A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics

ptoye
A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms used it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might disagree). As did some other, lesser, composers (one of whose music I am currently engraving).

A far as I can see, it just needs adding

rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz")

to dynamic-scripts-init.ly

There's an easy workaround of course - just put that line somewhere in your own music, but to me it seems as though it's common enough to build it into LilyPond.

 
Regards,

Peter
[hidden email]
www.ptoye.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics

Kieren MacMillan
Hi Peter,

> May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms used it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might disagree).

Is f the same as fz?

> A far as I can see, it just needs adding
> rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz")
> to dynamic-scripts-init.ly

You could always submit a patch!  =)

Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics

ptoye
Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics

Saturday, December 21, 2019, 1:04:09 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

> Hi Peter,

>> May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms used it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might disagree).

> Is f the same as fz?
f=forte, fz=forzando or sforzando.. rf=rfz=rinforzando (Source: The New Oxford Companion to Music)

>> A far as I can see, it just needs adding
>> rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz")
>> to dynamic-scripts-init.ly

> You could always submit a patch!  =)
When I've worked out how to do it. Also, the documentation will have to be upgraded.
I'm windows-based which, looking at the CG, is not a good starting place for patching.

> Cheers,
> Kieren.
> ________________________________

> Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
> ‣ website:
www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: [hidden email]

All the best,

Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics

Malte Meyn-3
In reply to this post by ptoye


Am 21.12.19 um 13:42 schrieb Peter Toye:

> May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms
> used it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might
> disagree). As did some other, lesser, composers (one of whose music I am
> currently engraving).
>
> A far as I can see, it just needs adding
>
> rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz")
>
> to dynamic-scripts-init.ly

Should LilyPond support other dynamics that are not present yet? Looking
at https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/tables/dynamics.html I’d propose

\pppppp
\ffffff
\sfzp
\sffz
\pf

I have never seen the last one but I’ve also never seen LilyPond’s \sp
and \spp. However, I have seen \mfp and \ffp for accents weaker/stronger
than \fp. So maybe one could add them too?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics

Andrew Bernard
In reply to this post by ptoye
Hi Peter,

Well I have a library file with over 150 custom dynamics, for use with
engraving new complexity school scores. It's a big file, with all
sorts of rare dynamics. I see no need to push non-standard or rare
dynamics on everybody. Just make an include file for your score and
add 'rf'. One could argue that the original composers are in error, or
it's an obsolete convention, and perhaps this would mislead modern
players anyway (the infinite discussion of the urtext!).

I don't see a need for rf to be added to the core set.

[And amusingly I have  all the ones Malte suggested. and lots of marks
like 'f (poco)' and similar which is actually commonly found, and yet
does not need to be in the core.]


Andrew

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 23:42, Peter Toye <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms used it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might disagree). As did some other, lesser, composers (one of whose music I am currently engraving).
>
> A far as I can see, it just needs adding
>
> rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz")
>
> to dynamic-scripts-init.ly
>
> There's an easy workaround of course - just put that line somewhere in your own music, but to me it seems as though it's common enough to build it into LilyPond.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
> mailto:[hidden email]
> www.ptoye.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics

ptoye
In reply to this post by ptoye
Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics Andrew, Malte,

Thanks for the opposing views!

Andrew, my point was that if two extremely well-known composers use a dynamic symbol, it's hardly non-standard, which is why I think it should be included even if it is a synonym for rfz.

Malte, I think I've seen all of these (but I can't remember where I saw pf - was it Mozart somewhere?) but extremely rarely. Schubert has fffz - how he managed that on an 1820s piano without breaking it I can't imagine. I wouldn’t suggest adding this though as it's very rare. I agree about \sp and \spp - what on earth are they meant to mean - a sudden quiet note in the middle of louder ones? Not a common musical gesture.


Best regards,

Peter
[hidden email]
www.ptoye.com

-------------------------
Sunday, December 22, 2019, 6:06:01 AM,
[hidden email] wrote:

> Send lilypond-user mailing list submissions to
>        
[hidden email]

> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        
[hidden email]

> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        
[hidden email]

> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of lilypond-user digest..."


> Today's Topics:

>    1. Re: convert-ly problems (Knute Snortum)
>    2. Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in
> dynamics (Andrew Bernard)
>    3. Re: Notes or chords sustained with a pedal (David R)
>    4. Re: Notes or chords sustained with a pedal (Aaron Hill)


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 14:45:06 -0800
> From: Knute Snortum <
[hidden email]>
> To:
[hidden email]
> Cc: Lilypond Users <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: convert-ly problems
> Message-ID:
>        
> <
[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

-->>C:\"Program Files (x86)"\LilyPond\usr\bin\python.exe<--

> This looks like the quotes are in the wrong place.

