On 13.01.2016 20:02, John Gourlay wrote:
There it is! I don’t know why I missed it the first time. I”m sorry to be a
bother.
Never mind, the docs _are_ difficult to penetrate sometimes…
Yours, Simon
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.
There it is! I don’t know why I missed it the first time. I”m sorry to be a
bother.
> On Jan 13, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
>
> John, you wrote Wednesday, January 13, 2016 6:18 PM
>
>> I’m still puzzled by the lack of documentation for \transposition, however.
>> How have you
John, you wrote Wednesday, January 13, 2016 6:18 PM
> I’m still puzzled by the lack of documentation for \transposition, however.
> How have you all learned to use it, by word of mouth?
No :), you'll find it here:
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/displaying-pitches#inst
Using \unfoldRepeats in a separate \score for the midi output works. Thank you,
Malte.
I’m still puzzled by the lack of documentation for \transposition, however. How
have you all learned to use it, by word of mouth?
John Gourlay
___
lilypond-user m
Am 11.01.2016 um 21:02 schrieb John Gourlay:
> The pdf output contained the music I hoped for but the midi output does not
> contain the second measure of this three-measure opus.
You should use \unfoldRepeats (or \articulate):
\version "2.18.2"
foo = \relative {
\repeat volta 2 {
c'4 d
David, et al.,
The \transposition command would seem do what I want, except that I’ve
discovered belatedly that LilyPond’s midi output doesn’t seem to respect
repeats at all. Is this true?
I compiled the following little file using \transposition as I think you
intended:
music = {c'4 d' e' f'
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, David Kastrup wrote:
>> For "this issue"? It allows you to use different tags for different
>> purposes without interference between the purposes.
>>
>> Not more, not less.
>
> Then why suggest it?
Because you stated "That can be worked arou
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, David Kastrup wrote:
> For "this issue"? It allows you to use different tags for different
> purposes without interference between the purposes.
>
> Not more, not less.
Then why suggest it?
--
Matthew Skala
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before principles.
h
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > I've had trouble getting that to work in more complicated situations, such
>> > as when there's nesting involved. If I want a few notes different inside
>
>> You know the \tagGroup command, do you?
>
> I found it whe
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, David Kastrup wrote:
> > I've had trouble getting that to work in more complicated situations, such
> > as when there's nesting involved. If I want a few notes different inside
> You know the \tagGroup command, do you?
I found it when I was looking for a clean solution to thi
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> > It's a shame that LilyPond's requirement to completely evaluate music
>> > expressions immediately, and therefore once and for all, forces this
>> > kind of thing on us. The natural thing to want to do would be to have
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
>> Generally, once you get into any kind of moderately complicated score, you
>> have to concoct your score and MIDI separately, e.g.:
>>
>> theTune = c c c c
>> theScore = \repeat volta 2 { \theTune }
>> theMidi =
John Gourlay writes:
> As an exercise in learning to use LilyPond I’m engraving “The Entertainer” by
> Scott Joplin. In the old published version I’m working from (1902), the score
> looks like this at measure 22:
> *
>
> I’m concerned about the “Repeat 8va”, which I assume
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > It's a shame that LilyPond's requirement to completely evaluate music
> > expressions immediately, and therefore once and for all, forces this
> > kind of thing on us. The natural thing to want to do would be to have
> This is not really true. What I usua
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 12:11:48AM -0600, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> > Generally, once you get into any kind of moderately complicated
> > score, you have to concoct your score and MIDI separately, e.g.:
> >
> > theTune = c c c c
> > theScore
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> Generally, once you get into any kind of moderately complicated score, you
> have to concoct your score and MIDI separately, e.g.:
>
> theTune = c c c c
> theScore = \repeat volta 2 { \theTune }
> theMidi = \theTune \transpose c c' \theTune
> \score
the updated version from
<https://github.com/sincere-music/MutopiaProject/blob/95d8bf3a08f75df6bbd9010f01dc623ba72668be/ftp/JoplinS/entertainer/entertainer.ly>
(click ‘Raw’ to download the code).
This one doesn’t have a semantically appropriate solution for the
‘Repeat 8va’. Perhaps you w
score looks like this at measure 22:
> >
> >I’m concerned about the “Repeat 8va”, which I assume means that on
> >the second repetition of this section it should be played an octave
> >higher than the first time. Do you know how to make this happen in
> >LilyPond? I can
On 01/08/2016 04:08 PM, John Gourlay wrote:
As an exercise in learning to use LilyPond I’m engraving “The
Entertainer” by Scott Joplin. In the old published version I’m
working from (1902), the score looks like this at measure 22:
I’m concerned about the “Repeat 8va”, which I assume means that
As an exercise in learning to use LilyPond I’m engraving “The Entertainer” by
Scott Joplin. In the old published version I’m working from (1902), the score
looks like this at measure 22:
I’m concerned about the “Repeat 8va”, which I assume means that on the second
repetition of this section
20 matches
Mail list logo
