On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
I find \relative to work quite nicely for chords, once I understood that
the first note in a chord gets its octave from the first note of the
previous chord. I use \relative mode virtually exclusively for note entry,
regardless of whether it's in si
On Monday 19 January 2009, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> This statement is not true when trying to split relative chords and
> produce parallel relative voices, because of the way lilypond works.
>
> The octave on the first note of a chord in relative mode is determined
> by comparison with the first
On 1/19/09 5:05 AM, "David Raleigh Arnold" wrote:
> On Sunday 18 January 2009, Tim Woodall wrote:
>> And, of course, I found some bugs as soon as I'd posted.
>>
>> Quick breakdown of how it works incase anyone really wants to hack on
>> it.
> Wow. I am impressed, honestly. I am not a program
On Sunday 18 January 2009, Tim Woodall wrote:
> And, of course, I found some bugs as soon as I'd posted.
>
> Quick breakdown of how it works incase anyone really wants to hack on
> it.
>
> First it splits the three parts out into three files. Basically all it
> does is remove the other two notes
goes to
c d e f c' d' e' f'
I don't know if it will help but i did for me something like that :
#(define (has-duration? music)
(ly:duration? (ly:music-property music 'duration)))
#(define (not-has-duration? music)
(not (has-duration? music)))
keepsOnlyFirstN
And, of course, I found some bugs as soon as I'd posted.
Quick breakdown of how it works incase anyone really wants to hack on
it.
First it splits the three parts out into three files. Basically all it
does is remove the other two notes from inside <>. It does depend on the
chord all being on on
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Tim Woodall wrote:
Surely the octaves can change? (I'm a very new lilypond user but a
fairly confident sed user so I might be completely misunderstanding
something)
Well it was an interesting exercise. I believe that the following bash
script does what is required. It wor
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
Thanks Dave,
Seems the script doesn't like the text in the file - using ^"some
words"
causes problems. Also, some of the articulations are a problem for it.
When I finally got a resulting file the octaves were totally messed
up,
I had notes wi
On Thursday 15 January 2009, you wrote:
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 January 2009, you wrote:
> >
> >> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday 14 January 2009, chip wrote:
> >>>
> >
> >
> >> Gnarly is an understatement. Those lines of hieroglyphics
