lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Two or more accidentals per note.


From: Graham Breed
Subject: Re: Two or more accidentals per note.
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 21:07:38 +0000

> From: Freeman Gilmore <address@hidden>
> Subject: Two or more accidentals per note.

> How do you wright two (or more) accidentals to modify the same note?
>  Where is this written?    And is there more than one way to do this?   For
> example how would I write 3 #; 2 double sharps; 2 or more microtonal
> accidentals; or microtonal  accidentals with #'s or b's.    Please keep the
> explanation simple, I do not have much experience with LilyPond.

It can be done with text strings and Scheme.  You need to override the
way the accidental is written.  This is the only way I can get
Extended Helmholtz-Ellis notation working in the general sense.  The
code is here:

https://bitbucket.org/x31eq/microlily/src/master/

There's a newer font it could be using.  To do that means re-writing
various things.  The spacing wasn't quite right on the most recent
LilyPond version I tried.  Going back to 2.14 might be better, but
will also probably not work with that code.  So it's generally an
unsatisfactory approach: tricky to get right and even then doesn't
work properly.  But it does mean an arbitrary number of glyphs can be
used with each accidental.

For the simpler case of combining a sharp or flat with one other
accidental, it's probably best to make a custom music font that uses a
single glyph for the combined symbol.  The trouble is, that isn't easy
to do either, and I don't actually know how to do it.

So the other way, that you found, is to write two note-heads and hide
one of them.  That might work but it must be an ugly implementation.
Unfortunately, everything's a workaround of some kind, because
LilyPond is written around a single glyph for each accidental, plus a
special case with naturals, and at one point (maybe still) even second
guessed what those glyphs were.


                           Graham



reply via email to

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