Re: MusicXML exporter (was Re: Lilypond lobbying?)
Interesting discussion. And, being primarily a user and not (really) a developer, I hardly can wait to see where this will lead to. But I will be patient. The way I see it: The ideal case would be if a lilypond score that is converted to musicXML and then imported to some other music scoring software (Finale, Sibelius) the printed result would be identical. I don't think this ideal situation will ever exist. 1. My lilypond scores even don't give the exact same printed result when processed with different versions of Lilypond (for example 2.12.x vs 2.15.x). So what will happen when converted to MusicXML ? 2. Finale's and Sibelius' MusicXML import isn't 100% perfect either. Yes, when Finale exports a MusicXML file and then imports the same MusicXML file the result will be quite good. But I would not be surprised if importing MusicXML from other programs is much less perfect. Even if MusicXML was invented exactly to make that possible. But even with shortcomings, MusicXML would make it easier to convert/import Lilypond created scores to other programs. Post-editing may still be needed, but will much less work than when using MIDI export/import. -- MT ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: MusicXML exporter (was Re: Lilypond lobbying?)
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Martin Tarenskeen wrote: But even with shortcomings, MusicXML would make it easier to convert/import Lilypond created scores to other programs. Post-editing may still be needed, but will much less work than when using MIDI export/import. I meant: will BE much less work than when using MIDI export/import :-) -- MT ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: MusicXML exporter (was Re: Lilypond lobbying?)
On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Martin Tarenskeen wrote: 2. Finale's and Sibelius' MusicXML import isn't 100% perfect either. Yes, when Finale exports a MusicXML file and then imports the same MusicXML file the result will be quite good. But I would not be surprised if importing MusicXML from other programs is much less perfect. Even if MusicXML was invented exactly to make that possible. The issue with Finale and Sibelius exporting is user overrides. I can drag a markup over the last note in my score to be in the position of the title and it'll look just fine in Finale, but LilyPond will have no clue what to do with it. The nice thing about LilyPond is that, most often, things are what they are (titles are actually titles, etc.) Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: New LilyPond tutorial
Just a web page design sort of comment. The font is quite small for older eyes like mine (mid 50s;). The line spacing is really tight as well. I can scale the font up, but the pages still don't breathe. It would be a lot more approachable if you didn't try to make everything fit in such a tight space. A tutorial is no different than music in that. More whitespace makes it easier to absorb things at a glance. It looks like you're going for a default width of about 800 pixels (840 with the 20 pixel margins on the sides). That's about as tight as you can get it with the png sizes for the music. Since your page won't work well with hand-held devices anyway, why do you make your width so narrow? Laptops and tablets all work with a lot more width. The IPad for example is 1024x768. It just makes you waste all that space on the sides to go with that 800 pixel width. You could go with a wider width, bigger font, bigger line spacing and a, things would breathe. The tutorial itself is marvelous. Patrick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: MusicXML exporter (was Re: Lilypond lobbying?)
Michael Ellis writes: That sounds encouraging. So how far away are we from being able to handle a more realistic score, say a string quartet or a 4-part choral score with with lyrics and piano reduction? Quite far. Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 02:44 +0200, Urs Liska lilyp...@ursliska.de
wrote:
The publisher will want (and probably has) to have the possibility to
edit your score - be it for more fine tuning or for corrections in a
second edition. And for this they will only accept the programs they are
accustomed to, that have been tested to work the way they are used to.
Yes, that how I understood Schott's reply too. Which means we would need
to convince them to use lilypond in their house too. And that will
probably require that it is actually possible to produce a style file
that allows something like this:
\schott-style {
\header{ ... }
{ e e f g } \break
{ g f e b }
}
i.e. an environment where all tweaking can be done by very simple
statements like \break and such. Otherwise they would need to employ a
Professional LilyTweaker (career opportunities guys!).
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:42 +0200, Janek Warchoł
janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be interested in preparing those and persuading publishers to
accept LilyPond, but i'm afraid it will be premature thing to do
before GLISS and some more changes concerning slurs, dynamics, ties
and beams. :(
(in other words: i think that Lily output, while quite nice
out-of-the-box, still has noticeable shortcomings: bringing it to
publication quality usually requires *lots* of small tweaks, not quite
feasible to do. I can discuss this on examples if you'd like.)
Exactly! But maybe it's still possible to get them interested at least.
I guess they would need a perspective of a relatively stable version
ahead which requires only simple tweaking for the final polish.
