A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics

ptoye
I suggest that \rf (for rinforzando) be added to the built-in dynamic list.

I suggested this on the users list, and got two replies, one fairly positive, one negative.

My rationale is that it's accepted as a synonym of rfz, and was used as such by both Beethoven (who also used rfz and rinf.) and Brahms. And also by a far lesser composer whose work I've just engraved.

As far as I can see, it would need an addition to dynamic-scripts-init.ly and modifications to both LM and NR (a rare occasion in which both manuals have the same information!). I'd be willing to do this myself if it's accepted, once I've got my head round the modification process (I may need a mentor here...).
 
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

Thomas Morley-2
Hi Peter,

Am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020 um 11:04 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye <[hidden email]>:
>
> I suggest that \rf (for rinforzando) be added to the built-in dynamic list.
>
> I suggested this on the users list, and got two replies, one fairly positive, one negative.

Please link to previous discussions you refer to.
Afaict, it's
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/A-suggestion-add-rf-to-built-in-dynamics-td226397.html

> My rationale is that it's accepted as a synonym of rfz, and was used as such by both Beethoven (who also used rfz and rinf.) and Brahms. And also by a far lesser composer whose work I've just engraved.
>
> As far as I can see, it would need an addition to dynamic-scripts-init.ly and modifications to both LM and NR (a rare occasion in which both manuals have the same information!). I'd be willing to do this myself if it's accepted, once I've got my head round the modification process (I may need a mentor here...).

Iirc, you are on windows.
I think best would be to set up LilyDev first.

Cheers,
  Harm

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

ptoye
Thomas,

Thanks for that. As everyone seems to be on all the mailing lists. I sort of assumed that cross-links wouldn't be necessary.

Yes, I'm on Windows, but have just resurrected an old laptop and have managed to get a Linux (antiX) system on it. And there's a spare partition to install LilyDev. I'll download it today.

CG is a bit blank on what to do with the downloaded tarball though. Does it have a stand-alone disk image to install in its own partition, or should I install VirtualBox under Linux?

CG also seems a bit out of date as it mentions both Fedora and Debian . Github only seems to have Debian on it. Shouldn't be a problem - antiX is based on Debian.

Best regards,

Peter
mailto:[hidden email]
www.ptoye.com

-------------------------
Saturday, January 4, 2020, 10:36:09 AM, Thomas Morley wrote:

> Hi Peter,

> Am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020 um 11:04 Uhr schrieb Peter
> Toye <[hidden email]>:

>> I suggest that \rf (for rinforzando) be added to the built-in dynamic list.

>> I suggested this on the users list, and got two replies, one fairly positive, one negative.

> Please link to previous discussions you refer to.
> Afaict, it's
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/A-suggestion-add-rf-to-built-in-dynamics-td226397.html

>> My rationale is that it's accepted as a synonym of rfz, and was used as such by both Beethoven (who also used rfz and rinf.) and Brahms. And also by a far lesser composer whose work I've just engraved.

>> As far as I can see, it would need an addition to dynamic-scripts-init.ly and modifications to both LM and NR (a rare occasion in which both manuals have the same information!). I'd be willing to do this myself if it's accepted, once I've got my head round the modification process (I may need a mentor here...).

> Iirc, you are on windows.
> I think best would be to set up LilyDev first.

> Cheers,
>   Harm
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 04.01.20 um 11:04 schrieb Peter Toye:
> I suggest that \rf (for rinforzando) be added to the built-in dynamic list.
>
> I suggested this on the users list, and got two replies, one fairly positive, one negative.
>
> My rationale is that it's accepted as a synonym of rfz, and was used as such by both Beethoven (who also used rfz and rinf.) and Brahms. And also by a far lesser composer whose work I've just engraved.

As I wrote on the user list, IMO \rf should be added.

But that brings me to another question: Shouldn’t we add the \dynamic
command from openlilylib to vanilla LilyPond? This would allow users to
have “p dolce”, “più f” and ‘exotic’ dynamics like “mfz” whithout having
to define extra commands using make-dynamic-script.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

move some OLL functions to vanilla LilyPond? [was: A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics]

Malte Meyn-3


Am 04.01.20 um 12:29 schrieb Malte Meyn:
> But that brings me to another question: Shouldn’t we add the \dynamic
> command from openlilylib to vanilla LilyPond? This would allow users to
> have “p dolce”, “più f” and ‘exotic’ dynamics like “mfz” whithout having
> to define extra commands using make-dynamic-script.

