Re: Lilypond lobbying?

[David Kastrup]

"Dmytro O. Redchuk" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 10:28 David Kastrup wrote:
>> "Dmytro O. Redchuk" <address@hidden> writes:
>> > I am not a composer at all, but... is this a "musical" approach?
>> 
>> It's pretty much along the lines of the given verbal description.  You
>> could also do something like
>> 
>> << c1 { s4\< s2\! s4 } >>
> Yes, I know ,)
>
> You can do this in a separate voice

If you think this is a separate voice, you have fundamentally
misunderstood what << >> does.  It does _not_ introduce a voice or a
separate context.  The only difference between { } and << >> is that the
former places events in the music at consecutive points of time (the
time advances between entries), and the latter places them at the same
point of time (the time does not advance between entries).

The music iterator in each case processes the events chronologically and
works on them in one context.  << >> merely is a convenience for entry.
That is why something like
<< \stemUp { c4 e } \stemDown { g b } >>
does not do what you expect: first << \stemUp \stemDown c4 g >> gets
processed (the stem settings will likely be done by an engraver running
first), then << e b >> gets processed.

And that is why << c1 { s4\< s2! s4 } >> will produce the expected Midi
even if we at some point of time manage to get Midi volume per Voice
and/or using expression events.

> and then "filter parts" (to clean midi output of those extra voices)

There are no extra voices.

> from command line with some switches, or do it whith tags etc-etc-etc.
>
> That's very nice =:О]
>
> And "easy to use".

Yes, it is very nice and easy to use.

-- 
David Kastrup