Re: Jazz Combo Template

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Monday 11 August 2003 07:38 am, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:31:35 -0400
>
> Rick Sutphin <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Attached is a template for a small jazz combo (4 horns and rhythm
> > section). It handles part extraction and chord names on the score
> > (once at top) and on individual parts. I put it together with ideas
> > from the lilypond website and some suggestions from
> > address@hidden (any hare-brained ideas or stupid mistakes our
> > most likely  mine, unfortunately).
>
> Looks good, although I haven't tested it yet (waiting for 1.8 to
> compile). I personally give all Lilypond input files a .ly suffix; I
> use "sc" to denote files that produce output (such as "score.ly",
> then "sc-vln1.ly", "sc-fl.ly", etc.  I'm not suggesting that the "sc"
> prefix is a good idea, but I think that giving all Lilypond files a
> ".ly" _is_ a good idea.
>
> This file raises another question -- should we extend the templates
> section to include multiple files?  Currently they all demonstrate
> how to set up a score with all music in one file, but that's not too
> practical to use for a large orchestra piece, for example.  Shall we
> include something like "orchestra.tar.gz", which produces a directory
> with multiple files?

I have a script which reads in includes, 
http://www.openguitar.com/files/lyinclude
but none to extract them, because when you read in includes presumably 
the work is finished.

If one section, say "Orch-percussion-classical", is an example in an 
orchestra or band template, then couldn't the rest be built up from 
standalone templates for the other sections, such as "Orchestral-brass, 
Marching-brass, Rhythm-section, etc. etc.?  That way the user has
the decision whether to use \includes or paste in, and also has a good
example of the flexibility available to him.  Why bother to try to
figure out what a standard orchestra might be if there were such a
thing?

> Apart from benefitting newbies, this could help experienced users
> understand each other's scores better.

I have come to think that putting \includes in the score block
was a mistake, so I consider that I have been at fault in the past, but 
now I wonder how much variation there really will
be.  You define your parts and put them in a score block. 
%{include notes here%}

>  Currently I think we all have
> our own "coding" standards, both in terms of individul parts (ie how
> many bars per line, what kind of indenting, whether you use "a-(" or
> "a(", etc) and in terms of the overall structure of the work (ie do
> you have a "strings.ly" in which you define all the string parts, or
> split it up into "vln1.ly", "vlc.ly", etc?  Do you use a "global.ly",
> and if so, how much do you stick in there?)

I'm not at all confident that so much standardization in *notes* is 
good, because it discourages experimentation.  Where would ideas come 
from?  Also, it seems to
me to make a difference whether you are setting something for the
first time or setting something historical.  I thought (Chris Jackson?) 
had already written some code to automagically handle indention.  The
score block is the place where you need it most.  Why not use that?  
DaveA

-- 
The biggest losers of all are the winners of an unjust war.  Bush lied.
Thousands died.  Only the winning part is over.  It is necessary that
WMD be found, so they will be.  address@hidden darnold4 at cox.net