duplicate dynamics on same staff

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

duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Wilkinson
duplicate dynamics on same staff
\version 2.13.31


When I put two voices on the same staff that have identical markings for dynamics and tempo, Lilypond prints them both, one above the other. Looking in the archives the other day I saw that the approved solution is to pull these markings out and attach them to another voice that is all spaces. Now I can't find those postings. They were from 2003 as I remember. Do we have multiple archives of the mailing list? Or maybe I should just go check myself into a nursing home. :(

Back to my original question: if Lilypond can see that one of these things needs to be moved, how hard  would it be to have it determine that they are identical and just not print one of them?

I don't even know whether this is a request for a new feature or for a pointer to an existing one.

thanks
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Wilkinson            | Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
[hidden email]        | The College of Charleston
(843) 953-8160             | Charleston      SC        29424
http://www.cs.cofc.edu/~jimmy

If there is one word to describe me, that word would have to be "profectionist".
Any form of incompitence is an athema to me.
Metathesis??? Don't ax me.
Just between you and I, the grammar used by Americans are getting worse.
I can only help but wonder what the cause of this might be.
It just ceases to amaze me how it could be the case, but mostly I could care less.

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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Bailey-4
<base href="x-msg://31/">
On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:19 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:

\version 2.13.31


When I put two voices on the same staff that have identical markings for dynamics and tempo, Lilypond prints them both, one above the other. Looking in the archives the other day I saw that the approved solution is to pull these markings out and attach them to another voice that is all spaces. Now I can't find those postings. They were from 2003 as I remember. Do we have multiple archives of the mailing list? Or maybe I should just go check myself into a nursing home. :(

Back to my original question: if Lilypond can see that one of these things needs to be moved, how hard  would it be to have it determine that they are identical and just not print one of them?

I don't even know whether this is a request for a new feature or for a pointer to an existing one.

thanks

Do you mean:
or possibly



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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

Vicente Solsona-2
In reply to this post by James Wilkinson
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:19:05 +0200, James Wilkinson <[hidden email]>  
wrote:
> \version 2.13.31
>
>
> When I put two voices on the same staff that have identical markings
> for dynamics and tempo, Lilypond prints them both, one above the
> other.
[...]
> Back to my original question: if Lilypond can see that one of these
> things needs to be moved, how hard  would it be to have it determine
> that they are identical and just not print one of them?

if the dynamics are the same, it's better to write them just once. thus  
you:

1) save typing
2) help lilypond so it does't need to waste time guessing obvious things  
and it can concentrate on the big stuff :)

you just need to create a third voice with spacers and all the common  
marks, in parallel with the other two:

----------------8<-------------------------------

\version "2.12.3"   % should also work on 2.13

<<
   \relative c'' {
     a b c d
   } \\
   \relative c' {
     c d e f
   } \\
   {
     s4\f s4\> s4-"and markups too too" s4\p
   }
>>

----------------8<-------------------------------

greetings,

Vicente


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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Wilkinson
On 9/23/10 6:00 PM, Vicente Solsona wrote:

>> When I put two voices on the same staff that have identical markings
>> for dynamics and tempo, Lilypond prints them both, one above the
>> other.
> [...]
>> Back to my original question: if Lilypond can see that one of these
>> things needs to be moved, how hard would it be to have it determine
>> that they are identical and just not print one of them?
>
> if the dynamics are the same, it's better to write them just once. thus
> you:
>
> 1) save typing
> 2) help lilypond so it does't need to waste time guessing obvious things
> and it can concentrate on the big stuff :)
>
> you just need to create a third voice with spacers and all the common
> marks, in parallel with the other two:
>
> ----------------8<-------------------------------
>
> \version "2.12.3" % should also work on 2.13
>
> <<
> \relative c'' {
> a b c d
> } \\
> \relative c' {
> c d e f
> } \\
> {
> s4\f s4\> s4-"and markups too too" s4\p
> }

Took me a while to get around to it. Works like a champ. Thanks

Is there somewhere in the docs that I should have spotted this before
doing it wrong the first time?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jimmy Wilkinson            | Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
[hidden email]          | The College of Charleston
(843) 953-8160             | Charleston      SC        29424
http://www.cs.cofc.edu/~jimmy

