Re: \keepWithTag #'A {\keepWithTag #'B \music}

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

Copying to the list, from an off-list conversation.

Which I started since I wasn't sure I was saying anything useful.

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Gianmaria Lari <address@hidden> wrote:

Ciao David, you wrote:

> Great news!  I'll have to look into that since I'm not familiar with
> groupTag.

If you want to check how I fixed the issue with groupTag here they are
a complete example. I attached the following files:

- Basile - bambinette.ly: the music file
- AccordionStandardBass.ly: the library I wrote (and you've already
seen) adding accordion standard bass facilities
- AddStaccato.ly: a function to add some articulation to a music _expression_
- SetNotesDuration.ly: a function to change the duration if a music _expression_

You should be able to compile all the code. Let me know if you've any problem.
If you check this new version of AccordionStandardBass.ly you will see
there is just a new line at the beginning of the file

\tagGroup #'(screenOut midiOut)

This is enough to fix all the issues :)

> Since you have this solved to your satisfaction, I only really have a few
> general comments.
>
> The code in your library file is about 10X longer than simply writing out
> the music in the first place.
> My approach would be to just do something like this (note that you don't
> need to use #' any more when specifying tags):
>
> cbar = {
>     \tag screenOut {
>         c4 c'\majorChordLetter 4 4
>     }
>     \tag midiOut {
>         <c c'>4 <c' e g> 4 4
>     }
> }

Yes, there is no advantage or small advantages in using this library
just to write one (short) music score like that one I included. If I
intend just to write a single piece of accordion music is better to
avoid programming and use LP to write music.

But generally at the moment you start recognize pattern of similar
problem that you need to solve frequently it become interesting
developing/adapting/extending the language you're using. The goal is
having new structure to be able to simplify writing, be more synthetic
and trough higher level functionality write neater script. I imagine
you know all these.

I think the trick here is making sure you make good choices about what to generalize.

I often find that if I get too happy trying to reuse code.  Then when I need to make changes that are specific to an instrument, or a particular iteration, I need to unwind the work I did.

 

> What if, for example, you decide to add dynamics or articulations down the
> road?  Where will you enter them?  At rootNoteExp?  Will you have then
> several versions of rootNoteExp for different dynamics and articulations,
> and then versions for all the intermediate variables?

This specific problem has been solved using AddStaccato (that I
attached to this email).
I wanted this solution and I'm happy it exists! And I see no reason
why we should not want to have the same for other articulation,
dynamics etc.

 

> My point is that, the further you get from using direct musical input
> syntax, the more difficult it is to add these other elements that may vary
> from instance to instance.

Yes, in case of LP I think you're right. But I reached a good
compromise with my small library. Now I can easily and neatly write
accordion with Standard bass notation. At the moment for this specific
class of problem it is a very nice facility.

> If you've defined everything by a cascade of variables, you basically have
> to start from scratch whenever you have a new variation of elements.  With
> the more literal approach I suggest, you just copy & paste to the variable
> definition to one with the modification.
>
> cbarP = {
>     \tag screenOut {
>         c4\p c'\majorChordLetter 4 4
>     }
>     \tag midiOut {
>         <c c'>4\p <c' e g> 4
>     }
> }

Yes I use copy&paste without hesitation each time other approaches does not work

> At some point, I think the approach you've started would better generalize
> to using functions.   That way, you don't have to redefine every different
> permutation.

Yes, exactly. And it looks not too hard to implement a functional
approach to other LP functionalities. So maybe they will be
standardized in the future, or I will use some snippet like now.


> Secondly, there should be no need to replicate everything per pitch.  Just
> say:
>
> dbar = \transpose c d { \cbar }

You're definitely right!!!! What a mindless man I have been!

I'll make some test and if they work as supposed I will simplify the
code like you suggest.

Thanks a lot!!!
Best regards, G.
P.S. If you want to continue this discussion I suggest continue it on
the LP mailing list. I think these things can interest other people.

David Elaine Alt

415 . 341 .4954                                           "Confusion is highly underrated"

address@hidden

self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-