I like Ramillies’ answer, but based on your opening post and your subsequent comment, I’d like to offer something even more concise.
The “why”
From your comment:
…trying to reproduce the old manuscript in lilypond, and A was my attempt at getting lilypond to show what is in the manuscript…
(Emphasis mine.)
Okay, so you’ve already done that in A. Never mind what it means in LilyPond yet; your goal here was to put on your screen what you see on the page. Does it look the same? Good.
So the point becomes what to use B for. If B is going to be “this is how I interpret that this measure is to be played,” and you want to display that somehow to a reader, then there are multiple ways to do this:
- a comment in the source code
- a footnote with the figure written out, like you often see with Baroque ornamentation
- an ossia staff above the measure in question with the figure written out
- an entirely separate manuscript with your interpretation replacing the original layout
- etc
Personally, if I were learning this piece, I would prefer one instance of the interpretation and leave the rest untouched—that way, I know that everywhere I see this particular figure, it is to be performed in the way indicated by the editorial remark.
The “how”
Going on the assumption that conciseness and clarity are your goals:
Is there a concise way to input this?
I can use source control to keep track of which changes to the original are corrections, my edits (and therefore questionable) and clarifications to notation.
(Emphasis mine.)
Then I’m going to piggy-back off of Ramillies’ answer to show you one way to achieve this. The major issue you seem to want to solve is how to stop so much redundancy; in other words, turn this:
\repeat tremolo 3 \tuplet 3/2 d16[
\repeat tremolo 3 \tuplet 3/2 e16
\repeat tremolo 3 \tuplet 3/2 f16]
into this:
\my_function d e f
Bonus points if we can control what happens when using \my_function
.
Well, Ramillies was 93.8% of the way there. I can get you an additional 0.4% of the way there:
How the manuscript looks:
c'8 d8:16[_3 e:_3 f:]_3
Your attempt at interpretation
c'8
\tuplet 3/2 { \repeat unfold 3 { d16 } }
\tuplet 3/2 { \repeat unfold 3 { e } }
\tuplet 3/2 { \repeat unfold 3 { f } }
Your attempt at correction
c'8
\omit Dots
\tuplet 3/2 \repeat tremolo 3 { d16[ }
\tuplet 3/2 \repeat tremolo 3 { e }
\tuplet 3/2 \repeat tremolo 3 { f] }
\undo \omit Dots
Let’s extract these to functions:
The manuscript function:
There’s really no point in separating this one out. It’s about as simple as you can expect to make it, in my opinion. But if you must do so, read the next two to find out how you can do it.
The interpretation function:
trem = #(define-music-function
(ant bee cat dog)
(ly:music? ly:music? ly:music? ly:music?)
#{
#ant
\tuplet 3/2 { \repeat unfold 3 { #bee } }
\tuplet 3/2 { \repeat unfold 3 { #cat } }
\tuplet 3/2 { \repeat unfold 3 { #dog } }
#}
)
The correction function:
trem = #(define-music-function
(ant bee cat dog)
(ly:music? ly:music? ly:music? ly:music?)
#{
#ant
\omit Dots
\tuplet 3/2 \repeat tremolo 3 { #bee[ }
\tuplet 3/2 \repeat tremolo 3 { #cat }
\tuplet 3/2 \repeat tremolo 3 { #dog] }
\undo \omit Dots
#}
)
Let’s use these functions:
Depending on which one you picked, this:
music = \relative {
\time 2/4
\trem c'8 d16 e f
\trem g8 a16 b c
\trem f8 c16 g d
}
\score {
\new Staff \music
}
Will look like either of these two: