[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: in-stave / between notes spacing?
From: |
Malte Meyn |
Subject: |
Re: in-stave / between notes spacing? |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:26:07 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 |
Am 15.08.2017 um 00:15 schrieb Vlad Kudelin:
Hello,
thank you again everybody for the fantastic tool! I enjoy it more and more,
most things become easier every day, except for those few that become harder )
Hope asking questions once in a while is all right.
...I've found a lot about vertical spacing between staves / systems... but
seems there is no clear way (to me at least) on how to increase vertical
distance between lines / notes in a staff/chord, so some of my writing looks
pretty hard to read (see the example, Ver. 1).
See how the tie on aes in the Ver. 1 is almost invisible. (_
I tried using voicing (Ver. 2 & 3). In Ver. 2 it gets worse: there is visually an
error –– the quarter notes <aes f>4 look like 8ths (__
And with "\StemUp/down" it gets really messy to write.
Can this be improved visually? I think making the staff a bit taller could
just do the trick....
For polyphony (Version 2 & 3) you wouldn’t use \stemUp and \stemDown but
\voiceOne and \voiceTwo (and, if you have more voices, also \voiceThree
etc.).
But for
<< { \voiceOne A } { \voiceTwo B } >>
there is the shortcut
<< { A } \\ { B } >>
so you don’t need these commands in this situation.
To improve your Version 1 you can manually change the direction of the ties.
The following code shows three possible solutions to your problem:
• Version 4 is like Version 1 but changes the tie direction.
• Version 5 uses << \\ >> for polyphony as described above.
• Version 6 is how I would notate it: use polyphony only where necessary
(i. e. only the second beat).
I couldn’t resist to clean up your code a bit before trying to find
better solutions ;) I find it very confusing to use \relative outside of
\new Staff although it seems to work. And it’s not necessary to write
“<c e,>” instead of “< c e, >” but I find the latter confusing, same as
headers, \score blocks and context names that aren’t necessary to
understand the problem. So I hope these changes don’t distract you from
the original problem.
\version "2.18.2"
% Version 4
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff \relative {
\clef treble
<d' c a g f> <d c aes_~ f~>8 <e b aes f> <c e,>2\fermata |
\bar "|."
}
\new Staff \relative {
\clef bass
f,4 g4 r8 <g c,>4. |
\bar "|."
}
>>
% Version 5
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff \relative {
\clef treble
<<
{
<d' c>4 <d c>8 <e b>8
} \\ {
<a, g f>4 <aes f>4
}
>>
<c e,>2\fermata |
\bar "|."
}
\new Staff \relative {
\clef bass
f,4 g4 r8 <g c,>4. |
\bar "|."
}
>>
% Version 6
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff \relative {
\clef treble
<d' c a g f>4
<<
{
<d c>8 <e b>8
} \\ {
<aes, f>4
}
>>
<c e,>2\fermata |
\bar "|."
}
\new Staff \relative {
\clef bass
f,4 g4 r8 <g c,>4. |
\bar "|."
}
>>