One could argue that openlilylib can be installed easily but users might
not want to install “addons” for basic tasks like this. (In fact, I have
never used openlilylib apart from copying definitions from the
definitions.ily files and I see myself as a advanced user; I don’t think
that many newbies will use oll …)

Same argument for \shapeII.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Thomas Morley-2
In reply to this post by ptoye
Am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020 um 12:09 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye <[hidden email]>:

> Yes, I'm on Windows, but have just resurrected an old laptop and have managed to get a Linux (antiX) system on it. And there's a spare partition to install LilyDev. I'll download it today.

Well, if you have a LINUX-machine, you may consider not to install
LilyDev at all, i.e. clone the git-repo directly.

LilyDev is meant to be used by windows users in a VirtualBox on their
windows-system.
It comes along with some other preinstalled things you will want.

If you don't use LilyDev you'll need to get those stuff yourself.
Otoh, going for LilyDev has it's own hassles.

Your decision.


Speaking only for me, I started with LilyDev, although being on LINUX.
After some time I switched to my host-system for any LilyPond-work.

Though I kept all old and outdated LilyDevs, to keep the possibility
to compile checkouts of old patches for research-purposes.
Using old versions of gcc, ghostscript etc
I doubt you'll need that.

Cheers,
  Harm

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

ptoye
Thomas,

Thanks. CG chapter 2 starts off by saying that LilyDev has everything I should need, but then only mentions how to install it under VirtualBox (which I don't know at all) in Windows or MacOS. I'm a Linux newbie and haven't used Unix since about 2000 (on a Sun box), so it's all a bit of a learning curve.

Should I be looking at lily-git instead? I'm not an experienced git user, and  it's beginning to look as if a minor change to three text files is going to end up with me being swamped in new software :)

Best regards,

Peter
mailto:[hidden email]
www.ptoye.com

-------------------------
Saturday, January 4, 2020, 12:10:23 PM, Thomas Morley wrote:

> Am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020 um 12:09 Uhr schrieb Peter
> Toye <[hidden email]>:

>> Yes, I'm on Windows, but have just resurrected an old laptop and have managed to get a Linux (antiX) system on it. And there's a spare partition to install LilyDev. I'll download it today.

> Well, if you have a LINUX-machine, you may consider not to install
> LilyDev at all, i.e. clone the git-repo directly.

> LilyDev is meant to be used by windows users in a VirtualBox on their
> windows-system.
> It comes along with some other preinstalled things you will want.

> If you don't use LilyDev you'll need to get those stuff yourself.
> Otoh, going for LilyDev has it's own hassles.

> Your decision.


> Speaking only for me, I started with LilyDev,
> although being on LINUX.
> After some time I switched to my host-system for any LilyPond-work.

> Though I kept all old and outdated LilyDevs, to keep the possibility
> to compile checkouts of old patches for research-purposes.
> Using old versions of gcc, ghostscript etc
> I doubt you'll need that.

> Cheers,
>   Harm
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Thomas Morley-2
Am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020 um 14:02 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye <[hidden email]>:

> Thanks. CG chapter 2 starts off by saying that LilyDev has everything I should need, but then only mentions how to install it under VirtualBox (which I don't know at all) in Windows or MacOS. I'm a Linux newbie and haven't used Unix since about 2000 (on a Sun box), so it's all a bit of a learning curve.
>
> Should I be looking at lily-git instead?

Nope.

Personally I'd follow "CG 3.2 Starting with Git", doing all stuff
myself where needed. As said before.

If you want a LilyDev then:
For LINUX probably best to download
LilyDev-1-debian.tar.xz
from
https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev/releases
and follow the instructions in section "Container" from here:
https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev/tree/master/mkosi

> I'm not an experienced git user, and  it's beginning to look as if a minor change to three text files is going to end up with me being swamped in new software :)

Well, to submit a patch you'll need git.
Once the setup works, you may want to do more than one patch.

Doing development-work will always come along with some new software ;)
At least the LilyDev-container will help a bit.

Maybe Federico steps in, he knows his stuff best, ofcourse


Cheers,
  Harm

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Dan Eble
In reply to this post by ptoye
On Jan 4, 2020, at 06:09, Peter Toye <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that. As everyone seems to be on all the mailing lists. I sort of assumed that cross-links wouldn't be necessary.

I am subscribed to lilypond-devel only.

Dan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

ptoye

Apologies.



-------------------------
Saturday, January 4, 2020, 3:23:30 PM, Dan Eble wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2020, at 06:09, Peter Toye
> <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Thanks for that. As everyone seems to be on all the mailing lists. I sort of assumed that cross-links wouldn't be necessary.

> I am subscribed to lilypond-devel only.
> —
> Dan

Apologies

Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

ptoye
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
Saturday, January 4, 2020, 1:57:25 PM, you wrote:

> Am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020 um 14:02 Uhr schrieb Peter
> Toye <[hidden email]>:

>> Thanks. CG chapter 2 starts off by saying that LilyDev has everything I should need, but then only mentions how to install it under VirtualBox (which I don't know at all) in Windows or MacOS. I'm a Linux newbie and haven't used Unix since about 2000 (on a Sun box), so it's all a bit of a learning curve.
>>
>> Should I be looking at lily-git instead?

> Nope.

> Personally I'd follow "CG 3.2 Starting with Git", doing all stuff
> myself where needed. As said before.

Ah - the hair-shirt approach :) I'm too soft - spent too much time on Windows.

> If you want a LilyDev then:
> For LINUX probably best to download
> LilyDev-1-debian.tar.xz
> from
> https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev/releases
> and follow the instructions in section "Container" from here:
> https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev/tree/master/mkosi

So LilyDev always runs in a VM. Now I see what the documentation is getting at. I'm not sure my antique laptop is powerful enough so may end up with VirtualBox anyway.

>> I'm not an experienced git user, and  it's beginning to look as if a minor change to three text files is going to end up with me being swamped in new software :)

> Well, to submit a patch you'll need git.
> Once the setup works, you may want to do more than one patch.

I was rather hoping my coding days were over :(

> Doing development-work will always come along
> with some new software ;)

True

> At least the LilyDev-container will help a bit.

> Maybe Federico steps in, he knows his stuff best, of course


> Cheers,
>   Harm

All the best,

Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Thomas Morley-2
Am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020 um 16:44 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye <[hidden email]>:

> > Well, to submit a patch you'll need git.
> > Once the setup works, you may want to do more than one patch.
>
> I was rather hoping my coding days were over :(

Well, coding new functionality is only one possibility.
Sometimes there are typos/grammar/syntax to correct.
Furthermore, our documentation always needs people working on it.
Not being a native speaker I often hesitate doing so myself and if I
try, it's a major task for me...

Cheers,
  Harm

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

ptoye
Saturday, January 4, 2020, 6:46:56 PM, you wrote:

> Am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020 um 16:44 Uhr schrieb Peter
> Toye <[hidden email]>:

> Well, coding new functionality is only one possibility.

...and debugging someone else's code is even worse. Especially in a language I dn't speak fluently.
But I'm really not familiar in any detail with the whole patching process, whether or not I use git directly or via LilyDev and/or lily-git and/or git-cl (the relationship between these components is a bit pobscure to me). And even when I've worked out exactly what text/code needs to go where, there's the business of submitting it. CG section 3 says at the head "Send patch files to the appropriate place:". But I don't have an official mentor (How does one get one? Ask for one here?), nor am I an "experienced developer" in any way. I imagine you are.

Also, I'm a Linux newbie - still trying to get my head around the whole 'container' concept. There seem to be a number of different container management systems: Docker and LXC to name but two. Does it matter which one I use? My system is systemd-free (on purpose), and the instructions you pointed out to me earlier imply that I should have it. Is this a show-stopper?

> Sometimes there are typos/grammar/syntax to correct.

That's slightly more my line.

> Furthermore, our documentation always needs people working on it.
> Not being a native speaker I often hesitate
> doing so myself and if I
> try, it's a major task for me...

You could have kidded me - I think your English is at least as good as mine.

> Cheers,
>   Harm
 
Best regards,

Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Wols Lists
On 05/01/20 13:20, Peter Toye wrote:
> Also, I'm a Linux newbie - still trying to get my head around the whole 'container' concept. There seem to be a number of different container management systems: Docker and LXC to name but two. Does it matter which one I use? My system is systemd-free (on purpose), and the instructions you pointed out to me earlier imply that I should have it. Is this a show-stopper?

Any particular reason you're systemd-free?  Okay, my pc is, also, but I
run gentoo which defaults to OpenRC.

Most distros are systemd these days, it's much simpler and more reliable
than SysVInit, and the people who are so vocal against it seem mostly to
be in the "fanatic" category - "I don't like it so you should do the
work so I don't have to use it". Sorry,  linux doesn't work like that!

