Hi Marc, > the problem with this approach is that one has to edit one file that contains > all the music, (which can be long) then has to switch to another file that > contains the score part for the part currently being edited. It seems a > simple things but it makes a big difference when one has to do that over and > over.
It all depends on how much flexibility you want in your output, I thinkā¦ I almost *always* put the music variables (content) and score definition (presentation) in different files. As one good example of how this helps me, consider my chamber opera, "Drunken Moon". I have five different score files: two for the full score (one in C, one transposed), one for the vocal score (with piano reduction), one for the Tango [instrumental interlude] as a separate salon piece for piano trio, and one for the Sarabande [interlude] as a solo piano piece. To try to manage all of this in a single Lilypond file would: 1. be far too confusing (for me, anyway); 2. limit (or maybe eliminate) the possibility of outputting a single one of those 5 score options; 3. restrict (or at least hamper) applying different stylesheets to each score; and 4. add far more complexity scrolling/jumping within the one file, than the small difficulty added by the need to switch between content and presentation files. Of course, if you have a single simple output (e.g., you're always outputting all bookparts, and they all use the same stylesheet), then a single Lilypond file would likely be fine -- that's just not a situation I run into very often in my Lilypond work. But that's one of the great benefits of Lilypond: it is excellent at allowing each user to work according to that user's requirements/habits/preferences. =) Hope this helps! Kieren. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user