I'm sure the mills of Schott grind slowly, too, and if there's a
long-term chance that they expand their software portfolio to LilyPond
... one needs to make them see the upsides for them, for composers, for
the creative process ...
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: MusicXML exporter (was Re: Lilypond lobbying?)
Reinhold Kainhofer writes: I don't think it's that easy, in particular if you want to get output that you can send to a publisher without being thrown out of the office... I don't think this is a goal that anyone finds worthwile to work on or pay for. Consider the facts that --triggered by user requests iirc-- somewhere in 2002/2003 Han-Wen and I wrote a simple xml printing option, and it took me about an hour of research and an hour of work to get a simple working musicxml output going. If in eight years, no-one is interested in spending two hours for a hello world, or possibly 100 hours on a somewhat useful version, why do you think anyone would take on a job that may take a man year of work? Small steps: set easily attainable goals and add bonusses to that. If after a month of work there's still interest in improvement and the xslt option does not suffice anymore, go from there. Jan -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: MusicXML exporter (was Re: Lilypond lobbying?)
On Do., 25. Aug. 2011 09:11:49 CEST, Mike Solomon mike...@ufl.edu wrote: The issue with Finale and Sibelius exporting is user overrides. I can drag a markup over the last note in my score to be in the position of the title and it'll look just fine in Finale, but LilyPond will have no clue what to do with it. Yes, that's exactly one of the problems I faced with musicxml2ly Cheers, Reinhold ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: MusicXML exporter (was Re: Lilypond lobbying?)
Scribit Kieren MacMillan dies 24/08/2011 hora 20:00: 1) XML that captures only the music […] No: this is trivial to obtain from #2 or #3, via XSLT. To stay in mathematical lingo, I'd say the issue is that, although it is indeed trivial to obtain #1 from #2, the problem of getting #2 in the first place may be undecidable in the general case. I'm actually pretty certain that it is undecidable, as for any translation between two systems that are not equivalent, and that's why it will never be a perfect translation. So it will be an imperfect translation, covering as much as possible of the subset of Lilypond that is mappable onto MusicXML. And the real question is: how much do we cover at first? For what it's worth, I suspect that only exporting the music at first would be both relatively easy for the programmer (which may be me, so that's also appealing) and very useful to the users. One of the main needs seems to enable Lilypond composers to interact with publishers and engravers that use MusicXML-savvy software. In this case, the latter probably don't care about layout, they care about music (correct me if I'm wrong), because they want to specify a layout for themselves, according to their own guidelines and habits (which, yes, may well be worse than Lilypond's default automatic layout, but that's life). One other important need is the cooperation between composers. In this case, I suppose the not Lilypond-using composer probably doesn't want to tinker with the layout and send back the adjustements (BTW, would musicxml2ly really support that by outputting a meaningful, diffable to the original, .ly file? that seems insanely difficult). I expect most of them want to play the music and tinker with the music, to send back adjustments on the musical composition, not on its layout. And finally, I oh so strongly support the idea that you succeed with baby steps, even if the baby steps are directed towards a very ambitious goal. There should be a clear deliverable after a reasonably small amount of work. That is possible with #1, probably not really with #2 or a far less interesting product. Quickly, Pierre -- pie...@nothos.net OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
On 08/25/2011 02:30 AM, PMA wrote: *If* my LilyPond output PDF were to match what Schott wants to see (in other words, a correct Schott-targeted style-sheet would not have changed it), then would Schott print my original PDF *as-is*? It's important to understand what the _real_ requirements are from the point of view of the publisher. Generally speaking the publisher (whether of music or other texts) does not expect to receive from the author a version of the document that corresponds exactly to how it will appear in print. Of course, it's very nice if the author can follow as closely as possible the publisher's style guide, but even where this has been followed to the letter (and the text itself is impeccable and entirely error-free) the publisher will typically plan on further editing the author's text. The publisher's main requirement from a software solution is therefore that it makes _editing and tweaking_ a text very easy, because even in the best-case scenario they expect to have to do a lot of manual intervention. Lilypond is excellent (and highly extensible) when it comes to implementing general stylistic rules, but very finnicky when it comes to the small manual tweaks that are the common currency of editorial intervention. Take as an example the tweaks described in the Lilypond Notation Manual on slurs: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-as-curves#slurs ... and compare that to the ease of editing in Finale: click, drag, click, and see _straight away_ that you've got it right. Now consider that relative difficulty scaled up across the number of times you might have to implement an individual custom tweak in a 50-page orchestral score, and you begin to see the issue from the publisher or engraver's point of view. The fact that Finale may get more things wrong initially is not an issue when correcting them is simple; the fact that Lilypond may get so many things right initially is not an issue when it's so much more tricky to make (and validate) small manual corrections. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Joseph Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes: Now consider that relative difficulty scaled up across the number of times you might have to implement an individual custom tweak in a 50-page orchestral score, and you begin to see the issue from the publisher or engraver's point of view. The fact that Finale may get more things wrong initially is not an issue when correcting them is simple; the fact that Lilypond may get so many things right initially is not an issue when it's so much more tricky to make (and validate) small manual corrections. Except when you are ordering orchestral scores for Monteverdi's Vespers, use Renaissance tuning that is usually a minor third off, play partly with historical instruments, practice with modern instruments and would like to have the choir scores transposed to be on pitch. A good Lilypond source will require very little touchup work for pulling out the (expensive) custom order. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Sorry for the noise, have to test if mail gets through also without virtual identity ... Am 25.08.2011 13:16, schrieb David Kastrup: Joseph Wakelingjoseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes: Now consider that relative difficulty scaled up across the number of times you might have to implement an individual custom tweak in a 50-page orchestral score, and you begin to see the issue from the publisher or engraver's point of view. The fact that Finale may get more things wrong initially is not an issue when correcting them is simple; the fact that Lilypond may get so many things right initially is not an issue when it's so much more tricky to make (and validate) small manual corrections. Except when you are ordering orchestral scores for Monteverdi's Vespers, use Renaissance tuning that is usually a minor third off, play partly with historical instruments, practice with modern instruments and would like to have the choir scores transposed to be on pitch. A good Lilypond source will require very little touchup work for pulling out the (expensive) custom order. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Am 25.08.2011 13:16, schrieb David Kastrup: Joseph Wakelingjoseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes: Now consider that relative difficulty scaled up across the number of times you might have to implement an individual custom tweak in a 50-page orchestral score, and you begin to see the issue from the publisher or engraver's point of view. The fact that Finale may get more things wrong initially is not an issue when correcting them is simple; the fact that Lilypond may get so many things right initially is not an issue when it's so much more tricky to make (and validate) small manual corrections. Except when you are ordering orchestral scores for Monteverdi's Vespers, use Renaissance tuning that is usually a minor third off, play partly with historical instruments, practice with modern instruments and would like to have the choir scores transposed to be on pitch. A good Lilypond source will require very little touchup work for pulling out the (expensive) custom order. In the context of Joseph Wakelings thoughts I'd say: Any LilyPond source, good or bad will require at least on person on the publishers side that will deal with it. And with a little wider perspective: It will require that the publisher can rely on having such a person around also when they have to deal with the score again sometimes. So I think in order to improve acceptance of LilyPond also with bigger publishers the main prerequisite would be to have a wider infrastructure of reliable engravers around. If it has become normal to look for somebody editing with LilyPond it may be an option for publishing houses. Then maybe the exact look of the result isn't that crucial anymore as publishers change their look and feel anyway from time to time. Best Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
2011/8/25 Joseph Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net: On 08/25/2011 02:30 AM, PMA wrote: *If* my LilyPond output PDF were to match what Schott wants to see (in other words, a correct Schott-targeted style-sheet would not have changed it), then would Schott print my original PDF *as-is*? It's important to understand what the _real_ requirements are from the point of view of the publisher. Generally speaking the publisher (whether of music or other texts) does not expect to receive from the author a version of the document that corresponds exactly to how it will appear in print. Of course, it's very nice if the author can follow as closely as possible the publisher's style guide, but even where this has been followed to the letter (and the text itself is impeccable and entirely error-free) the publisher will typically plan on further editing the author's text. The publisher's main requirement from a software solution is therefore that it makes _editing and tweaking_ a text very easy, because even in the best-case scenario they expect to have to do a lot of manual intervention. Lilypond is excellent (and highly extensible) when it comes to implementing general stylistic rules, but very finnicky when it comes to the small manual tweaks that are the common currency of editorial intervention. Take as an example the tweaks described in the Lilypond Notation Manual on slurs: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-as-curves#slurs ... and compare that to the ease of editing in Finale: click, drag, click, and see _straight away_ that you've got it right. Yes. I hate to say it, but in the matter of tweaking slurs LilyPond sucks really hard compared to Finale. I see only two solutions: - develop a GUI fro easy tweaking - improve slur formatting tremendously. each requires loads of work and has its drawbacks. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Hi Joseph, the fact that Lilypond may get so many things right initially is not an issue when it's so much more tricky to make (and validate) small manual corrections. Yes. Yes. Yes. And IMO the **VALIDATION** is the worst part: I don't mind taking the few seconds to type the tweak for a slur, but when I'm working on a big score (e.g., on of my operas or musicals), it is incredibly painful to have to wait several minutes in order to see the result (especially if it didn't work for some reason, so that I have to do it again). And I'm a Lilypond evangelist. =( Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Am 25.08.2011 13:41, schrieb Janek Warchoł: 2011/8/25 Joseph Wakelingjoseph.wakel...@webdrake.net: On 08/25/2011 02:30 AM, PMA wrote: *If* my LilyPond output PDF were to match what Schott wants to see (in other words, a correct Schott-targeted style-sheet would not have changed it), then would Schott print my original PDF *as-is*? It's important to understand what the _real_ requirements are from the point of view of the publisher. Generally speaking the publisher (whether of music or other texts) does not expect to receive from the author a version of the document that corresponds exactly to how it will appear in print. Of course, it's very nice if the author can follow as closely as possible the publisher's style guide, but even where this has been followed to the letter (and the text itself is impeccable and entirely error-free) the publisher will typically plan on further editing the author's text. The publisher's main requirement from a software solution is therefore that it makes _editing and tweaking_ a text very easy, because even in the best-case scenario they expect to have to do a lot of manual intervention. Lilypond is excellent (and highly extensible) when it comes to implementing general stylistic rules, but very finnicky when it comes to the small manual tweaks that are the common currency of editorial intervention. Take as an example the tweaks described in the Lilypond Notation Manual on slurs: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-as-curves#slurs ... and compare that to the ease of editing in Finale: click, drag, click, and see _straight away_ that you've got it right. Yes. I hate to say it, but in the matter of tweaking slurs LilyPond sucks really hard compared to Finale. I see only two solutions: - develop a GUI fro easy tweaking Isn't there such a thing in LilyPondTool? - improve slur formatting tremendously. each requires loads of work and has its drawbacks. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Am 25.08.2011 13:42, schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi Joseph, the fact that Lilypond may get so many things right initially is not an issue when it's so much more tricky to make (and validate) small manual corrections. Yes. Yes. Yes. And IMO the **VALIDATION** is the worst part: I don't mind taking the few seconds to type the tweak for a slur, but when I'm working on a big score (e.g., on of my operas or musicals), it is incredibly painful to have to wait several minutes in order to see the result (especially if it didn't work for some reason, so that I have to do it again). For this you can use Score.skipTypesetting. This works quite fine in most cases, but is awkward to handle, because you have to move the start and stop points manually. A GUI tool could implement something to ease this. And I'm a Lilypond evangelist. =( Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Urs Liska li...@ursliska.de writes: Sorry for the noise, have to test if mail gets through also without virtual identity ... Why? Just wait until you have a mail you want to send for real and save a copy before sending. If it does not appear to arrive after a suitable amount of time, take that copy you saved and send it in a different manner. There is really little point in testing your connection with contentless mail. The worst that can happen is that the mail arrives after all, and so the followups to its various copies are not properly threaded. But with a minimal amount of patience, that should be avoidable. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: Yes. I hate to say it, but in the matter of tweaking slurs LilyPond sucks really hard compared to Finale. I see only two solutions: - develop a GUI fro easy tweaking That would be interesting. - improve slur formatting tremendously. each requires loads of work and has its drawbacks. I don't see the latter as having inherent drawbacks. There is always the drawback of exploding code complexity, but that is something that needs to be tackled at the overall design stage. Basically, rewrite an application from scratch every few years, once you have learnt how you should have written it in the first place... -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
David Kastrup writes: - develop a GUI fro easy tweaking That would be interesting. Plug: http://lilypond.org/schikkers-list/ -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Am Donnerstag, 25. August 2011, 13:41:45 schrieb Urs Liska: In the context of Joseph Wakelings thoughts I'd say: Any LilyPond source, good or bad will require at least on person on the publishers side that will deal with it. And with a little wider perspective: It will require that the publisher can rely on having such a person around also when they have to deal with the score again sometimes. Plus, they need need to be sure that when they try to edit that file in 3 years that lilypond will still process it without any work and it should look exactly like before. That's also one of the current problems iwth lilypond: The syntax changes regularly, and you need to update your scores every few months to be able to run them properly. