \relative block must be relative to >> something, right? So, simply consider that \relative { ... } is >> always relative to `c', and you get exactly the same. > > Well, the current proposal is to be relative to f rather than c' as > previously. Ah, yes :-) Wer

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

nothingwaver...@gmail.com writes: > This is a breakaway thread from the one with the subject "Proposed new > available and recommended behavior of \relative" I don't see what makes it "breakaway". > I am *OPPOSED* to the proposal to change \relative syntax, as the > proposal now stands. I think

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

Werner LEMBERG writes: >>> I am *OPPOSED* to the proposal to change \relative syntax, as the >>> proposal now stands. I think it is confusing to new users to have >>> the first pitch in a \relative block be absolute and the rest be >>> relative. > > But the first entry of a \relative block must

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

>> I am *OPPOSED* to the proposal to change \relative syntax, as the >> proposal now stands. I think it is confusing to new users to have >> the first pitch in a \relative block be absolute and the rest be >> relative. But the first entry of a \relative block must be relative to something, right

Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign

Am 13.03.2013 20:24, schrieb nothingwaver...@gmail.com: This is a breakaway thread from the one with the subject "Proposed new available and recommended behavior of \relative" I am *OPPOSED* to the proposal to change \relative syntax, as the proposal now stands. I think it is confusing to new

Re: \relative is not the best way of entering complicated music

Sarah k Alawami writes: > Is there a way to memorize or through pattern recognition how many ' > and , symbols it takes to jump octaves? besides writing down a few > notes and going to the tuneful site to listen to see if I messed up? > as that's what I've been doing and it yeps but it slows me

Re: \relative is not the best way of entering complicated music

Sarah k Alawami writes: > Ok. I suck at reading staff lines. I come from braille music where th > eoctive signs are given to me and I sing or play badly the correct > pitches based on the octave mark. You don't need to use \relative if you are more comfortable with absolute pitches. -- David K

Re: \relative is not the best way of entering complicated music

Ok. I suck at reading staff lines. I come from braille music where th eoctive signs are given to me and I sing or play badly the correct pitches based on the octave mark. I'll try and give this mental thing a go since I bass in treble anyways around middle c so that might or might not help. l

Re: \relative is not the best way of entering complicated music

In relative, a note with no ' or , indicates the closest octave, e.g. for adjacent notes a b means the B one note above whatever A it was, d c means the C one note below whatever D it was, Effectively this means that using no ' or , will always produce a note within a fourth of the previous one

Re: \relative is not the best way of entering complicated music

On 11/03/13 08:57, Sarah k Alawami wrote: Is there a way to memorize or through pattern recognition how many ' and , symbols it takes to jump octaves? Think of it in terms of staff lines or spaces: a note within a fifth of the previous note doesn't need ' or , to get the correct pitch, with ac

Re: \relative is not the best way of entering complicated music

Well I'm used to writing numbers as my theory person had us do for our key board tests so I see c4 and think, Oh middle c on the piano. so that's how I interpreted it in the docs as a middle c not a quarter note. I also misinterpreted the ' symbol to mean a single quote so it literally did mean

Re: \relative is not the best way of entering complicated music

Sarah k Alawami writes: > Oh the docs messed up. lol! It was in the notes reference guide at the octave > checks section. > > Here is the example they gave. > > \relative c'' { > c2 d='4 d > e2 f > } > > > so I followed the directions unless I just red it wrong. lol! whichI > probably did

Re: \relative is not the best way of entering complicated music

Oh the docs messed up. lol! It was in the notes reference guide at the octave checks section. Here is the example they gave. \relative c'' { c2 d='4 d e2 f } so I followed the directions unless I just red it wrong. lol! whichI probably did as I was rushing to get the assignment done. lo

Re: \relative is not the best way of entering complicated music

Hi David (et al.), > a) you can stay with your current usage easily enough Excellent! > b) letting convert-ly change all of your existing files without explicit > instruction would seem inappropriate +1 > c) in \relative { c'' ..., the pitch might not actually be c''. If you > are wired t

Re: \relative is not the best way of entering complicated music

On 10/03/13 03:47, Sarah k Alawami wrote: > 'd rather enter in the pitches like they are on a piano starting with c1 > being low c and c8 being very high c all the way to the right of the > keyboard. I assume you're a pianist? I'm not. So a piano-centric naming scheme would be of no use to me

  1   2   >