Double slurs on automatic part combining

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

Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson
I am using the automatic part combiner in preparing SATB hymn sheets. The issue I have is that when the notes are chorded by the apc, if there is a slur (in both parts), only one slur is printed (as is seen in the documentation for automatic part combining). In virtually all the examples I've seen, in these cases, there is a double slur. I realize that I could probably go in and use the double slur setting manually, but one of the purposes of what I'm doing is to allow a person to input each of the four voice parts separately and not have to worry about how the parts are going to interact when combined.

Is there a way to have double slurs whenever the parts are chorded and single slurs when separate, without specifying any tweaks within the parts themselves?

Cheers,
Carl

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
dak
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

dak
Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> writes:

> I am using the automatic part combiner in preparing SATB hymn sheets. The
> issue I have is that when the notes are chorded by the apc, if there is a
> slur (in both parts), only one slur is printed (as is seen in the
> documentation for automatic part combining).

Why would you use the part combiner?  I know SATB as basically

\new ChoirStaff
<< \new Staff { \clef "treble" << { \soprano } \\ { \alto } >> }
   \new Staff { \clef "bass" << { \tenor } \\ { \bass } >> }
>>

namely _without_ joining stems.  At any rate, if you want soprano/alto
to retain upwards/downwards slurs, just write ^( and _( explicitly
(\slurUp/\slurDown is not strong enough).

--
David Kastrup


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> writes:

> I am using the automatic part combiner in preparing SATB hymn sheets. The
> issue I have is that when the notes are chorded by the apc, if there is a
> slur (in both parts), only one slur is printed (as is seen in the
> documentation for automatic part combining).

Why would you use the part combiner?  I know SATB as basically

\new ChoirStaff
<< \new Staff { \clef "treble" << { \soprano } \\ { \alto } >> }
   \new Staff { \clef "bass" << { \tenor } \\ { \bass } >> }
>>

That depends. Virtually without exception, every hymnal I have used in church or have in my library uses joined stems except when there are different melodies or the notes are separated by less than a diatonic third (this has required some rewriting of the part combiner scheme file to accommodate these style rules).
 
namely _without_ joining stems.  At any rate, if you want soprano/alto
to retain upwards/downwards slurs, just write ^( and _( explicitly
(\slurUp/\slurDown is not strong enough).

I will take a look at the modifiers. I'm so used to using \slurUp and \slurDown I forgot ^ and _ can be used for that. The goal of the template system I'm working on is to require practically no tweaks/overrides/etc. that do not impact the actual musical performance, to potentially allow non-Lilypond people to help with only a rudimentary knowledge of notation syntax.

Thanks,
Carl

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
dak
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

dak
Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> writes:
>>
>> > I am using the automatic part combiner in preparing SATB hymn sheets. The
>> > issue I have is that when the notes are chorded by the apc, if there is a
>> > slur (in both parts), only one slur is printed (as is seen in the
>> > documentation for automatic part combining).
>>
>> Why would you use the part combiner?  I know SATB as basically
>>
>> \new ChoirStaff
>> << \new Staff { \clef "treble" << { \soprano } \\ { \alto } >> }
>>    \new Staff { \clef "bass" << { \tenor } \\ { \bass } >> }
>> >>
>>
>
> That depends. Virtually without exception, every hymnal I have used in
> church or have in my library uses joined stems except when there are
> different melodies or the notes are separated by less than a diatonic third
> (this has required some rewriting of the part combiner scheme file
> to accommodate these style rules).
Well, this is probably going nowhere fast, but it's moderately amusing
that it seems to do something:


soprano = \relative c'' { e( f) c( d) }
alto = \relative c'' { c( d) c( d) }
\new Staff \with { \consists "Stem_engraver" }
<< \new Voice \with { \remove "Stem_engraver" \voiceOne } \soprano
   \new Voice \with { \remove "Stem_engraver" \voiceTwo } \alto
>>



--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:


Well, this is probably going nowhere fast, but it's moderately amusing
that it seems to do something:


Agreed on both counts.

This probably means that if it bothers me enough, I'm going to have to go back into the part-combiner.scm file and dissect it. While my hands are in the patient, I might as well figure out how to get it to combine tied and slurred notes (such as on a suspension). The code for both is probably in the same general vicinity.

The question is whether it bothers me enough, or if I'm willing to either put up with the individual tweaks or letting the current default output be what it is. 

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

David Rogers-7
In reply to this post by Carl Peterson
Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:

>     Why would you use the part combiner? I know SATB as basically
>    
>     \new ChoirStaff
>     << \new Staff { \clef "treble" << { \soprano } \\ { \alto } >> }
>     \new Staff { \clef "bass" << { \tenor } \\ { \bass } >> }
>     >>
>    
>
> That depends. Virtually without exception, every hymnal I have used in
> church or have in my library uses joined stems except when there are
> different melodies or the notes are separated by less than a diatonic
> third (this has required some rewriting of the part combiner scheme
> file to accommodate these style rules).


As another data point, the small cross-section of Canadian hymn books
easily available to me (ranging from the 1910s to the 1990s) mostly
agree with what Carl is seeing; the only hymn book I have that prints
everything (except obvious keyboard chords) with separate stems is the
one from before 1920, which was printed in movable type. All the others
merge the stems at all times, except for unisons, seconds, and anything
that would otherwise be ambiguous.

--
David R

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Phil Holmes
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Rogers" <[hidden email]>
To: "Carl Peterson" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "David Kastrup" <[hidden email]>; "Mailinglist lilypond-user"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining


> Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>     Why would you use the part combiner? I know SATB as basically
>>
>>     \new ChoirStaff
>>     << \new Staff { \clef "treble" << { \soprano } \\ { \alto } >> }
>>     \new Staff { \clef "bass" << { \tenor } \\ { \bass } >> }
>>     >>
>>
>>
>> That depends. Virtually without exception, every hymnal I have used in
>> church or have in my library uses joined stems except when there are
>> different melodies or the notes are separated by less than a diatonic
>> third (this has required some rewriting of the part combiner scheme
>> file to accommodate these style rules).
>
>
> As another data point, the small cross-section of Canadian hymn books
> easily available to me (ranging from the 1910s to the 1990s) mostly
> agree with what Carl is seeing; the only hymn book I have that prints
> everything (except obvious keyboard chords) with separate stems is the
> one from before 1920, which was printed in movable type. All the others
> merge the stems at all times, except for unisons, seconds, and anything
> that would otherwise be ambiguous.


I have to my right hand "Hymns and Modern, New Standard" and behind me
"Songs of Praise, New Standard".  Both of these use separate voices for Sop
and Alto; Tenor and Bass.  I strongly believe this is the best way of
setting 4 part voice - merging the notes into chords is just wrong, IMHO -
it can confuse which voice is singing which part.  What happens when the
voices cross?  FWIW Elaine Gould agrees with me: "Ideally each voice takes
separate stems".  This rule is only broken in her view where space is
limited.

--
Phil Holmes


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Karl Hammar
In reply to this post by dak
David Kastrup:
...
> I know SATB as basically
>
> \new ChoirStaff
> << \new Staff { \clef "treble" << { \soprano } \\ { \alto } >> }
>    \new Staff { \clef "bass" << { \tenor } \\ { \bass } >> }
> >>
>
> namely _without_ joining stems.
...

Not so fast,
 \\ is a pain with vocal music, we want a explicit voice name for \lyricsto

And do we want to merge
 r's
 R's
 \fermata and \fermataMarkup
 same note with same duration i the two voices
 dynamics
or not

Regards,
/Karl Hammar

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson
In reply to this post by Phil Holmes
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Phil Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have to my right hand "Hymns and Modern, New Standard" and behind me "Songs of Praise, New Standard".  Both of these use separate voices for Sop and Alto; Tenor and Bass.  I strongly believe this is the best way of setting 4 part voice - merging the notes into chords is just wrong, IMHO - it can confuse which voice is singing which part.  What happens when the voices cross? FWIW Elaine Gould agrees with me: "Ideally each voice takes separate stems".  This rule is only broken in her view where space is limited.

Ultimately, for what I'm doing, "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. Much like those who are creating custom style sheets to match Henle or Breitkopf or even (cringe) Finale or Sibelius, it doesn't really matter what my sensibilities are or to large degree the way *I* think it ought to be...this is the way it is, and I decide how closely I want to match to it. The fact is that for my target audience, combined stems are the norm, which the noted exceptions of rhythmic differences, small intervals, or crossed voices (see below).

I have made some decisions on some things that are not as universal in context. For instance, some hymnals I use point all stems away from the lyrics except when there are separated voices on the staff (and one has to face in each direction. I've decided against that change, for technical reasons as much as musical correctness. Some hymnals (the same ones) also do not beam flagged notes unless the notes are for the same syllable (in which case, the beam serves as the slur). I have adopted this change.

