On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 14:50 +0100, Noeck wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> > There is still something not said here: by default LilyPond is printing
> > two accidentals in the measure following the line break in the example I
> > posted.
>
> It is.
Sorry, yes, you are quite right
(though perhaps my con
Hi Richard,
> There is still something not said here: by default LilyPond is printing
> two accidentals in the measure following the line break in the example I
> posted.
It is. That's what I addressed by:
>> 2.) Additional notes with the same pitch in this first bar after the
>> break should h
On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 21:50 +0100, Noeck wrote:
> Am 26.03.2013 21:35, schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> > I think Lilypond should offer as many options as possible, so that the
> > user/engraver can make the choice.
>
> I'd like to second that. I think that’s some outcome of the discussion:
There is
TaoCG writes:
> Kieren MacMillan wrote
>> By hiding the accidental after the break, I introduce [unnecessary]
>> ambiguity at the beginning of the system, which can only be resolved by
>> looking backwards to the end of the last system — it is precisely for this
>> reason that Gould (and many oth
Hi Shane,
> One should never read backwards your mind and fingers
> have already passed through that and must know where they are destined
> to go next. If you cannot remember what a chord is from one staff to
> the next you are simply not concentrating.
You're missing the point: As a conductor,
I never make mistakes playing until someone throws in a cautionary
accidental. Somehow they often become something other than the note it
already is on account of that extra visual distraction. There is for
me a need to change the note even though it would have been correct
without such additional
Hi,
> I don't see the ambiguity.
So, upon seeing the screenshot I sent, you immediately knew that it was a
C-natural, even though there's a C-sharp in the key signature and no other
[contradicting] accidental?
You should be the star of a clairvoyance show in Vegas! ;)
> The note is tied anywa
ond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Repeated-accidental-after-tie-across-line-break-tp143454p143507.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>> 1.) There should be a switch to choose whether tied altered notes have
>> accidentals after a line break.
>
> There already is one.
Yes, sorry for being not precise enough. I meant: keep and adapt it
(like you write it:)
> The thing not yet in Lilypond (AFAIK) that would be helpful is a switc
Hi Joram,
> 1.) There should be a switch to choose whether tied altered notes have
> accidentals after a line break.
There already is one.
The thing not yet in Lilypond (AFAIK) that would be helpful is a switch to
choose whether accidentals which do appear are cautionary or regular. Perhaps
if
Am 26.03.2013 21:35, schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> I think Lilypond should offer as many options as possible, so that the
> user/engraver can make the choice.
I'd like to second that. I think that’s some outcome of the discussion:
1.) There should be a switch to choose whether tied altered notes
Hi Karol,
> I think that making distiction between classical and non-clasiccal music is
> very important here.
"Somewhat important", I would agree — "very important", no.
> ambiguity is caused by the presence of key signature. If there is no key
> signature then there is no problem.
Untrue: S
I think that making distiction between classical and non-clasiccal music is very important here. To be more precise - distinction between music _with_ key signature (classical) and music _without_ key signature. The point is that ambiguity is caused by the presence of key signature. If there is no
Hi,1. Without a "tied-to" accidental, "starting at the beginning of thesystem" (e.g.) will almost certainly lead to confusion or errors;What makes you think so?Actually I instinctively thought the opposite.If I were to see such a note while sightreading I'm almost certain I'dmisinterprete the tie f
- Original Message -
From: "Trevor Daniels"
To: "Phil Holmes" ; "Janek Warchol"
; "Urs Liska"
Cc: "LilyPond Users"
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Repeated accidental after tie across line break
But Phil'
I play and typeset a lot of latin american music which has a lot of
syncopation which makes this particlar scene appear quite often.
Maybe I got used to something non-standard but it still seems more logical
to me to omit the tied accidental and treat the measure as if there was no
line break.
Phil Holmes wrote Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:57 PM
> Gould (page 80) says that a sharp note tied to another across a system break
> should cause the note-tied-to to have a normal accidental, and further notes
> of the same (altered) pitch should have no accidental - exactly as the OP
> was requ
available
so everyone can choose what s/he prefers.
Regards,
Tao
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Repeated-accidental-after-tie-across-line-break-tp143454p143482.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_
Hello all,
> Gould (page 80) says that a sharp note tied to another across a system break
> should cause the note-tied-to to have a normal accidental, and further notes
> of the same (altered) pitch should have no accidental - exactly as the OP was
> requesting.
I agree with Gould 100%:
1.
- Original Message -
From: "Janek Warchol"
To: "Urs Liska"
Cc: "LilyPond Users"
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Repeated accidental after tie across line break
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
Anyway, I also
ypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Repeated-accidental-after-tie-across-line-break-tp143454p143476.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 09:52 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I wonder... The topics been up a few times already, once by myself years ago
> > when I just started with LilyPond. I already got used to remove the
> > accidentals manually, but what I'd really like is an automated way to
> >
> No, it's a feature.
> Janek
Hi Janek,
I first thought that, too. And I still think, the repeated accidental
after a line break of a tied note is a feature and good notation practice.
But here, I am not sure, because two accidentals in one bar looks a bit
exaggerated to me (I would keep the firs
Hi,
> I wonder... The topics been up a few times already, once by myself years ago
> when I just started with LilyPond. I already got used to remove the
> accidentals manually, but what I'd really like is an automated way to
> suppress them without having to use an override every time, especially
since
determining automatic line breaks is also done by lily and the manual
removal can only be done in a secondary editing step.
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Repeated-accidental-after-tie-across-line-break-tp143454p143472.html
Sent from the User mailing
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Richard Shann wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 13:12 +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>> Or do you refer to the accidental after the line break?
>
> The one after the line break (which I called a line boundary in my
> original message).
> I think it is a bug BTW ...
No,
That did the trick - thank you.
Richard
On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 12:58 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> Am 26.03.2013 12:46, schrieb Richard Shann:
>
> > Dear LilyPonders,
> > When a tied note with accidental ties across a line boundary the
> > accidental is repeated in the next bar. If there is a further n
On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 13:12 +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Richard Shann
> wrote:
> > Dear LilyPonders,
> > When a tied note with accidental ties across a line boundary the
> > accidental is repeated in the next bar. If there is a further note with
> > the same acc
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
> Anyway, I also think there should be only one accidental in the measure
> after the line break (although i don't have a strong opinion on which one to
> emend.
> If I put an accidental on the first (i.e. the tied note) then I definitely
> don't n
Am 26.03.2013 13:12, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Richard Shann
wrote:
Dear LilyPonders,
When a tied note with accidental ties across a line boundary the
accidental is repeated in the next bar. If there is a further note with
the same accidental, the accidental is re
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Richard Shann
wrote:
> Dear LilyPonders,
> When a tied note with accidental ties across a line boundary the
> accidental is repeated in the next bar. If there is a further note with
> the same accidental, the accidental is repeated, which looks very odd,
> as the
Am 26.03.2013 12:46, schrieb Richard Shann:
Dear LilyPonders,
When a tied note with accidental ties across a line boundary the
accidental is repeated in the next bar. If there is a further note with
the same accidental, the accidental is repeated, which looks very odd,
as the accidental has alrea
Dear LilyPonders,
When a tied note with accidental ties across a line boundary the
accidental is repeated in the next bar. If there is a further note with
the same accidental, the accidental is repeated, which looks very odd,
as the accidental has already been printed in that bar.
This snippet illu
33 matches
Mail list logo
