[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: controlling the tie "gap" [and a possible bug?]

From: Kieren MacMillan
Subject: Re: controlling the tie "gap" [and a possible bug?]
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:06:36 -0500

Hi David,

>> Well, in this case, I’m engraving a Schenker graph… so I doubt anyone will 
>> be playing it.  ;)
> LilyPond has its own functions for Schenker graphs.

To which functions in particular are you referring?

I’ve slowly been building a SchenkerLily framework over the last few years, and 
the only thing I’ve seen is <>, the 
inelegance of which was precisely what inspired me to start working on a 
SchenkerLily framework in the first place…

> LilyPond tends to focus on situations that are considered to be part of
> "valid" musical scores.  When working outside of that scope, it's not
> all that unusual for stuff to be different from expectations.

I understand that, of course.

>> Yes. But Lilypond corrects for the presence of (and potential
>> collision with) articulations, etc. — why not for the presence of (and
>> potential collision with) another slur?
> Basically because it would be additional programming effort to cater for
> this case that nobody considered relevant so far.  It's not by explicit
> design or some grand masterplan logic.

Oh, I understand that. My point was more philosophical: I was trying to answer 
David S’s implication (or at least my inference from what he wrote) that 
there’s *no reason* why slurs might consider adjacent slurs for potential 


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website:
‣ email: address@hidden

reply via email to

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