lilypond-auto
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Lilypond-auto] Issue 2597 in lilypond: Consecutive melismata possible e


From: lilypond
Subject: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2597 in lilypond: Consecutive melismata possible error in NR
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:38:50 +0000

Status: Accepted
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Documentation

New issue 2597 by address@hidden: Consecutive melismata possible error in NR
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2597

Reported by Philip Thomas here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2012-06/msg00091.html

I was able to reproduce Philip's report and the documentation seems to be misleading. I think perhaps the doc author's intention was to warn the casual user that you cannot abut \melismaEnd and \melisma i.e. there must be a note between those directives

Text of bug report follows:
-------------------
Hi,

The following appears in NR v.2.14.2, section 2.1.1, Common notation for
vocal music, Multiple notes to one syllable (see page 233 of PDF version):

========================

An unslurred group of notes will be treated as a melisma if they are
bracketed between \melisma and \melismaEnd.

<<
  \new Voice = "melody" {
    \time 3/4
    f4 g8
    \melisma
    f e f
    \melismaEnd
    e2.
  }
  \new Lyrics \lyricsto "melody" {
    Ky -- ri -- e
  }


[…]

Note that this method cannot be used to indicate two melismata if the first
one is immediately followed by another.

========================

My question concerns the last sentence (¨Note that ...¨). I think the method
_can_ be used to indicate two consecutive melismata, e.g. the following
seems to work just fine, to me:

\relative c''
<<
  \new Voice = "melody" {
    \time 3/4
    f4 g8
    \melisma
    f e f
    \melismaEnd
    g8
    \melisma
    f e f
    \melismaEnd
    e2.
  }
  \new Lyrics \lyricsto "melody" {
    E -- le -- i -- son
  }


If something else was intended, the sentence should be clarified. I can't
imagine how one melisma could actually commence on the last note of an
immediately previous melisma; if it did, there would only be one melisma
overall, not two. Unless I'm missing the point, then the sentence should
simply be deleted.

Cheers,

Philip Thomas
-------------------------

See relevant commit here:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=commitdiff;h=de43d3813a266bccbb33b1223fa61c4187a71d8d





reply via email to

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