If there is one word to describe me, that word would have to be
"profectionist".
Any form of incompitence is an athema to me.
Metathesis??? Don't ax me.
Just between you and I, the grammar used by Americans are getting worse.
I can only help but wonder what the cause of this might be.
It just ceases to amaze me how it could be the case, but mostly I could
care less.
...... boat storage under house with wench ......
I won't get into specifics because that was between he and I

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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

Graham Percival-3
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 04:32:48PM -0400, James Wilkinson wrote:

> On 9/23/10 6:00 PM, Vicente Solsona wrote:
>
> >if the dynamics are the same, it's better to write them just once. thus
> >you:
> >
> >1) save typing
> >2) help lilypond so it does't need to waste time guessing obvious things
> >and it can concentrate on the big stuff :)
> >
> >you just need to create a third voice with spacers and all the common
> >marks, in parallel with the other two:

I'm not at all certain that's a good idea.  The dynamics won't be
present in MIDI (which is probably no great loss), but more
importantly, it messes up the semantics for no particularly good
reason.

> Is there somewhere in the docs that I should have spotted this
> before doing it wrong the first time?

If this was a good idea, it should be in (in the 2.13 docs)
  Usage 5 Suggestions for writing files

Cheers,
- Graham

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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Wilkinson
In reply to this post by Vicente Solsona-2
So I finally separated the dynamics from the notes, and it works!!!!!
But I had a couple of problems:

1)  Whenever both instruments have a rest, Lilypond stacks them
vertically. James Bailey sent me a link to a snippet that fixes that.
(How did he know that was going to be my next problem?) My question is,
"Why is that a snippet? Given that merging the rests is the standard way
to engrave them under those circumstances, could Lilypond not just do it
and make me have to find a different snippet if that's not what I want?
Or at just provide the merge-rests-on-positioning function and mention
it in the docs?"

2)  In another measure the upper voice has a quarter rest followed by a
half note on the bottom line of the staff. The lower voice has a dotted
half rest. The problem here is that the half note in the upper voice is
so low on the staff that it prints over the rest in the lower voice.
These voices share a staff in the score, but not in the individual
parts. I know I can fix this using tags, but that's labo(u)r intensive
in the general case, and I wonder if there's a better way. I don't even
know what the engraving convention is for this circumstance. I could
suppress the lower voice entirely and let the stem direction identify
the note as upper voice. Or should I move the rest down below the staff
so it doesn't collide with the notehead? Either way, I want to do this
only when trumpetII and trumpetIII share a staff, i.e. in a score.

thanks

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jimmy Wilkinson            | Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
[hidden email]          | The College of Charleston
(843) 953-8160             | Charleston      SC        29424
http://www.cs.cofc.edu/~jimmy

If there is one word to describe me, that word would have to be
"profectionist".
Any form of incompitence is an athema to me.
Metathesis??? Don't ax me.
Just between you and I, the grammar used by Americans are getting worse.
I can only help but wonder what the cause of this might be.
It just ceases to amaze me how it could be the case, but mostly I could
care less.
...... boat storage under house with wench ......
I won't get into specifics because that was between he and I

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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

Vicente Solsona-2
In reply to this post by James Wilkinson
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:32:48 +0200, James Wilkinson <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

[...]
>> if the dynamics are the same, it's better to write them just once. thus
>> you:
[...]
>> you just need to create a third voice with spacers and all the common
>> marks, in parallel with the other two:
> Took me a while to get around to it. Works like a champ. Thanks

glad it helped :)

> Is there somewhere in the docs that I should have spotted this before  
> doing it wrong the first time?

I think I took the idea from the piano centered dynamics template in the  
learning manual. I don't recall if this is spotted somewhere els.

greetings,

Vicente


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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Wilkinson
In reply to this post by Graham Percival-3
On 10/11/10 5:22 PM, Graham Percival wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 04:32:48PM -0400, James Wilkinson wrote:
>> On 9/23/10 6:00 PM, Vicente Solsona wrote:
>>
>>> if the dynamics are the same, it's better to write them just once. thus
>>> you:
>>>
>>> 1) save typing
>>> 2) help lilypond so it does't need to waste time guessing obvious things
>>> and it can concentrate on the big stuff :)
>>>
>>> you just need to create a third voice with spacers and all the common
>>> marks, in parallel with the other two:
>
> I'm not at all certain that's a good idea.  The dynamics won't be
> present in MIDI (which is probably no great loss), but more
> importantly, it messes up the semantics for no particularly good
> reason.

8-(

When I first brought this up, that answer seemed to be the consensus, so
I gave it a go. Now I don't know what to do. If there's a better way,
I'd love to hear it.

Or am I back to my original idea of having Lilypond remove the duplicate
dynamic marks on its own?

thanks

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jimmy Wilkinson            | Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
[hidden email]          | The College of Charleston
(843) 953-8160             | Charleston      SC        29424
http://www.cs.cofc.edu/~jimmy

If there is one word to describe me, that word would have to be
"profectionist".
Any form of incompitence is an athema to me.
Metathesis??? Don't ax me.
Just between you and I, the grammar used by Americans are getting worse.
I can only help but wonder what the cause of this might be.
It just ceases to amaze me how it could be the case, but mostly I could
care less.
...... boat storage under house with wench ......
I won't get into specifics because that was between he and I

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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

Vicente Solsona-2
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:06:26 +0200, James Wilkinson <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> On 10/11/10 5:22 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 04:32:48PM -0400, James Wilkinson wrote:
>>> On 9/23/10 6:00 PM, Vicente Solsona wrote:
>>>
>>>> if the dynamics are the same, it's better to write them just once.  
>>>> thus
>>>> you:
>>>>
>>>> 1) save typing
>>>> 2) help lilypond so it does't need to waste time guessing obvious  
>>>> things
>>>> and it can concentrate on the big stuff :)
>>>>
>>>> you just need to create a third voice with spacers and all the common
>>>> marks, in parallel with the other two:
>>
>> I'm not at all certain that's a good idea.  The dynamics won't be
>> present in MIDI (which is probably no great loss), but more
>> importantly, it messes up the semantics for no particularly good
>> reason.
>
> 8-(
>
> When I first brought this up, that answer seemed to be the consensus, so  
> I gave it a go. Now I don't know what to do. If there's a better way,  
> I'd love to hear it.
>
> Or am I back to my original idea of having Lilypond remove the duplicate  
> dynamic marks on its own?
>
> thanks

for me it's still a good idea. you have two voices sharing the same  
dynamics. probably there's other way, but it definitely works for me, and  
lilypond allows it. not such a big deal I think.


greetings,

Vicente


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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Bailey-4
In reply to this post by James Wilkinson

On Oct 11, 2010, at 11:58 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:

> So I finally separated the dynamics from the notes, and it works!!!!! But I had a couple of problems:
>
> 1)  Whenever both instruments have a rest, Lilypond stacks them vertically. James Bailey sent me a link to a snippet that fixes that. (How did he know that was going to be my next problem?)

I'm prescient!

> My question is, "Why is that a snippet? Given that merging the rests is the standard way to engrave them under those circumstances, could Lilypond not just do it and make me have to find a different snippet if that's not what I want?

Because depending on the kind of music, it's different. Vocal music usually has the rests merged; whereas instrumental music does not.

> Or at just provide the merge-rests-on-positioning function and mention it in the docs?"
>
> 2)  In another measure the upper voice has a quarter rest followed by a half note on the bottom line of the staff. The lower voice has a dotted half rest. The problem here is that the half note in the upper voice is so low on the staff that it prints over the rest in the lower voice. These voices share a staff in the score, but not in the individual parts.

Can you actually provide an example of how you've done this? I can't for the life of me figure out how you get the collision.


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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Bailey-4
In reply to this post by Graham Percival-3

On Oct 11, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Graham Percival wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 04:32:48PM -0400, James Wilkinson wrote:
>> On 9/23/10 6:00 PM, Vicente Solsona wrote:
>>
>>> if the dynamics are the same, it's better to write them just once. thus
>>> you:
>>>
>>> 1) save typing
>>> 2) help lilypond so it does't need to waste time guessing obvious things
>>> and it can concentrate on the big stuff :)
>>>
>>> you just need to create a third voice with spacers and all the common
>>> marks, in parallel with the other two:
>
> I'm not at all certain that's a good idea.  The dynamics won't be
> present in MIDI (which is probably no great loss), but more
> importantly, it messes up the semantics for no particularly good
> reason.

