jeff covey wrote:
> dear mr. van der poel,
>
> not only does lilypond use an input syntax similar to that of mup
> (though lilypond's music definition language is easier to read and
> write) and create far superior output, but it's also free in both
> senses of the word. i can't understand why you would promote a
> shareware program in a gnu/linux magazine while totally ignoring a
> superior gpl program that's an official part of the gnu project.
>
Sorry, but while I agree with the other sentiments, from the output I've seen mup
is /far better/ than lilypond. Just look at the bach 48 example, and there are
loads of silly collisions, slurs overwriting dynamic markings, and strange
placings for semibreves and whole-bar rests. The slurs even often appear the
wrong way up! Other faults appear in many other examples. Perhaps this is a
matter of tweeking the input, but I really think that the samples from mup are
much better (in particular, their God Save the Queen, opps sorry,"My Country,
'tis of thee" or whatever they call it, is very fine).
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments that Lilypond should have been
reviewed, and with your comments about open software: indeed, we are still
fermenting a project for a GUI front-end written in Java, and I agree that the
lilypond stuff is destined to be more flexible (because it's open, and because it
sits on TeX), but I think the bit about "far superior output" is a bit rich!
Looking forward to being proved wrong 8-)
Nick/
--
Dr. N.J.Bailey-----------------------------------------------
Lecturer in Electronic and Electrical Engineering
University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds,
LS2 9JT. UK.-------------------------------------------------
http://www.elec-eng.leeds.ac.uk/staff/njb/
