lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: \harmonicsOff


From: Noeck
Subject: Re: \harmonicsOff
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:57:24 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2


Am 21.01.2013 14:19, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Noeck <address@hidden> writes:
>> Am 21.01.2013 09:16, schrieb Eluze:
>>> \harmonicsOn/Off seem to work at a Voice level, so writing
>>> \new Voice {\harmonicsOn … \harmonicsOff … }
>>> will probably do it
>>
>> As you say, it works with '\new Voice' but does not without.
>> I always thought that implicitely a Voice context is created
> 
> When?  \harmonicsOn is not a context creating command.

In the example quoted above, like:
{\harmonicsOn a \harmonicsOff a} % ex. 1

> 
>> and that a command applies to the lowest context (which is Voice here)
> 
> No, it is Score.  And since the Staff created when the implicit Voice
> gets created at the first note has its own idea of noteheads, and since
> Staff settings overrule Score settings, you don't get to see anything.

Ok, do I understand it right:
in the ex. 1 above, a score is created at '{ \harmonicsOn' and that has
no effect, because \harmonicsOn only applies to Voices.
Then the 'a' creates a Voice context and this does not know about the
\harmonicsOn.

That sounds a bit like a trap for beginners.


>> If that is no special feature with a good reason,
> 
> \new Staff { \harmonicsOn ...
> 
> is able to affect _all_ Voices in a Staff.  
With that information, I thought the following would yield the same
(since there is only one Voice in the Staff):
\new Voice { \harmonicsOn a \harmonicsOff a }
\new Staff { \harmonicsOn a \harmonicsOff a }

But it doesn't. In the Staff context, the \harmonicsOn works, but the
harmonicsOff does not (probably, because there is a Voice by then and
the harmonics are set on staff level before and the Staff settings
override the Voice settings).


> \new Staff \with { \harmonicsOn } ...
With that syntax being possible with the current version, I would
suggest to consider a change, because the current implementation has
serveral pitfalls.

Joram



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]