[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue 4205: Improve part combiner's rest analysis (issue 174610043 b
From: |
Dan Eble |
Subject: |
Re: Issue 4205: Improve part combiner's rest analysis (issue 174610043 by address@hidden) |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:50:07 -0500 |
On Nov 25, 2014, at 04:21 , Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:
> Is the following assumption correct?
>
> At the beginning of m.2 the partcombiner treats the crotchet and the full
> measure rests as two voices.
Yes. The part combiner directs those rests into voices “one” and “two”.
> At the second crotched, when \one begins to play notes this is considered
> "solo" because \two doesn't play at that moment.
Yes.
> When I explicitly instantiate a "solo" voice in the \score block this will be
> somehow merged with the voice implicitly created by the partcombiner.
Yes. You could do the same with voices “one”, “two”, and “shared”.
> OK. It seems this may be a way to fix all issues with the output but as you
> say it's not pretty. Actually I'd say it's inacceptably ugly. In my concrete
> score this would mean I'd have to write such a dummy voice for the 800
> measure piece, for all partcombined instruments.
In a work of that scale, I agree.
For my own work, which is mostly vocal and mostly short, I have modified the
part combiner never to create solo sections. When one part rests, both parts
are engraved; when both parts rest, they are combined into one. It sounds like
this is probably not what you need, but if it would help you, I could give you
a patch. I do not know when I will be able to contribute it to Lilypond
because I am trying to find a more general solution to part combiner
limitations.
—
Dan
Re: Issue 4205: Improve part combiner's rest analysis (issue 174610043 by address@hidden), Urs Liska, 2014/11/28