6/19/2023 0 Comments Lilypond rehearsal mark![]() (This behaviour has been tagged as LilyPond bug #163.) Finale’s slurs simply ignore each other, giving us a number of overlapping slurs, while the LilyPond slurs end up really big and stretch the two staves very far apart from each other. Speaking of slurs, the LilyPond slurs tend to lie close to the notes where the Finale slurs arch high into the space above the staff, with one exception: this particular excerpt contains slurs nested inside other slurs, which neither program liked. (I haven’t tried the vertical spacing plug-in for Finale, but I’m curious how smart it is.) This is why I have to do a lot of manual adjustments before a Finale score gets posted on this site. Finale, on the other hand, uses default spacings that make the slur in the first line collide with the composer’s name, and the slurs between the two staves are a disaster. For example, the page layout in the LilyPond case is superior because the staff positions depend on the size and location of all the other elements, even the slurs. On closer inspection, there are a number of differences that could be summed up by saying that the musical elements in LilyPond are more aware of each other than those in Finale. That’s why the titles read “Two Excerpts”. 32), but I changed my mind after I saw these results. ![]() I clearly underestimated the difficulty here! I was actually planning to try another, denser passage in Prelude 13 (Op. My first observation is that both programs struggled with this passage. (The sequence suggests that the composer would have placed one there.) Here are the results (click images for PDFs): I also omitted the “LH” and “RH” markings in both tests and I added a slur to the fourth measure where I believe the engraver may have omitted one. In transcribing this passage, I have attempted to do as few manual adjustments as possible, although the border between data entry and layout adjustment is fuzzy. ![]() I don’t think the LilyPond entry was actually much harder than the Finale entry would have been if I had been brand new user, but it was more difficult than I was used to. Fitting all of this on the page in a way that is legible, let alone beautiful, is a real test.Įntering the notes into Finale was very easy for me because I have been practicing, but the LilyPond input took me a long time and I had to hunt a bit to get the cross-staff notes and the cross-voice arpeggios. This is done to help the performer see that the first five of those rising sixteenth notes can be reached with the left hand, but it is an additional complication for the engraver. To make matters worse, in beat 3 of the first measure the second voice jumps down to the lower staff before rising across the gap again. This is because the top voice ascends to a bunch of octave-wide chords while the second voice falls inside those chords for much of the passage, weaving an intricate chromatic countermelody. Re: segno, coda, etc.This example contains up to four distinct rhythmic voices at the same time, which is not uncommon in piano parts, but while the lower two voices appearing in the left hand are pretty straightforward, the upper two are more complex. below rehearsal mark, Anthony Youngman, 0 below rehearsal mark, Richard Schoeller, 0 (#:box (number->string (ly:context-property context #(define (format-mark-box-barnumbers-segno mark context) Which inspired me to do this which is what I really wanted (boxed \set Score.markFormatter = #format-mark-barnumbers-segno 'currentBarNumber)) #:musicglyph "gno")))) (#:bold (number->string (ly:context-property context #(define (format-mark-barnumbers-segno mark context) below rehearsal markĪ bit of research and hackery resulted in this:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |