accidentals on merged notes

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

accidentals on merged notes

Hauke Rehr
Hello,

searching for this bug on sf using terms “accidentals + merged”,
I found only #546 said to have been solved for ages.
Still, the output doesn’t match at least /my/ expectations:
notes should either not be merged at all, or there should be
stacked accidentals indicating which one applies to which Voice.

find attached a minimal example

If I add a ! to the note on the third beat in the upper voice,
I get at least both a natural and a sharp sign, leaving it to
the reader which belongs to which Voice, but it still doesn’t
help with the case on the second beat.

regards,
Hauke Rehr (from Germany)

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

lilybug.ly (260 bytes) Download Attachment
lilybug.preview.png (3K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: accidentals on merged notes

Malte Meyn-3


Am 12.08.2017 um 17:05 schrieb Hauke Rehr:
> Still, the output doesn’t match at least /my/ expectations:
> notes should either not be merged at all, or there should be
> stacked accidentals indicating which one applies to which Voice.

How should this be a default behaviour? IMO none of those two options
looks good and unambiguous. But here are three possible solutions to
your problem (I like the third most):

\version "2.19.63"

\relative {
   <<
     {
       c''4
       \tweak NoteColumn.X-offset 2.5
       \tweak Accidental.X-offset 1.6
       g
       \tweak NoteColumn.X-offset 1.5
       \tweak Accidental.extra-offset #'(1.65 . 0)
       g!
       ais
     } \\ {
       gis
       gis
       \tweak NoteHead.extra-offset #'(-1 . 0)
       \tweak Stem.extra-offset #'(-1 . 0)
       gis
       gis
     }
   >>
}

\relative {
   <<
     {
       c''4
       \tweak Accidental.stencil #ly:text-interface::print
       \tweak Accidental.text
       \markup \fontsize #-5 \override #'(baseline-skip . 2) \vcenter
\center-column {
         \musicglyph #"accidentals.natural"
         \musicglyph #"accidentals.sharp"
       }
       g
       g
       ais
     } \\ {
       gis
       gis
       \tweak Accidental.stencil #ly:text-interface::print
       \tweak Accidental.text
       \markup \fontsize #-5 \override #'(baseline-skip . 2) \vcenter
\center-column {
         \musicglyph #"accidentals.natural"
         \musicglyph #"accidentals.sharp"
       }
       gis
       gis
     }
   >>
}

\new StaffGroup \new Staff = "orig" \relative {
   <<
     {
       c''4 c c c
       \new Staff \with {
         alignAboveContext = "orig"
       } \relative {
         \omit Staff.TimeSignature
         \omit Staff.Clef
         c'' g! g a
       }
       c c c c
     } \\ {
       gis gis gis gis
       gis gis gis gis
       gis gis gis gis
     }
   >>
}

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

Re: accidentals on merged notes

Knut Petersen
Am 12.08.2017 um 20:56 schrieb Malte Meyn:
> Am 12.08.2017 um 17:05 schrieb Hauke Rehr:
>> Still, the output doesn’t match at least /my/ expectations:
>> notes should either not be merged at all, or there should be
>> stacked accidentals indicating which one applies to which Voice.
>
> How should this be a default behaviour? IMO none of those two options looks good and unambiguous. But here are three possible solutions to your problem (I like the third most):

We might decide that it is ok to provide an ambiguous engraving, but the engraving lilypond provides is clearly broken and should be fixed.

Knut




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

issue.ly (2K) Download Attachment
issue.pdf (73K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: accidentals on merged notes

Malte Meyn-3


Am 13.08.2017 um 09:53 schrieb Knut Petersen:

> Am 12.08.2017 um 20:56 schrieb Malte Meyn:
>> Am 12.08.2017 um 17:05 schrieb Hauke Rehr:
>>> Still, the output doesn’t match at least /my/ expectations:
>>> notes should either not be merged at all, or there should be
>>> stacked accidentals indicating which one applies to which Voice.
>>
>> How should this be a default behaviour? IMO none of those two options
>> looks good and unambiguous. But here are three possible solutions to
>> your problem (I like the third most):
>
> We might decide that it is ok to provide an ambiguous engraving, but the
> engraving lilypond provides is clearly broken and should be fixed.

I agree on that and on the comments to your examples
• Hauke A (current default is buggy)
• Knut C (why Malte B is no solution)
• Malte C (don’t add staves automagically)

Some comments of mine to the other examples:
• Knut A: I agree it looks a little bit ambiguous but in chords (not in
polyphony though) it’s the best solution for a *default* behaviour. (btw
it has to be sharp-natural like here, not natural-sharp)
• Knut B: This works only unambiguously with much more horizontal space.
So IMO not a good solution for default behaviour.
• Malte A: Same problem as Knut B but Knut B is better (look at the
g-sharp/a-sharp on beat 4)
• Malte B: Not a thing for default because of cases like Knut C and the
accidentals are too small to read.

So IMO the default should be changed from Hauke A to Knut A. This works
only for chords but polyphony should use seperate staves here anyway.

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

Re: accidentals on merged notes

Noeck
Hi,

some more comments:

Knut A is fine in most cases. I would guess the first accidental is for
the upper voice. However, this can get very close to such situations:
{ cisis' cis' }
if the natural sign comes first.

Knut B looks like there are 6 quarter notes. Obviously not possible in
4/4 but confusing.

Knut A seems reasonable for an automatic solution, IMHO.

In reality, I think there are more manual options:
- enharmonic changes <as g>
- Knut A but shifting the accidentals a little bit vertically (less than
a staff space to highlight the associated voice (unless there are other
notes in a chord)
- Knut B is clearer for beamed notes
- I've seen a split stem with two noteheads before *
- Malte C as a last resort

* About the split stem: I think I've seen this being discussed on the
user list but I couldn't find it. A single stem splits like a triangle
and is connected to two noteheads with different accidentals. This is
like Knut B but it is clear that the notes belong to one point in time.

In general, I would opt for a simple automatic resolution (better than
now, e.g. Knut A) but encourage manual improvements depending on the
context.

Cheers,
Joram

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

Re: accidentals on merged notes

Phil Holmes
In reply to this post by Hauke Rehr

"Hauke Rehr" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...

> Hello,
>
> searching for this bug on sf using terms “accidentals + merged”,
> I found only #546 said to have been solved for ages.
> Still, the output doesn’t match at least /my/ expectations:
> notes should either not be merged at all, or there should be
> stacked accidentals indicating which one applies to which Voice.
>
> find attached a minimal example
>
> If I add a ! to the note on the third beat in the upper voice,
> I get at least both a natural and a sharp sign, leaving it to
> the reader which belongs to which Voice, but it still doesn’t
> help with the case on the second beat.
>
> regards,
> Hauke Rehr (from Germany)

Looks the same as https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/1134/ ?

--
Phil Holmes



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

Re: accidentals on merged notes

Knut Petersen
Hi Phil!
>> regards,
>> Hauke Rehr (from Germany)
>
> Looks the same as https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/1134/ ?
>
Yes, it is the same old bug/defect/limitation. Although the problem is documented in the notation manual I think it actually is a serious defect.

The code that automatically adds accidentals does not support different accidentals for the same pitch at the same time. "Merged" notes are not the cause of the problem (btw: lilypond never merges noteheads, it prints multiple noteheads at the same position).

Have a look at this link <https://musescore.org/en/node/14449> and that link <https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/24030/what-does-this-split-stem-notation-mean> to see some related examples of music written by Chopin, Ravel and Scriabin ...

Knut



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