\partcombine bugs

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

\partcombine bugs

Knut Petersen
Hi everybody!

See attached mwe.

Knut

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

mwePartcombine.ly (1K) Download Attachment
mwePartcombine.pdf (45K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: \partcombine bugs

Pierre-Luc Gauthier
Hi Knut,

Concerning "Bug1",
I do not think the \< \mp should be merged. The part combine in this
section is using two voices. The notes are not connected. How would
you know if the hairpin is for voiceTwo *and* voiceOne?

--
Pierre-Luc Gauthier

_______________________________________________
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: \partcombine bugs

Knut Petersen
Hi Pierre-Luc!

> Concerning "Bug1", I do not think the \< \mp should be merged. The part combine in this section is using two voices. The notes are not connected. How would you know if the hairpin is for voiceTwo *and* voiceOne?

For choral music it is an old convention to merge dynamics if time of start, time of end, and target are all identical.
Have a look at e.g. the 19th century Peters editions of Mendelssohn's SATB divisi motets, e.g. this score <http://imslp.org/wiki/6_Motets%2C_Op.79_%28Mendelssohn%2C_Felix%29>. The
same convention is used today, see e.g. bar 31, basses, in this score <http://www.giamusic.com/pdf_previews/pdfdocument_previewimages/GWOM105_sample.pdf/WOM105%201%20to%2012%20GIA%202013%20%28dragged%29004.png>.

It's also uncommon to use "a2" and "Solo x" in such scores, a2 is assumed or rests are used instead.

cu,
  Knut
_______________________________________________
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: \partcombine bugs

Pierre-Luc Gauthier
> For choral music it is an old convention to merge dynamics if time of start,
> time of end, and target are all identical.

I see. But wouldn't it be preference (style) rather than a bug? I
suppose you want that to be the default to merge most(all?) dynamics?
I used \partcombineChords in your example to solve the bug1.

--
Pierre-Luc Gauthier

_______________________________________________
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: \partcombine bugs

Knut Petersen
Am 21.06.2017 um 22:28 schrieb Pierre-Luc Gauthier:
>> For choral music it is an old convention to merge dynamics if time of start,
>> time of end, and target are all identical.
> I see. But wouldn't it be preference (style) rather than a bug?

Hmm. I think that I do not know enough of other notation traditions to decide
if the current behavior should be called a bug or a feature request.

> I suppose you want that to be the default to merge most(all?) dynamics?
[\p, \f,etc] at identical time: merge
\< ... \! and \> ... \! : if time of start and time of end are identical: merge
\< ...[\p,\f,etc ]: if time of start, time of end, and target dynamics are identical: merge


> I used \partcombineChords in your example to solve the bug1.

There are multiple ways around both "bugs". I often write my music definitions to a
separate file and read that file several times. The following lines illustrate the idea:

myfile.ily : music = { a2\myp }

main.ly:    myp = { \p }
                   \include "myfile.ily"
                   [...]
                   myp = { }
                   \include "myfile.ily"

That way it's easy to mask some code (e.g. the unwanted dynamics) from some of the scores contained in the main input file.

Bug 2 can circumvented by e.g.:

four  = { a'4\p 4 4 4 2\<   2   4\mp 4 4 4 \repeat volta 2 { 4 4 4 4 } 1 4 4 4 4 }
five  = { d'4\p 4 4 4 4\< 4 4 4 4\mp 4 4 4 \repeat volta 2 { 4 4 4 4 } 1 4 4 4 4 }

ufour = { \unfoldRepeats \four \bar "|."  }
ufive = { \unfoldRepeats \five \bar "|." }

\markup { "\partcombing already unfolded music does work ..." }
\score {
     \new ChoirStaff <<
         \new Staff \ufour
         \new Staff \ufive
         \new Staff \partcombine \ufour \ufive
     >>
     \layout{ }
}

This seems to be an easy workaround, but for more complex scores you end up with a lot of
almost identical code that needs to be written and maintained - one version for the music
with expanded repeats , one version for the version with unexpanded repeats.
If you produce a score to be printed, you normally need the unexpanded music,
if you produce midi/videos you need the expanded form.

Knut

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