Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Mark Polesky wrote: > Karl and Carl (and other choral typesetters), > > I've added a new context to the source code called > "NullVoice" which is designed exactly for this purpose. > It's not yet available as a release, but you can get it by > replacing your instal

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Karl Hammar wrote: > Not so fast, > \\ is a pain with vocal music, we want a explicit voice > name for \lyricsto see below Carl Peterson wrote: > Yes. The template I'm using is actually fairly robust. > I've moved as many of the tweaks and customizations (such > as autobeaming and shaped notes)

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Carl Peterson wrote: > So getting back to this, I had somewhat a stroke of inspiration, but I > can't find in the documentation whether this is possible. Is it possible to > define a global context for all voice "one"s and all voice "two"s? In other > words, the tho

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Carl Peterson wrote: > > This probably means that if it bothers me enough, I'm going to have to go > back into the part-combiner.scm file and dissect it. While my hands are in > the patient, I might as well figure out how to get it to combine tied and > slurred not

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson writes: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Phil Holmes > wrote: > > > > > I have to my right hand "Hymns and Modern, New Standard" and > behind me "Songs of Praise, New Standard". Both of these use > separate voices for Sop and Alto; Tenor and Bass. I stro

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM, David Rogers wrote: > > In practical terms, Carl's and my hymn books may in fact be considered > correct, because in many churches and/or church-music traditions, the > congregation is expected to sing in unison most of the time, the choir > in SATB if there is a c

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

On 13-09-06 06:55 AM, Carl Peterson wrote: On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 8:46 AM, David Kastrup > wrote: Carl Peterson mailto:carlopeter...@gmail.com>> writes: > Some hymnals (the same ones) also do not beam flagged notes unless the > notes are for the same syllabl

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 8:46 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > Carl Peterson writes: > > > Some hymnals (the same ones) also do not beam flagged notes unless the > > notes are for the same syllable (in which case, the beam serves as the > > slur). I have adopted this change. > > You'll find that switchi

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson writes: > Some hymnals (the same ones) also do not beam flagged notes unless the > notes are for the same syllable (in which case, the beam serves as the > slur). I have adopted this change. You'll find that switching autobeaming off will make lyric syllables synchronize to beaming

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Phil Holmes wrote: > > I have to my right hand "Hymns and Modern, New Standard" and behind me > "Songs of Praise, New Standard". Both of these use separate voices for Sop > and Alto; Tenor and Bass. I strongly believe this is the best way of > setting 4 part voic

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

David Kastrup: ... > I know SATB as basically > > \new ChoirStaff > << \new Staff { \clef "treble" << { \soprano } \\ { \alto } >> } >\new Staff { \clef "bass" << { \tenor } \\ { \bass } >> } > >> > > namely _without_ joining stems. ... Not so fast, \\ is a pain with vocal music, we want a

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

- Original Message - From: "David Rogers" To: "Carl Peterson" Cc: "David Kastrup" ; "Mailinglist lilypond-user" Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 4:38 AM Subject: Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining Carl Peterson writes: On Th

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson writes: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Why would you use the part combiner? I know SATB as basically > > \new ChoirStaff > << \new Staff { \clef "treble" << { \soprano } \\ { \alto } >> } > \new Staff { \clef "bass" << { \tenor } \\ {

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > > > Well, this is probably going nowhere fast, but it's moderately amusing > that it seems to do something: > > Agreed on both counts. This probably means that if it bothers me enough, I'm going to have to go back into the part-combiner.scm

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson writes: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Carl Peterson writes: >> >> > I am using the automatic part combiner in preparing SATB hymn sheets. The >> > issue I have is that when the notes are chorded by the apc, if there is a >> > slur (in both parts), onl

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Carl Peterson writes: > > > I am using the automatic part combiner in preparing SATB hymn sheets. The > > issue I have is that when the notes are chorded by the apc, if there is a > > slur (in both parts), only one slur is printed (as is see

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson writes: > I am using the automatic part combiner in preparing SATB hymn sheets. The > issue I have is that when the notes are chorded by the apc, if there is a > slur (in both parts), only one slur is printed (as is seen in the > documentation for automatic part combining). Why wou