[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH [uploaded to Rietveld]] Automatic lyric extenders

From: Alexander Kobel
Subject: Re: [PATCH [uploaded to Rietveld]] Automatic lyric extenders
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:19:28 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1

Hi all.

On 2016-12-25 13:14, Noeck wrote:
As extender events are generated automatically now it probably is a
good idea to tell yacc / bison to recognize but ignore "__" tokens.

I don't know at which level the __, \overrides and the automatic
extenders interact. But would it make sense to use __ now, to force an
extender e.g. on a single long note?
__ would probably look nicer than the much longer \override.

I just had the same idea. That'd essentially mean that "manual mode" (\autoExtendersOff) falls back to the old behaviour (+/- collapse-length vs. minimum-length).

On the other hand, if __ were to be interpreted both as standard extenders in manual mode and as forced extenders in both modes, we'd have to re-decide whether forced ones should be subject to collapse-length (if they occur on natural melismata). If yes, lyrics in both modes are compatible, but there can be explicitly written extenders that are not printed. (This could be remedied by setting the collapse-length default to 0 in manual extender mode, but I'm not sure if there is a sane way to do this.)

Also, if __ forces extenders, it might impact the re-usability of manual mode-lyrics for different voices (melisma on some syllable in voice A, but not in voice B). And I'm not sure whether I like different meanings of __ in manual and auto mode. How do we want the following to be interpreted?

raw = \lyricmode { Foo bar __ baz! __ }
{ c'8~ 8 8~ 8 2 }
\addlyrics \raw
\addlyrics { \autoExtendersOff \raw }

Would this even be a valid use of \autoExtendersOff? Should both lyric lines be the same or not?

But: I cannot imagine a situation where I would not use automatic extenders, so I'm a really bad person to judge the need and requirements for a manual mode.

One drawback might be, that old scores have forced extenders then (if
not treated by convert-ly - but without convert-ly other things are
wrong, too).

Old scores will be either mostly okay or severely "harmed":

If extenders have been used everywhere they belong, nothing will change - except that some really small ones might not be printed due to the new rules for collapse-length (which actually fix the previous behavior of minimum-length to match its definition). If extenders have not been used, they will be added, but only in places where they should have been used in the first place (fine), or across large regions where the should not appear (divisi lyrics situation; bad).

The latter should be immediately obvious and is easy to fix both manually or by convert-ly. I expect that most scores will be of the former type.

reply via email to

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