[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fingering placement problem
From: |
Colin Hall |
Subject: |
Re: Fingering placement problem |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:57:55 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 08:22:53AM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
> On 19/08/12 16:46, Nick Payne wrote:
> >In a chord containing a second, if I place the fingering above the
> >notes to avoid having the fingering numerals overlapping each
> >other (see
> >https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2541), then
> >the numerals default to being placed much higher above the
> >noteheads than is normal or if either of the notes in the second
> >is omitted from the chord:
> >
> >\version "2.15.43"
> >
> >\relative c'' {
> > \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
> > \override Fingering #'staff-padding = #'()
> > \override Fingering #'add-stem-support = ##f
> > <d-0 c-3 f,-0>4 <d^0 c^3 f,-0> <d^0 f,-0> <c^3 f,-0>
> >}
> >
> A similar problem happens with fingerings where the same note is
> played simultaneously on two different strings. This happens quite
> frequently when transcribing the lute music of Silvius Leopold Weiss
> for guitar:
>
> \version "2.15.43"
>
> \relative c' {
> \set fingeringOrientations = #'(down)
> \override Fingering #'staff-padding = #'()
> \override Fingering #'add-stem-support = ##f
> <d-0 d-4>4
> }
>
Thanks for the bug report, Nick.
There are several open issue trackers for fingering already but this
does seem to be a distinct problem, so I have created a new tracker:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2764
Perhaps you could check the title for accuracy?
Cheers,
Colin.
--
Colin Hall