[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lilypond-user
Subject:    RE: Modified laissez vibrer ties
From:       Daniel Rosen <drosen27 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2012-10-29 14:55:16
Message-ID: 16EC1EB64C3829458F85E80F7458FFD93BC5D4E4 () ENIGMA ! rosen ! lan
[Download RAW message or body]

Never mind--I found the solution: http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=794

I only just discovered the LSR, so I completely forgot to check there before \
bothering everyone here. Oops. :-P

DR


-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Daniels [mailto:t.daniels@treda.co.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:46 PM
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org; David Kastrup; Daniel Rosen
Subject: Re: Modified laissez vibrer ties


David Kastrup wrote Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:07 AM


> Daniel Rosen <drosen27@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > I did consider that; the problem is those ties go _over_ the barline 
> > instead of stopping just short, so they'd still need to be adjusted 
> > manually.
> 
> I tried using normal ties to invisible notes after the barline and 
> tweaking to-barline in order to have them stop short.  I have not been 
> able to make to-barline have any effect, though.

Not very elegant, but this might be a possibility:

\relative c'' {
  \override Slur #'to-barline = ##t
  a1*3/4( \once \hideNotes a4) a1
}

or, if you prefer,

\relative c'' {
  a1*3/4 -\tweak #'to-barline ##t ( \once \hideNotes a4) a1 }


Unlike hairpins, 'to-barline for Slurs seems to extend the slur to the _next_ bar \
line rather than stopping it short at the previous one. And the hidden note seems to \
require a non-zero duration too.

Trevor


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]