Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Urs Liska]

Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King:
> On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
>>
>>> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
>>> "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
>>>
>>> I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
>>> edition of sixteenth-century polyphony.  But, before investing too
>>> much time, I need to check whether there is now a way for it to cope
>>> with polymetric music[3]. 
>>
>> As the discussion in this thread clearly shows this is firstly a
>> conceptual problem. Only if it is clear what you want to achieve we
>> can even start thinking about a solution implementation-wise.
>>
>> I'm not so sure that it will be possible to implement a solution that
>> really works automatically and is at the same time sufficiently
>> general. But you'd be in any case to create a manual solution, if
>> that's a viable approach given your material (that is: how many of
>> these annotations do you expect, will the numbering be stable or will
>> you have to expect any changes after the fact?)

> Very happy to intervene manually in bar numbering.  The remainder of
> this thread is opening my eyes to the difficulty of automating that.

Just to avoid misunderstandings: What I am thinking about is an approach
where you add a custom property passing a barnumber manually to the
annotation. I don't think we'll be able to manually modify LilyPond's
idea of barnumbers.

>> We would surely be able to taylor a solution using either a custom
>> annotation type or a custom annotation property.
>>
>> As a start you could try out and tell us what LilyPond/ScholarLY do by
>> default if used in polymetric scores. I *assume* that LilyPond
>> maintains individual bar numberings for each context

> Yes, that appears to be the case.

>> and that ScholarLY will just use the "local" barnumbers, without even
>> knowing there's an issue. But it would be nice if you could verify that.

> Scholarly gives the message: "Sorry, rhythmic position could not be
> determined."

OK, I see why this happens (did I ever say that it is cool that I can
inspect openLilyLib code on Github using my phone?).
annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric
scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context.

So to approach the issue one would have to remove \annotationProcessor
from the Score context and "consist" it in another context.

I don't know what would happen if it would be added to more than one
context (I can't really imagine it would work).
What would probably work *in principle* is adding that to the context
Kieren would take as the "master" context.
I assume (can't test currently) that any annotation would then get the
barnumber of the master context and the partial measure calculated from
there. Of course this wouldn't give very useful results but it would be
interesting to check out anyway ...

Good luck
Urs

> I hope I'm making a valid test: Had a bit of trouble integrating
> ScholarLy with a short test score, so I just plugged the \include
> statements and a \criticalRemark stanza into the
> Isaac_Confessoribus_Prosa2.ly (which is full of polyrhythms).  Will pick
> up again late tonight or tomorrow, to check that \scaleDurations is not
> messing things up.  Must dash now.
>>
>> Urs
>> _______________________________________________
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 


-- 
Urs Liska
www.openlilylib.org