Linux is only  "free" as in "freedom" - if  you want something you have
to pay for  it one way  or another.  If you want "\rf" then  you  do it
yourself or you get someone to do it for you - and if you do the latter
then whether in money or kind you're expected to pay.

Anyways, I'll give you a little tip, and attach my "dynamics.ily" file.
All my custom dynamics live in here,  and I include it in any work that
might need them.  I'm *guessing* that it's very similar to the standard
definitions that exist in lilypond,  so all you will need to do is edit
the standard file and they'll appear by magic. Only snag, if you modify
your local version of lilypond,  they'll disappear with any upgrade :-(

Cheers,
Wol

dynamics.ily (808 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Malte Meyn-3


Am 05.01.20 um 18:11 schrieb Wols Lists:
> Anyways, I'll give you a little tip, and attach my "dynamics.ily" file.
> All my custom dynamics live in here,  and I include it in any work that
> might need them.  I'm *guessing* that it's very similar to the standard
> definitions that exist in lilypond, […]

No, it isn’t. Your commands produce TextScripts, not DynamicTexts, so
they are not vertically aligned with other dynamics. This is how the
standard definitions look like:

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

ptoye
In reply to this post by Wols Lists
Sunday, January 5, 2020, 5:11:16 PM, you wrote:

> On 05/01/20 13:20, Peter Toye wrote:

> Any particular reason you're systemd-free?
> Okay, my pc is, also, but I
> run gentoo which defaults to OpenRC.

I decided to go for antiX as I was able to get it to install on my antique laptop, which Ubuntu won't - diesn't have the right driver for the graphics card. And they don't like systemd.

> Most distros are systemd these days, it's much
> simpler and more reliable
> than SysVInit, and the people who are so vocal
> against it seem mostly to
> be in the "fanatic" category - "I don't like it so you should do the
> work so I don't have to use it". Sorry,  linux doesn't work like that!

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether the antiX team are fanatics or not. And I don't want to get into a flame war, thanks.

> Linux is only  "free" as in "freedom" - if  you want something you have
> to pay for  it one way  or another.  If you
> want "\rf" then  you  do it
> yourself or you get someone to do it for you -
> and if you do the latter
> then whether in money or kind you're expected to pay.

I was engraving some 19th century music which uses rf throughout, and was surprised not to find it built into LilyPond. I created a custom dynamic without difficulty (and several others which aren't built in). It's simply that I thought that adding \rf to the list of "normal" LP dynamics so that it would be useful. The reason I'm installing Linux (which I've not used before) and all the rest is so that I can help the community. I don't expect anything - apart possibly from some advice - for free, and I don't know why you should think I do.

> Anyways, I'll give you a little tip, and attach my "dynamics.ily" file.
> All my custom dynamics live in here,  and I
> include it in any work that
> might need them.  I'm *guessing* that it's very similar to the standard
> definitions that exist in lilypond,  so all you will need to do is edit
> the standard file and they'll appear by magic.
> Only snag, if you modify
> your local version of lilypond,  they'll
> disappear with any upgrade :-(

Thanks - I've got a similar one with a different selection!

> Cheers,
> Wol

Best regards,

Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Wols Lists
In reply to this post by Malte Meyn-3
On 05/01/2020 17:22, Malte Meyn wrote:

> Am 05.01.20 um 18:11 schrieb Wols Lists:
>> Anyways, I'll give you a little tip, and attach my "dynamics.ily" file.
>> All my custom dynamics live in here,  and I include it in any work that
>> might need them.  I'm *guessing* that it's very similar to the standard
>> definitions that exist in lilypond, […]
>
> No, it isn’t. Your commands produce TextScripts, not DynamicTexts, so
> they are not vertically aligned with other dynamics. This is how the
> standard definitions look like:
>
>      sfzp = #(make-dynamic-script "sfzp")
>
Thanks. I'll have to update my file :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Wols Lists
In reply to this post by ptoye
On 05/01/2020 18:17, Peter Toye wrote:

> Sunday, January 5, 2020, 5:11:16 PM, you wrote:
>
>> On 05/01/20 13:20, Peter Toye wrote:
>
>> Any particular reason you're systemd-free?
>> Okay, my pc is, also, but I
>> run gentoo which defaults to OpenRC.
>
> I decided to go for antiX as I was able to get it to install on my
> antique laptop, which Ubuntu won't - diesn't have the right driver for
> the graphics card. And they don't like systemd.

