Re: producing "archival" scores
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 01:12:11AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > . . . if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be > > straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done > > (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a > > score, so that's not so bad). > > I use LilyPond for cases that have intractable layout problems, either > because of complicated text requirements or because of the the necessity > of squeezing a score into 3 pages. Note entry goes extremely fast, and I > spend 80 to 90% of my time on fixing the layout. So for me, preservation > of layout is the prime requirement as regards archiving. > > I wonder what the typical note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time ratio is > amongst LilyPond users. > > -- Tom > I usually typeset for bands, and I have spent a bit of time getting style sheets just right. Once they are done, the vast majority of the time is spent on note entry. I have a good look at a finished part, and it frequently turns out that changes I need to make there need to be made to other parts --- that's easy, because those definitions are in the one place. Once I've got one part looking right, about 5% of the time will be spent fixing problems in other individual parts. Even then, fixing a layout problem is often an indication I've done something wrong. In my style sheets I have a lot of frequently used tweaks commented out, so I don't have to go searching the manual for the same thing all the time. Of course, defining style sheets can take a long time, and I'm glad I don't have to do it for each piece I set. It also helps the style of music I set doesn't seem to challenge LilyPond's typesetting engine. -- = Cameron Horsburgh = ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing "archival" scores
> . . . if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be > straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done > (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a > score, so that's not so bad). I use LilyPond for cases that have intractable layout problems, either because of complicated text requirements or because of the the necessity of squeezing a score into 3 pages. Note entry goes extremely fast, and I spend 80 to 90% of my time on fixing the layout. So for me, preservation of layout is the prime requirement as regards archiving. I wonder what the typical note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time ratio is amongst LilyPond users. -- Tom ** Josiah Boothby wrote: Just to clarify one small thing: I think that it would be nearly impossible -- or at least extraordinarily difficult -- to compile on a modern distribution of Linux a sufficiently old version of Lilypond so that ancient .ly files can be used directly. The nice thing about the old ly files is that the syntax is usually similar enough that if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a score, so that's not so bad). --Josiah ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing "archival" scores
Jason Merrill wrote: > Thanks for the interesting comments so far. I want to refocus the > discussion slightly. I didn't mean to get into a discussion about the > relative merits of lilypond as an entry tool, exactly, so take as a > temporary supposition that I want to enter music in lilypond right > now, but that at some future time, someone else wants to modify that > music in a program other than lilypond. How can I do something now to > make that easiest? > There is not now, nor ever will be, some universal music language. MusicXML is an option, but not one everybody will choose. One could ask the exact same question by replacing 'lilypond' with 'MusicXML'. The issue with archival (it seems to me) is a format whose source will "always" be readable and whose output will "always" be viewable. Seems to me Lilypond and MusicXML are the only ones that provide both of these. They also seem to me to be the only two options that are non-proprietary so others will not have purchase anything to access your work. Whether you prefer MusicXML or Lilypond is a matter of taste, methinks. Obviously the people on this list are going to have a marked bias towards Lilypond, but that is indeed another question. > Josiah makes the point that MusicXML is too verbose. I agree; > however, it succeeds at it's stated goal of being a music interchange > format in that it is widely supported. Is there another, better music > interchange format either available or in development? > I could argue that Finale is also "a music interchange format that is widely supported." MusicXML is just one more way of encoding music. Any format that uses plain text as source and a non-proprietary compiler I think is a perfectly decent archival option. > So far, the best option was suggested by Tom: a tool called PDFtoMusic > Pro that converts PDF scores into MusicXML. The pros are that it is > available right now, and that it presumably works. Downsides are that > it is proprietary and not free, and takes what seems to me a rather > indirect route towards solving my particular problem. > 1) I have strong reservations about the claims made by this product. I would be very interested in hearing what people's results have been. I cannot imagine that they can do what they say with the accuracy they imply. 2) The fact that it's proprietary to me is more than a downside, but actually kills the option as one for long-term archival. I guess it depends on your goals. It sounds like you're more interested in exchange rather than archival. > Any other suggestions? Any comments on the likelihood of being able > to compile lilypond into a music interchange format at some point in > the future? I see no reason why a ly2musicxml utility could not be done, but I don't know enough about the guts of Lilypond personally. It's an interesting question to be sure. -- Aaron Dalton | Super Duper Games [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://superdupergames.org ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing "archival" scores
Thanks for the interesting comments so far. I want to refocus the discussion slightly. I didn't mean to get into a discussion about the relative merits of lilypond as an entry tool, exactly, so take as a temporary supposition that I want to enter music in lilypond right now, but that at some future time, someone else wants to modify that music in a program other than lilypond. How can I do something now to make that easiest? Josiah makes the point that MusicXML is too verbose. I agree; however, it succeeds at it's stated goal of being a music interchange format in that it is widely supported. Is there another, better music interchange format either available or in development? So far, the best option was suggested by Tom: a tool called PDFtoMusic Pro that converts PDF scores into MusicXML. The pros are that it is available right now, and that it presumably works. Downsides are that it is proprietary and not free, and takes what seems to me a rather indirect route towards solving my particular problem. Any other suggestions? Any comments on the likelihood of being able to compile lilypond into a music interchange format at some point in the future? Regards, Jason Merrill ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing "archival" scores
Josiah Boothby wrote: > On 4/5/07, Valentin Villenave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello everybody, hello Jason, >> >> I would like to add my 2 cents here: though LilyPond syntax evolves >> indeed very quickly, you'll always be able to find the version of >> LilyPond which was in use when you first typed your score, on >> http://lilypond.org/web/install/older-versions or >> http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/sources/ >> >> This is why open-Source gives some "guarantees" (well, relatively at >> least) you won't be able to find with any other proprietary software: > > Just to clarify one small thing: I think that it would be nearly > impossible -- or at least extraordinarily difficult -- to compile on a > modern distribution of Linux a sufficiently old version of Lilypond so > that ancient .ly files can be used directly. The nice thing about the > old ly files is that the syntax is usually similar enough that if > convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be > straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done > (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a > score, so that's not so bad). > Don't the new distributions *include* all the dependencies? The FreeBSD and Windows packages seem to. I don't have an extra box to experiment with though. In any case, I agree that the note entry syntax doesn't change and that represents (for me anyway) 90% of the work. I will still rely on Lilypond for archival scores. Proprietary software won't cut it (as explained earlier) and MusicXML seems insanely verbose to me. The snippet at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicXML is way too long just to get a clef, time signature, and middle C. Cheers! -- Aaron Dalton | Super Duper Games [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://superdupergames.org ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
jazz chord names
Hi there, I'd like to be able to easliy print jazz chord names above the measures (hopefully in a graphical front end). Anyone know how to do this? I'd like to be able to print things like G-9/F , which would be a slash chord. It would be nice to have font controls too.. regards, Rich ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: change to bold on stanzas 2, 4 , 6...
Hello everybody, this message has been forwarded (in French) to LilyPond-user-fr list --but anyone can still add his answer here :-) Regards, Valentin Villenave 2007/4/6, falcaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Bonjour, I need to put 7 stanzas to a song and, to be mopre simple, I want to set the first stanza to "normal font, the second to an italic one, the third to a bold one and again the fourth to "normal" and so one. How could I do that ? I'm a little lost cordialement, ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
change to bold on stanzas 2, 4 , 6...
Bonjour, I need to put 7 stanzas to a song and, to be mopre simple, I want to set the first stanza to "normal font, the second to an italic one, the third to a bold one and again the fourth to "normal" and so one. How could I do that ? I'm a little lost cordialement, ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