Maybe I misunderstand, but if I do:
{
 <<
  \relative c' { c4 d e f << { g a g f } \\ { e2 d } >> e4 f e d c1 }
  {s1\mf s4\< s\! s\> s\! s1\p s }
 >>
}

The dynamics show up in the MIDI. And if they're separated into variables, I can change the dynamics and the music independantly and easily, without fuss or muss.

>
>> Is there somewhere in the docs that I should have spotted this
>> before doing it wrong the first time?
>
> If this was a good idea, it should be in (in the 2.13 docs)
>  Usage 5 Suggestions for writing files

I extrapolated the idea from that, Using Variables to Save Typing. Or something like that.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Wilkinson
In reply to this post by James Bailey-4
On 10/11/10 6:19 PM, James Bailey wrote:

>> 2)  In another measure the upper voice has a quarter rest followed
>> by a half note on the bottom line of the staff. The lower voice has
>> a dotted half rest. The problem here is that the half note in the
>> upper voice is so low on the staff that it prints over the rest in
>> the lower voice. These voices share a staff in the score, but not
>> in the individual parts.
>
> Can you actually provide an example of how you've done this? I can't
> for the life of me figure out how you get the collision.

Yo! And note how it's fixed in the second measure!!!!! The quarter rest
is high on the staff in measure one (I thin) because
merge-rests-on-positioning can't handle full-measure rests, so I decided
to chop the "R2." up into "r4 r2" in the second measure to see if that
wouldn't fix it. Not only fixed that, but fixed the problem that started
this whole thing. I'm inordinately pleased with myself. (druther be
lucky than good)

Any chance the full-measure/multi-measure problem will get fixed?

Oh, yeah. Why is the "Preferences..." entry dead on the Lilypond menu?
Mac OS 10.4.11.

---------------------------------------------------------------

\version "2.13.31"

\include "English.ly"
\include "merge-rests.ly"

FanfareTbeIIMusic =
{\relative c''
   {
     \transposition bf
     \key c \major
     \clef treble
     \time 3/4
     r4 e,2                  r4 e2
   }
}

FanfareTbeIIIMusic =
{\relative c''
   {
     \transposition bf
     \key c \major
     \clef treble
     \time 3/4
     R2.                r4 r2
   }
}

FanfareTbeDynamics =
{
   \time 3/4
   s4   s2\mp                           s2.
}

\score {
   \new Staff = "Staff_trumpetII&III" {
     \set Staff.instrumentName = #"Trumpet II&III"
     \set Staff.shortInstrumentName = "trp II&III"
     \set Staff.midiInstrument = "trumpet"
     <<       \FanfareTbeIIMusic
         \\   \FanfareTbeIIIMusic
         \\   \FanfareTbeDynamics
     >>
   }

   \layout {
     \context
     {
       \Score
         \override RestCollision #'positioning-done =
#merge-rests-on-positioning
     }
   }
}
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jimmy Wilkinson            | Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
[hidden email]          | The College of Charleston
(843) 953-8160             | Charleston      SC        29424
http://www.cs.cofc.edu/~jimmy

If there is one word to describe me, that word would have to be
"profectionist".
Any form of incompitence is an athema to me.
Metathesis??? Don't ax me.
Just between you and I, the grammar used by Americans are getting worse.
I can only help but wonder what the cause of this might be.
It just ceases to amaze me how it could be the case, but mostly I could
care less.
...... boat storage under house with wench ......
I won't get into specifics because that was between he and I

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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

Carl Sorensen-3



On 10/12/10 2:44 PM, "James Wilkinson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/11/10 6:19 PM, James Bailey wrote:
>
>>> 2)  In another measure the upper voice has a quarter rest followed
>>> by a half note on the bottom line of the staff. The lower voice has
>>> a dotted half rest. The problem here is that the half note in the
>>> upper voice is so low on the staff that it prints over the rest in
>>> the lower voice. These voices share a staff in the score, but not
>>> in the individual parts.
>>
>> Can you actually provide an example of how you've done this? I can't
>> for the life of me figure out how you get the collision.
>
> Yo! And note how it's fixed in the second measure!!!!! The quarter rest
> is high on the staff in measure one (I thin) because
> merge-rests-on-positioning can't handle full-measure rests, so I decided
> to chop the "R2." up into "r4 r2" in the second measure to see if that
> wouldn't fix it. Not only fixed that, but fixed the problem that started
> this whole thing. I'm inordinately pleased with myself. (druther be
> lucky than good)

You will also avoid the collision if you write the whole-measure rest for
trumpet III as r1*3/4.


>
> Any chance the full-measure/multi-measure problem will get fixed?

How can we merge a multi-measure rest with a part-measure rest?

>
> Oh, yeah. Why is the "Preferences..." entry dead on the Lilypond menu?
> Mac OS 10.4.11.


You'll get much better response from the list if you do one issue per email,
and if your subject matches your question.

I don't know the answer, but I'd guess it's because there *are* no
Preferences to set in this app.  It's intended to be a minimal app.

Thanks,

Carl


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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Bailey-4

On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:

Any chance the full-measure/multi-measure problem will get fixed?

How can we merge a multi-measure rest with a part-measure rest?

Unless things have changed, even trying to merge multi-measure rests with other multi-measure rests doesn't work. http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=336

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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

Carl Sorensen-3



On 10/13/10 9:49 AM, "James Bailey" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>>
>>> Any chance the full-measure/multi-measure problem will get fixed?
>>
>> How can we merge a multi-measure rest with a part-measure rest?
>
> Unless things have changed, even trying to merge multi-measure rests with
> other multi-measure rests doesn't work.
> http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=336


The patch on issue 1228 claims to work with MM rests, but I haven't tested
it.

<http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1228>

Carl


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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

Jay Anderson
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Carl Sorensen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The patch on issue 1228 claims to work with MM rests, but I haven't tested
> it.
>
> <http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1228>

I've used it and it works wonderfully. I'm not sure what the default
behavior should be, but for my purposes this is exactly what I want
most of the time.

-----Jay

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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Wilkinson
In reply to this post by James Bailey-4
On 10/13/10 11:49 AM, James Bailey wrote:

>
> On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>>
>>> Any chance the full-measure/multi-measure problem will get fixed?
>>
>> How can we merge a multi-measure rest with a part-measure rest?
>
> Unless things have changed, even trying to merge multi-measure rests
> with other multi-measure rests doesn't work.
> http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=336

Perhaps I misunderstood. I quote from the snippet:

"When two (or more) voices on a staff share common rests, common
engraving practice merges these rests into one. The following snippet
takes care of that, automatically. Please note that multi-measure rests
are not automatically combined. "

Should this say "...full-measure rests and multi-measure rests..." ?

Measures 2 and 3 of the snippet have full-measure rests that don't get
combined (upper and lower staves are the same). I was assuming that this
was a problem that hasn't been solved yet. Is it in fact common
engraving practice to leave both overlapping rests in if they are
full-measure rests? I think that it looks better to leave out both the
full-measure rests in measures 2 and 3.

Thanks again guys. Sorry about the delay in responding. I don't get to
the office every day anymore. :-))

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jimmy Wilkinson            | Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
[hidden email]          | The College of Charleston
(843) 953-8160             | Charleston      SC        29424
http://www.cs.cofc.edu/~jimmy

If there is one word to describe me, that word would have to be
"profectionist".
Any form of incompitence is an athema to me.
Metathesis??? Don't ax me.
Just between you and I, the grammar used by Americans are getting worse.
I can only help but wonder what the cause of this might be.
It just ceases to amaze me how it could be the case, but mostly I could
care less.
...... boat storage under house with wench ......
I won't get into specifics because that was between he and I
...can't understand what is or is not fact because of the legal ease...