Sounds like the same reason I'm systemd-free - I wanted gentoo for other
reasons, and it came with the package :-)

>
> I was engraving some 19th century music which uses rf throughout, and
> was surprised not to find it built into LilyPond. I created a custom
> dynamic without difficulty (and several others which aren't built in).
> It's simply that I thought that adding \rf to the list of "normal" LP
> dynamics so that it would be useful. The reason I'm installing Linux
> (which I've not used before) and all the rest is so that I can help the
> community. I don't expect anything - apart possibly from some advice
> - for free, and I don't know why you should think I do.
>
>> Anyways, I'll give you a little tip, and attach my "dynamics.ily" file.
>> All my custom dynamics live in here,  and I
>> include it in any work that
>> might need them.  I'm *guessing* that it's very similar to the standard
>> definitions that exist in lilypond,  so all you will need to do is edit
>> the standard file and they'll appear by magic.
>> Only snag, if you modify
>> your local version of lilypond,  they'll
>> disappear with any upgrade :-(
>
> Thanks - I've got a similar one with a different selection!
>
I'll have to update mine in line with Malte's comment :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Wols Lists
In reply to this post by Malte Meyn-3
On 05/01/20 17:22, Malte Meyn wrote:

>
>
> Am 05.01.20 um 18:11 schrieb Wols Lists:
>> Anyways, I'll give you a little tip, and attach my "dynamics.ily" file.
>> All my custom dynamics live in here,  and I include it in any work that
>> might need them.  I'm *guessing* that it's very similar to the standard
>> definitions that exist in lilypond, […]
>
> No, it isn’t. Your commands produce TextScripts, not DynamicTexts, so
> they are not vertically aligned with other dynamics. This is how the
> standard definitions look like:
>
>     sfzp = #(make-dynamic-script "sfzp")
>
Okay. That's fine for things like sfzp, but I've got things like "piu
f", "molto ff", and looking at it, it looks like piu and molto are in a
different font. Iirc, the dynamics font is missing a bunch of
characters, which could be why.

So how would I get that effect? Just putting the whole in a
make-dynamic-script is likely to result in a garbled mess.

(Sorry I'm not trying it out right now, but I'm reading emails, not
doing lilypond and looking for a piece to check it out on :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Thomas Morley-2
In reply to this post by ptoye
Am So., 5. Jan. 2020 um 14:20 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye <[hidden email]>:

>
> Saturday, January 4, 2020, 6:46:56 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020 um 16:44 Uhr schrieb Peter
> > Toye <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Well, coding new functionality is only one possibility.
>
> ...and debugging someone else's code is even worse. Especially in a language I dn't speak fluently.
> But I'm really not familiar in any detail with the whole patching process, whether or not I use git directly or via LilyDev and/or lily-git and/or git-cl (the relationship between these components is a bit pobscure to me).

git-cl is a different tool

> And even when I've worked out exactly what text/code needs to go where,

Once you've access to the source-files then many parts fall into the
right place automatically, at least I hope so ;)

> there's the business of submitting it. CG section 3 says at the head "Send patch files to the appropriate place:".

Using git-cl will do the job for you.

> But I don't have an official mentor (How does one get one? Ask for one here?),

Well, the idea of mentoring is a very nice one. As far as I can tell
it never worked really.
Though, you'll get always support here. At least as long as people are
available.
Speaking only for me, tomorrow my winter-break ends, meaning I'll have
less time for LilyPond.

> nor am I an "experienced developer" in any way. I imagine you are.

I'm not a programmer, and I never got any formal lessons on it, i.e.
I'm an autodidact.

> Also, I'm a Linux newbie - still trying to get my head around the whole 'container' concept. There seem to be a number of different container management systems: Docker and LXC to name but two. Does it matter which one I use? My system is systemd-free (on purpose), and the instructions you pointed out to me earlier imply that I should have it. Is this a show-stopper?

Don't know. I hope Federico does. cc-ing him.

>
> > Sometimes there are typos/grammar/syntax to correct.
>
> That's slightly more my line.
>
> > Furthermore, our documentation always needs people working on it.
> > Not being a native speaker I often hesitate
> > doing so myself and if I
> > try, it's a major task for me...
>
> You could have kidded me - I think your English is at least as good as mine.

>Well, I have some practise in _writing_ mails, but you never heard my _spoken_ english ;)

Cheers,
  Harm

12