Re: Usability Question

[Rutger Hofman]

Bertalan Fodor wrote:
> Graham Percival-2 wrote:
> > Upro wrote:
> > > 1. The score has four voises. All have their own stems. I find it
> > > extremely
> > > complicated to arrange stems/notes in the same order (right to 
> > > left), and
> > > stems in the correct direction.       
> > I personally would condense this down to one or possibly two voices. 
> > Somebody else might have other suggestions.
> >     
> No, that's not right. It's a polyphonic piece.LilyPond handles different 
> polyphonic voices very well, I think you can use \voiceOne etc. to 
> override default order.

I also tried this with \voiceOne etc (with version 2.8.8, admittedly), 
and couldn't get the first chord to print as 4 different voices of which 
three have upward stems. Lilypond gives me "warning: ignoring too many 
clashing note columns", and collapses all three into one chord. If we 
would have \voiceFive, that would solve the issue.

> 4. I have not found a way to make a tie from within a polyphonic passage
> into a neiboring honophone section. I used a workaraond by keeping the
> adjacent passage within the polyphonic sectin, but I would like to find a
> way to avoid that.

The section on "Explicitly instantiating voices" (6.6.2. in my version) 
gives an example for a slur. For your case, the first two quarter notes 
might look like:

    \voiceOne
    <<
        \new Voice="3" { \voiceThree b'4}
        \new Voice="2" { \voiceTwo \stemUp d,}
        \new Voice="4" { \voiceFour g,}
        { \tieUp g''4 ~ }
    >>

    \oneVoice g32[ f( es d c b a b64 g)]


then switch to voiceThree (for the horizontal placement at the next 
quarter note):

    \voiceThree
    <<
        \new Voice="1" { \voiceOne fis'4}
        \new Voice="2" { \voiceTwo d,8 s }
        { \tieDown c'8[ ~ }
    >>

    \oneVoice \stemUp c32( d64 c b32 c] \stemNeutral c16.[\trill b64 c 
d16 a])

Graham, I think he doesn't intend to be impolite. He thought you had 
missed an important point in his question, and pointed that out maybe 
too concisely.

Rutger