[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Ties within chords inconsistency

From: Simon Albrecht
Subject: Re: Ties within chords inconsistency
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 01:25:15 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0

Sorry, I see pasting images inline has completely failed. See below and attached.

Am 10.09.2015 um 01:13 schrieb Simon Albrecht:
Am 09.09.2015 um 23:41 schrieb David Kastrup:
Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:

Hello David,

pardon if I insist another time.

Am 09.09.2015 um 22:40 schrieb David Kastrup:
Joram <address@hidden> writes:

Hi Simon,

I see. The difference is: I would not have expected that to work. But I
can see the benefit if it would, now.
Sigh.  It works perfectly.
Of course it works as long as you keep inside the current way of
distinguishing in-chord and whole-chord ties. But, as I already said
earlier this day, ‘this means reconsidering the relation and the
handling of in-chord and whole-chord ties’.
It means no such thing unless you have built your own misconception of
what << >> means.

I should’ve better embedded the quotation to make sure what ‘this’ is supposed to mean:
Making the examples in my first post
\version "2.19.25"

\new Voice << { c''^~ c'' } { a'_~ a' } >>

\new Voice << { <c''^~> c'' } { <a'_~> a' } >>

{ <c''^~ a'_~> <c'' a'> }
behave the same way, as I would have expected, would ‘mean reconsidering the relation and the handling of in-chord and whole-chord ties’.

I do not doubt your authority in interpreting the way LilyPond thinks,
but I have been using LilyPond for four years now and invested no
small amount of time into understanding how it works. My point is that
we shouldn’t be insisting on striking internal logics too much, if any
user who has not delved into the exact internal workflow of the
program will encounter problems with code that is perfectly sensible
/on the surface/.
If you don't understand simultaneous music, don't use it for things for
which it is not really intended like avoiding chord notation.

What do you intend by disqualifying me from this discussion? It’s my turn to be upset now. I do have basic understanding of the concepts used in LilyPond, like events and SimultaneousMusic, and as I more kindly said already, it is absurd to demand of a LilyPond _user_ to fully comprehend the way Lily thinks.

How would you code something like




(and there are many such examples in the piece I’m engraving) in LilyPond? Use <> for every single chord? As I said, I consider the advantage of using simultaneous music severe, since it saves so many keystrokes _and_ helps oversight. I recall you saying that you ‘work much more /on/ LilyPond than /with/ LilyPond’. Now, there are exigencies of real-life use to face such as this. Or am I the only one using << >> for this purpose? That’s why I asked for more opinions – with moderate impact.

To return to our particular topic: the distinction between ‘ties
inside simultaneous music expressions within one voice which will be
arranged into chords only later’ and ‘ties within chords’ is very
subtle and far away to the musician(*). I can unfortunately not speak
about technical feasibility, or rather difficulty, but how about the
following approach: Any tie which is not attached to a chord in the
<>~ manner is interpreted as in-chord tie. This would shift the
preference from whole-chord tie to in-chord tie for ‘doubtful’ cases
like a~ (as opposed to obvious cases like <a~> or <a>~), so to
In-chord articulations stick a _lot_ closer to the notehead and
consequently do worse collision avoidance.

I haven’t been aware of that.
<> and <> provide a little explanation. <> makes hints about the technical route to go.
Concerning ties, I can see no difference:
\relative {
  <c'' a f>4~ q
  <c~ a~ f~> <c a f>

  <c g e>~ q
  <c~ g~ e~> <c g e>

  <h g d>~ q
  <h~ g~ d~> <h g d>

  <e g, c,>~ q
  <e~ g,~ c,~> <e g, c,>


  \time 4/2
  <c a f>2~ q
  <c~ a~ f~> <c a f>

  <c g e>~ q
  <c~ g~ e~> <c g e>

  <h g d>~ q
  <h~ g~ d~> <h g d>

  <e g, c,>~ q
  <e~ g,~ c,~> <e g, c,>

  \time 4/1
  <c a f>1~ q
  <c~ a~ f~> <c a f>

  <c g e>~ q
  <c~ g~ e~> <c g e>

  <h g d>~ q
  <h~ g~ d~> <h g d>

  <e g, c,>~ q
  <e~ g,~ c,~> <e g, c,>


Carl’s comment on 2070 shows that there’s indeed need for clarification, and that the field is quite larger than only ties.
I really need to go to bed now, so I postpone further reckonings.

But please, David, don’t just push aside discussion, even if it’s only me with so /inferior/ technical understanding who puts it up.

Best regards, Simon

lilypond-devel mailing list

Attachment: chord-entry-1.png
Description: PNG image

Attachment: chord-entry-2.png
Description: PNG image

Attachment: compare-ties.png
Description: PNG image

reply via email to

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