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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Wilkinson
In reply to this post by James Bailey-4
On 10/11/10 6:22 PM, James Bailey wrote:

>
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 04:32:48PM -0400, James Wilkinson wrote:
>>> On 9/23/10 6:00 PM, Vicente Solsona wrote:
>>>
>>>> if the dynamics are the same, it's better to write them just once. thus
>>>> you:
>>>>
>>>> 1) save typing
>>>> 2) help lilypond so it does't need to waste time guessing obvious things
>>>> and it can concentrate on the big stuff :)
>>>>
>>>> you just need to create a third voice with spacers and all the common
>>>> marks, in parallel with the other two:
>>
>> I'm not at all certain that's a good idea.  The dynamics won't be
>> present in MIDI (which is probably no great loss), but more
>> importantly, it messes up the semantics for no particularly good
>> reason.
>
> Maybe I misunderstand, but if I do:
> {
>   <<
>    \relative c' { c4 d e f<<  { g a g f } \\ { e2 d }>>  e4 f e d c1 }
>    {s1\mf s4\<  s\! s\>  s\! s1\p s }
>   >>
> }
>
> The dynamics show up in the MIDI. And if they're separated into variables, I can change the dynamics and the music independantly and easily, without fuss or muss.

I ran this and got the dynamics on a separate staff with no notes. I
don't think that's what you meant.

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jimmy Wilkinson            | Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
[hidden email]          | The College of Charleston
(843) 953-8160             | Charleston      SC        29424
http://www.cs.cofc.edu/~jimmy

If there is one word to describe me, that word would have to be
"profectionist".
Any form of incompitence is an athema to me.
Metathesis??? Don't ax me.
Just between you and I, the grammar used by Americans are getting worse.
I can only help but wonder what the cause of this might be.
It just ceases to amaze me how it could be the case, but mostly I could
care less.
...... boat storage under house with wench ......
I won't get into specifics because that was between he and I
...can't understand what is or is not fact because of the legal ease...

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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

James Wilkinson
In reply to this post by Graham Percival-3
On 10/11/10 5:22 PM, Graham Percival wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 04:32:48PM -0400, James Wilkinson wrote:
>> On 9/23/10 6:00 PM, Vicente Solsona wrote:
>>
>>> if the dynamics are the same, it's better to write them just once. thus
>>> you:
>>>
>>> 1) save typing
>>> 2) help lilypond so it does't need to waste time guessing obvious things
>>> and it can concentrate on the big stuff :)
>>>
>>> you just need to create a third voice with spacers and all the common
>>> marks, in parallel with the other two:
>
> I'm not at all certain that's a good idea.  The dynamics won't be
> present in MIDI (which is probably no great loss), but more
> importantly, it messes up the semantics for no particularly good
> reason.

Graham, could you elaborate a little on this. I'm wondering what you
think is the best way to handle this. I tried it this way and the score
looks mostly good, but I don't like what I get when I print parts. I can
say more about that later after I play with it a bit more.

When I put the dynamics in with the notes, everything looked great as
long as each voice had its own staff; score and parts.

thanks

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jimmy Wilkinson            | Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
[hidden email]          | The College of Charleston
(843) 953-8160             | Charleston      SC        29424
http://www.cs.cofc.edu/~jimmy

If there is one word to describe me, that word would have to be
"profectionist".
Any form of incompitence is an athema to me.
Metathesis??? Don't ax me.
Just between you and I, the grammar used by Americans are getting worse.
I can only help but wonder what the cause of this might be.
It just ceases to amaze me how it could be the case, but mostly I could
care less.
...... boat storage under house with wench ......
I won't get into specifics because that was between he and I
...can't understand what is or is not fact because of the legal ease...

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

Re: duplicate dynamics on same staff

Carl Sorensen-3
In reply to this post by James Wilkinson



On 10/19/10 4:19 PM, "James Wilkinson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/13/10 11:49 AM, James Bailey wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Any chance the full-measure/multi-measure problem will get fixed?
>>>
>>> How can we merge a multi-measure rest with a part-measure rest?
>>
>> Unless things have changed, even trying to merge multi-measure rests
>> with other multi-measure rests doesn't work.
>> http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=336
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood. I quote from the snippet:
>
> "When two (or more) voices on a staff share common rests, common
> engraving practice merges these rests into one. The following snippet
> takes care of that, automatically. Please note that multi-measure rests
> are not automatically combined. "
>
> Should this say "...full-measure rests and multi-measure rests..." ?

IIUC, R rests in lilypond are multi-measure rests.   r rests are regular
rest.

A "full-measure" rest is a multi-measure rest 1 measure long.

HTH,

Carl


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
12