[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Odd output

From: Michael Ellis
Subject: Re: Odd output
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:59:48 -0500

Your friend is absolutely correct for that particular case.  Sullivan chose the lesser of two evils. Misspelling the dominant chord would have been confusing to the pianist and spelling the vocal line as A G Gb G would have looked weird to the singer.  My response was directed to the original example which doesn't give enough context to justify the F#/Fnat relation musically. 


On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
As I replied in my direct reply - because it's not right.  I asked a friend who teaches music about the Mikado problem I had and he said:
"Key- C major

Bass note pedals - C-G C-G etc.

Chord in Bar 1 G7 (G B D Fnat = dominant 7th); Chord in Bar 2 C major (CEG)

Each bar has a melody which uses AGF# G with the F# as a chromatical altered
note (lower auxiliary between the 2 Gs) and therefore clashes (to create
interest) with both chords.

Each sounds fine on their own but looks illogical as a whole.

If you can convince LilyPond that the accidentals are in different voices in
the piano part then I would hope it would work.   You could but shouldn't
use a Gb not a F# as the first chordsis a G chord."

Note his final comment - could use a Gb but shouldn't.

Phil Holmes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: Odd output

Why not set one of the notes to a different enharmonic pitch?  It's certainly much kinder to the musician who's trying to play the composition.

 \include ""
\clef treble
\time 4/4
{ fs'4 }
{ es'4 }


On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
Please reply to the user group as well.

As is often pointed out, it's free software and the fixes depend on who is working for nothing on the code.

I wouldn't think it would crop up frequently.

I made a workaround with a combination of forcing the accidentals to be displayed, and then using force-hshift and extra-offset and a few other tweaks to make it work.

My example is pretty complicated, because I also autogenerate the code, but you're welcome to a copy if you want.

Phil Holmes

----- Original Message ----- From: "Marco Correia" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Odd output


I can't believe that this is seen as a low priority enhancement...! This
completely renders lilypond unusable for the task I need it, which is to serve
as a printer for computer generated music. The output is not ugly - it is
plain wrong!

Why doesn't the accidental_engraver looks into other voices as well?

Maybe I can workaround it by doing an extra pass before writing the lilypond
code to check if this kind of problem may occur... But now I wonder what other
kind of potential problems may occur with this accidental_engraver

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I think this problem deserves more

Thank you!

On Friday 10 December 2010, you wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Correia" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:35 AM
Subject: Odd output

> Hi,
> I just started using lilypond, so it is very possible that I'm making
> some mistake.
> When compiling this example:
> \include ""
> {
> \clef treble
> \time 4/4
> <<
> { fs'4 }
> \\
> { f'4 }
> }
> I see two notes on fs (occupying the same position but with stems up > and
> down). There is no indication that f is there.
> Is this supposed to/ how do I fix it?
> Thanks!
> Marco

This was one of the first issues I raised, in June this year.  I think it
was my first bug report:

Phil Holmes

Marco Correia <address@hidden>

lilypond-user mailing list

lilypond-user mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]