Regarding the confusion, etc.: I can think of only one song in our standard repertoire when voices cross. Regardless, this is irrelevant as the default behavior of the part combiner to separate crossed voices is preserved.

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
dak
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

dak
Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> writes:

> Some hymnals (the same ones) also do not beam flagged notes unless the
> notes are for the same syllable (in which case, the beam serves as the
> slur). I have adopted this change.

You'll find that switching autobeaming off will make lyric syllables
synchronize to beaming.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 8:46 AM, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> writes:

> Some hymnals (the same ones) also do not beam flagged notes unless the
> notes are for the same syllable (in which case, the beam serves as the
> slur). I have adopted this change.

You'll find that switching autobeaming off will make lyric syllables
synchronize to beaming.

Yes. The template I'm using is actually fairly robust. I've moved as many of the tweaks and customizations (such as autobeaming and shaped notes) to the layout block as possible, even to the point of creating aliased contexts to allow for alternate lyrics and for hidden voices so that each part can be a \lyricsto target. At this point, it can probably handle setting at least 90% of our repertoire, assuming that lyrics and parts are defined correctly. For instance, soprano verse and soprano chorus are given different (hidden) voices. Since I always manually break the music into systems, the chorus always starts on a new line, so any spacing issues from this approach to lyrics are mitigated.

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Colin Campbell-8
On 13-09-06 06:55 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 8:46 AM, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> writes:

> Some hymnals (the same ones) also do not beam flagged notes unless the
> notes are for the same syllable (in which case, the beam serves as the
> slur). I have adopted this change.

You'll find that switching autobeaming off will make lyric syllables
synchronize to beaming.

Yes. The template I'm using is actually fairly robust. I've moved as many of the tweaks and customizations (such as autobeaming and shaped notes) to the layout block as possible, even to the point of creating aliased contexts to allow for alternate lyrics and for hidden voices so that each part can be a \lyricsto target. At this point, it can probably handle setting at least 90% of our repertoire, assuming that lyrics and parts are defined correctly. For instance, soprano verse and soprano chorus are given different (hidden) voices. Since I always manually break the music into systems, the chorus always starts on a new line, so any spacing issues from this approach to lyrics are mitigated.



I hope you are thinking of adding this to the LSR, Karl. It sounds like a wonderful building block for those of us who work with choirs, especially church choirs!

Cheers,
Colin
-- 
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both hands. 
You need to be able to throw something back. 
-Maya Angelou, poet (1928- )

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

David Rogers-7
In reply to this post by Carl Peterson
Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Phil Holmes <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>    
>    
>    
>     I have to my right hand "Hymns and Modern, New Standard" and
>     behind me "Songs of Praise, New Standard". Both of these use
>     separate voices for Sop and Alto; Tenor and Bass. I strongly
>     believe this is the best way of setting 4 part voice - merging the
>     notes into chords is just wrong, IMHO - it can confuse which voice
>     is singing which part. What happens when the voices cross? FWIW
>     Elaine Gould agrees with me: "Ideally each voice takes separate
>     stems". This rule is only broken in her view where space is
>     limited.
>
> Ultimately, for what I'm doing, "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. Much
> like those who are creating custom style sheets to match Henle or
> Breitkopf or even (cringe) Finale or Sibelius, it doesn't really
> matter what my sensibilities are or to large degree the way *I* think
> it ought to be...this is the way it is, and I decide how closely I
> want to match to it. The fact is that for my target audience, combined
> stems are the norm, which the noted exceptions of rhythmic
> differences, small intervals, or crossed voices (see below).

I'm in the same situation if I need to transcribe any hymns (which I
usually don't need but whatever) - "customary" trumps "correct".

Caution: wild assumptions in the following paragraph. :)

In practical terms, Carl's and my hymn books may in fact be considered
correct, because in many churches and/or church-music traditions, the
congregation is expected to sing in unison most of the time, the choir
in SATB if there is a choir, and there will (almost invariably) be an
organist/keyboard player. It may be that the notation chosen is a
compromise to minimize inconvenience for everyone, according to how much
they use the notation and how closely they read it - i.e. "all those
notes" are primarily for the keyboard, and a choir will have little
trouble reading four-part keyboard music. This might not be the case in
traditions where the custom is for everyone to sing SATB without
instruments.

