Re: funny construction

[David Wright]

On Mon 18 Jul 2016 at 08:23:21 (-0700), tisimst wrote:
> BGM & David,
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:35 AM, David Wright [via Lilypond] <
> address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Mon 18 Jul 2016 at 08:41:13 (-0500), Br. Gabriel-Marie | SSPX wrote:
> > > I have a song that goes like this:
> > > ----------------------------------
> > > soprano
> > > alto
> > >     15 lyric verses in between
> > > tenor
> > > bass
> > >
> > > soprano
> > > alto
> > >     just one lyric in between - it's the chorus
> > > tenor
> > > bass
> > >
> > >
> > > soprano
> > > alto
> > >     15 lyric verses in between \repeatOfFourWords
> > > tenor
> > > bass
> >
> > If the material is sufficiently heterogeneous, it can
> > make sense to concatenate multiple scores.
> >
> 
> True, but I'm pretty sure multiple \score blocks aren't needed here, but
> rather make the notes/lyrics sequential.

You're quite right. But the way my mailboxes are arranged,
I was prejudiced by possible aversion to skips
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-06/msg00343.html
and need for extra annotations
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-06/msg00380.html
and thought we'd already come up with a solution like yours:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-06/msg00350.html
...or, rather, its predecessors. I get very confused about
whether to take account of previous context or treat every
thread as a fresh start.

I thought the main problem was the accidental inclusion of the << >>.
I found the correct usage of << >> and the way it interacts with \\
to be one of the harder things to get my head around when I was
first learning LP. But that's an aside.

Cheers,
David.