> ---
> Knute Snortum
> (via Gmail)

> On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 4:32 AM Peter Gentry
> <
[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I spoke too soon.



>> C:\WINDOWS\system32>convert-ly



>> C:\WINDOWS\system32>C:\"Program Files (x86)"\LilyPond\usr\bin\python.exe C:\"Program Files (x86)"\LilyPond\usr\bin\convert-ly.py

>> C:\Program Files (x86)\LilyPond\usr\bin\python.exe: can't open file 'C:"Program': [Errno 22] Invalid argument



>> C:\WINDOWS\system32>



>> This did work first time but now another wonderful windows surprise.

















>> From: Peter Gentry <
[hidden email]>
>> Sent: 21 December 2019 12:02
>> To: Lilypond Users (
[hidden email]) <[hidden email]>
>> Cc:
[hidden email] <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: convert-ly problems



>> Thanks Knute



>> However the problem for windows (as usual) is more difficult.  In addition to the PATH I needed the following to set up the association.

>> First get check the associated name of the python file type.

>> In an admin command prompt run the following

>> assoc {Python} result  “no association……”

>> I created one

>> Python="C:\Program Files (x86)\LilyPond\usr\bin\python.exe" "%1"

>> Now I look in Default Apps and there is PYTHON

>> SUCCESS!

>> Now convert-ly.py works



>> I could have use something Lily specific as the association PYTHONLILY say maybe I will later.



>> I expect I will have to do something similar if I go back to PYTHON  proper.



>> Isn’t Windows wonderful ????



>> Regards Peter





> ------------------------------

> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 10:23:46 +1100
> From: Andrew Bernard <
[hidden email]>
> To: lilypond-user Mailinglist <
[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics
> Message-ID:
>        
> <
[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> Hi Peter,

> Well I have a library file with over 150 custom dynamics, for use with
> engraving new complexity school scores. It's a big file, with all
> sorts of rare dynamics. I see no need to push non-standard or rare
> dynamics on everybody. Just make an include file for your score and
> add 'rf'. One could argue that the original
> composers are in error, or
> it's an obsolete convention, and perhaps this would mislead modern
> players anyway (the infinite discussion of the urtext!).

> I don't see a need for rf to be added to the core set.

> [And amusingly I have  all the ones Malte
> suggested. and lots of marks
> like 'f (poco)' and similar which is actually commonly found, and yet
> does not need to be in the core.]


> Andrew

> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 23:42, Peter Toye
> <
[hidden email]> wrote:

>> May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms used it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might disagree). As did some other, lesser, composers (one of whose music I am currently engraving).

>> A far as I can see, it just needs adding

>> rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz")

>> to dynamic-scripts-init.ly

>> There's an easy workaround of course - just put that line somewhere in your own music, but to me it seems as though it's common enough to build it into LilyPond.


>> Regards,

>> Peter
[hidden email]
>> www.ptoye.com



> ------------------------------

> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 15:14:48 -0800
> From: David R <
[hidden email]>
> To: lilypond-user <
[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Notes or chords sustained with a pedal
> Message-ID:
>        
> <
[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> On Friday, December 20, 2019, Robert Blackstone
> <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> I’m presently transcribing some piano-scores in which schords, sustained
> with a pedal are notated in a way had not seen
> before (see screenshot).
>> I would like to copy it but I have no idea how to do it.
>> I would be grateful for any advice.


> The "Clumsy Hack Department" says you might
> create some invisible notes for
> those added ties to attach to.

> --
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics

Malte Meyn-3


Am 22.12.19 um 13:23 schrieb Peter Toye:
> I
> agree about \sp and \spp - what on earth are they meant to mean - a
> sudden quiet note in the middle of louder ones? Not a common musical
> gesture.
Maybe they mean “subito piano” and “subito pianissimo”? Then they would
not be for only a single not like an accent (fz, sf, …) but for all
future notes like a regular “piano”, just with an additional “don’t
decresc. before this”. But that’s only me guessing …

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics

ptoye
Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics Sunday, December 22, 2019, 4:12:42 PM, Malte Meyn wrote:



> Am 22.12.19 um 13:23 schrieb Peter Toye:
>> I
>> agree about \sp and \spp - what on earth are they meant to mean - a
>> sudden quiet note in the middle of louder ones? Not a common musical
>> gesture.
> Maybe they mean “subito piano” and “subito
> pianissimo”? Then they would
> not be for only a single not like an accent
> (fz, sf, …) but for all
> future notes like a regular “piano”, just with an additional “don’t
> decresc. before this”. But that’s only me guessing …
Possible. New Oxford hasn't heard of them.
The point about sf, fz, sfz, rf, rfz is that they are abbreviations of normal words according to my Italian dictionary (not a language I speak).