--
David R

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM, David Rogers <[hidden email]> wrote:

In practical terms, Carl's and my hymn books may in fact be considered
correct, because in many churches and/or church-music traditions, the
congregation is expected to sing in unison most of the time, the choir
in SATB if there is a choir, and there will (almost invariably) be an
organist/keyboard player. It may be that the notation chosen is a
compromise to minimize inconvenience for everyone, according to how much
they use the notation and how closely they read it - i.e. "all those
notes" are primarily for the keyboard, and a choir will have little
trouble reading four-part keyboard music. This might not be the case in
traditions where the custom is for everyone to sing SATB without
instruments.

Actually, I fit into this last category :). All of our music is sung congregationally, with full SATB harmony (though portions of some songs are written to be sung in unison, or with only a couple of parts), without instruments. That being said, the original reasoning may have been adapted from hymnals that use keyboard reductions. The current reasoning (other than "that's the way we've always done it," and the hymnals I've looked at span some 100 years), is that all the extra stems get in the way of reading the music. This is the same motivation behind pointing stems away from the lyrics, so that there's less "noise" between the words and the notes.

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson
In reply to this post by Carl Peterson

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> wrote:

This probably means that if it bothers me enough, I'm going to have to go back into the part-combiner.scm file and dissect it. While my hands are in the patient, I might as well figure out how to get it to combine tied and slurred notes (such as on a suspension). The code for both is probably in the same general vicinity.

The question is whether it bothers me enough, or if I'm willing to either put up with the individual tweaks or letting the current default output be what it is. 

So getting back to this, I had somewhat a stroke of inspiration, but I can't find in the documentation whether this is possible. Is it possible to define a global context for all voice "one"s and all voice "two"s? In other words, the thought I had (and I'm thinking about the CSS ability to define both element and id-level properties) is to set double-slurs as the default at the \layout block level, then specify single slurs for the named split voices.

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Carl Peterson <[hidden email]> wrote:
So getting back to this, I had somewhat a stroke of inspiration, but I can't find in the documentation whether this is possible. Is it possible to define a global context for all voice "one"s and all voice "two"s? In other words, the thought I had (and I'm thinking about the CSS ability to define both element and id-level properties) is to set double-slurs as the default at the \layout block level, then specify single slurs for the named split voices.

Answered my own question.

Yes, it is possible. What I did to accomplish this was use doubleSlurs = ##t in the Voice context layout block. Then, I explicitly created Voice = "one" and Voice = "two" with doubleSlurs = ##f and slurs in the correct directions. Beautiful, and no Scheme manipulation required.

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Mark Polesky
In reply to this post by Carl Peterson
Karl Hammar wrote:
> Not so fast,
> \\ is a pain with vocal music, we want a explicit voice
> name for \lyricsto

see below

Carl Peterson wrote:

> Yes. The template I'm using is actually fairly robust.
> I've moved as many of the tweaks and customizations (such
> as autobeaming and shaped notes) to the layout block as
> possible, even to the point of creating aliased contexts
> to allow for alternate lyrics and for hidden voices so
> that each part can be a \lyricsto target.

Karl and Carl (and other choral typesetters),

I've added a new context to the source code called
"NullVoice" which is designed exactly for this purpose.
It's not yet available as a release, but you can get it by
replacing your installed copy of ly/engraver-init.ly with:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=blob_plain;f=ly/engraver-init.ly;hb=df8a24

The documentation is not yet online, but if you can read
through the texinfo code, you can learn about it here:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=commitdiff;h=2537ec#patch2

I'd actually appreciate if you and the other choral
typesetters test this out now, in case I've missed
something, or if you have any suggestions for improvement.

Thanks.
- Mark

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Double slurs on automatic part combining

Carl Peterson
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Mark Polesky <[hidden email]> wrote:
Karl and Carl (and other choral typesetters),

I've added a new context to the source code called
"NullVoice" which is designed exactly for this purpose.
It's not yet available as a release, but you can get it by
replacing your installed copy of ly/engraver-init.ly with:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=blob_plain;f=ly/engraver-init.ly;hb=df8a24

The documentation is not yet online, but if you can read
through the texinfo code, you can learn about it here:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=commitdiff;h=2537ec#patch2

I'd actually appreciate if you and the other choral
typesetters test this out now, in case I've missed
something, or if you have any suggestions for improvement.

I will take a look at it at in the near future. I looked at the source and it looks like it will work for what I'm doing. However, right now I'm working through some other things and don't want to completely work through that and this at the same time since the two would be intertwined.

Carl


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user