# Can an augmentation dot be parenthesized?

8 messages
Open this post in threaded view
|
Report Content as Inappropriate

## Can an augmentation dot be parenthesized?

 Dear all,I'm transcribing a few handwritten late 17th century fragments of music.There are a few problematic spots. (Perhaps the composer or writer was in a hurry, the whole thing is difficult to read anyway and it contains some symbols I've never seen before. see screensho.t)For two consecutive bars the time seems to have changed, from 6/2 to 5/2, which, as far as I know, was never done in that period. There is, in fact no time signature at all but 11 of the 13 bars in the fragment are clearly in 6/2 (or perhaps 3/1) and 2 bars contain notes and rests in both staves that add up to 5/2That leaves me with the choice: either to ignore it, or correct it. In the latter case I would have to add an augmentation dot to a few notes and rests.Can anybody tell what the standard procedure is in cases like this one:- ignore, i.e. tweaking things so that it looks exactly like the manuscript , or- correct it. In the latter case the corrections or corrected symbols must probably be marked somehow. I can place (?) above the corrected note or rest, which is not very specific. I would tather like to parenthesize these added augmenation dots but I've not found a way to do that.Is it at all possible? And if yes, how?Thanks in advance for any advice.Best regards, Robert Blackstone_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Open this post in threaded view
|
Report Content as Inappropriate

## re: Can an augmentation dot be parenthesized?

 Hi Robert,   You can use this definition: ficta = { \once \override AccidentalSuggestion #'parenthesized = ##t \once \set suggestAccidentals = ##t }   And use it this way just before the note with an ? : cis4 \ficta cis?   Have a nice day,   Rémy     > Message du 24/05/17 10:59> De : "Robert Blackstone" <[hidden email]>> A : [hidden email]> Copie à : > Objet : Can an augmentation dot be parenthesized?> >Dear all, I'm transcribing a few handwritten late 17th century fragments of music. > There are a few problematic spots. (Perhaps the composer or writer was in a hurry, the whole thing is difficult to read anyway and it contains some symbols I've never seen before. see screensho.t) > For two consecutive bars the time seems to have changed, from 6/2 to 5/2, which, as far as I know, was never done in that period. There is, in fact no time signature at all but 11 of the 13 bars in the fragment are clearly in 6/2 (or perhaps 3/1) and 2 bars contain notes and rests in both staves that add up to 5/2 > That leaves me with the choice: either to ignore it, or correct it. In the latter case I would have to add an augmentation dot to a few notes and rests. > Can anybody tell what the standard procedure is in cases like this one: - ignore, i.e. tweaking things so that it looks exactly like the manuscript , or - correct it. In the latter case the corrections or corrected symbols must probably be marked somehow. I can place (?) above the corrected note or rest, which is not very specific.  > I would tather like to parenthesize these added augmenation dots but I've not found a way to do that. > Is it at all possible? And if yes, how? > Thanks in advance for any advice. > Best regards,  > Robert Blackstone > > _______________________________________________lilypond-user mailing list[hidden email]https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Open this post in threaded view
|
Report Content as Inappropriate

## Re: Can an augmentation dot be parenthesized?

 In reply to this post by Robert Blackstone-2 Hi Robert, I would tather like to parenthesize these added augmenation dots but I've not found a way to do that.I don't know how to parenthesize them, but here is a solution yielding brackets around them:\version "2.19.44"#(define (special-bracketify original-stencil len thick protusion padding)  (let* (         (left-bracket (ly:bracket Y (cons (- len) len) thick (- protusion)))         (right-bracket (ly:bracket Y (cons (- len) len) thick protusion)))    (set! original-stencil  (ly:stencil-combine-at-edge original-stencil X RIGHT right-bracket (- -0.73 padding)))    (set! original-stencil (ly:stencil-combine-at-edge original-stencil X RIGHT left-bracket padding))    original-stencil))bracketDot = \once \override Dots.stencil = #(lambda (grob)    (special-bracketify (ly:dots::print grob) 0.4 0.1 0.2 0)) % first number (0.4): bracket length% second number (0.1): thickness% third number (0.2): protrusion% fourth number (0.1): space between dot and brackets {  c''4.  r8  \bracketDot  a'4.  r8} Question to the experts: If I unterstand my own code correctly :-), the right-hand edge of the dot stencil (used by stencil-combine-at-edge) is the right-most part of the dot itself, while the left-hand edge seems to be the right-most part of the note the dot is attached to.For this reason I took (for the left bracket) the *right* hand edge of the dot and added offsets with trial-and-error, which should be fine since I assume the dot will have the same size wherever it occurs. But nevertheless there must be a more conceptual way?BestLukas _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Open this post in threaded view
|
Report Content as Inappropriate

## Re: Can an augmentation dot be parenthesized?

Open this post in threaded view
|
Report Content as Inappropriate

## Re: Can an augmentation dot be parenthesized?

Open this post in threaded view
|
Report Content as Inappropriate

## Re: Can an augmentation dot be parenthesized?

 In reply to this post by Robert Blackstone-2 Am 24.05.2017 um 10:58 schrieb Robert Blackstone: > For two consecutive bars the time seems to have changed, from 6/2 to > 5/2, which, as far as I know, was never done in that period. This makes me think of John Dowland, who used bar lines in his songs, but quite irregularly (depending on the ‘phrasing’), so there are ‘bars’ of 5/2 and similar (IIRC). > There is, in fact no time signature at all but 11 of the 13 bars in > the fragment are clearly in 6/2 (or perhaps 3/1) and 2 bars contain > notes and rests in both staves that add up to 5/2 > > That leaves me with the choice: either to ignore it, or correct it. There is no ‘standard’ way to proceed – you have to decide which makes more sense musically and from the context. Or you could ask someone who is well acquainted with that particular kind of repertoire. Best, Simon _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Open this post in threaded view
|
Report Content as Inappropriate