On Sep 26, 2006, at 5:35 AM, Trent Johnston wrote:
I've also been using Lilypond for a while and it's not so much the
inperpections that make the layout good but the attention to detail.
What
Lilypond does differently though is that the computer does a lot of
some of
the manual work for you. As most of you may know that the score is
created
from a text file.When the score "compiled" this is when the computer is
really put to work (something that big names should take note of!!)
rather
than just place the notes, slurs, lyrics and layout on the page as
they were
input the whole score is created, recreated until an optimal layout is
found
according to the limitations the user sets. Staves are spaced to avoid
each
other, lyrics to avoid notes and slurs are drawn and re-drawn in many
configurations and when the best is found this is what appears in the
output. This is not to say that Lilypond is perfect it's still a work
in
progress and least if you want a special feature installed you can
sponsor
this change or improvement, better than paying your upgrade few and
hoping
for bug or new feature is included.
The one thing I really liked in what I saw of Lilypond is the concept
of assigning an "ugliness" score to a measure. The solution with the
lowest ugliness score gets used. This is not unlike what I do myself,
though I don't actually score it with a number!
On the other hand, I also saw some ridiculous beam angles and stem
lengths. I like Patterson Beams for Finale the best out of all the
solutions I have seen.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
