[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Do we really offer the future?
From: |
Kieren MacMillan |
Subject: |
Re: Do we really offer the future? |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:20:38 -0400 |
Hi Simon,
>> 1. In 2013, I composed and engraved a piece with nearly 12,000 frames (57
>> staves x 208 measures). It contains two sections (of ~32 and ~16 measures)
>> which were specifically added "for That Production” (and, as such, contain
>> “external material”). Now I want to modify the piece — someone has asked to
>> license it for performance later this year. So I want to either eliminate
>> those two sections, or replace them with different transitional material, so
>> that I can publish a “standalone” work, separate from “That Production”.
>>
>> 2. One of my stage musicals (“Robin Hood: The Legendary Musical Comedy”) has
>> been picked up for further development. It comprises nearly three dozen
>> cues, each ranging from a few measures up to over 200; and there are 23
>> staves at its thickest point. In the Finale (the longest and most complex
>> cue!), we want to trim the coda by [an internal] 16 measures for the next
>> version.
> What about refining and extending usability of \showFirstLength and
> \showLastLength for purposes like this?
Something like that might work… I’d love to have a discussion some time about
how that might be implemented.
The current workaround, of course, is to use \tag around the section(s) in
question. In particular, that method [relatively] easily solves “hide these 16
measures” types of situations (like my Example #2) and “depending on the
version/edition, use either THIS or THIS” (like my Example #1). But hunting
down each chunk of code — spread, as it is, across several global variables and
60-some other notes and lyrics variables — is painful.
Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________
Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: address@hidden
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, (continued)
Re: Do we really offer the future?, Trevor Daniels, 2015/04/22
Re: Do we really offer the future?, Kieren MacMillan, 2015/04/22
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Urs Liska, 2015/04/22
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, PMA, 2015/04/22
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Kieren MacMillan, 2015/04/22
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Simon Albrecht, 2015/04/22
- Re: Do we really offer the future?,
Kieren MacMillan <=
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Urs Liska, 2015/04/22
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Kieren MacMillan, 2015/04/22
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Calixte Faure, 2015/04/22
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, Urs Liska, 2015/04/22
- Re: Do we really offer the future?, karl, 2015/04/23
Is GridLY the future? (Was: Do we really offer the future?), Gilles, 2015/04/22
Re: Is GridLY the future? (Was: Do we really offer the future?), Urs Liska, 2015/04/22
Re: Is GridLY the future? (Was: Do we really offer the future?), Thomas Morley, 2015/04/22
Re: Is GridLY the future? (Was: Do we really offer the future?), Urs Liska, 2015/04/23
Re: Is GridLY the future? (Was: Do we really offer the future?), Janek Warchoł, 2015/04/28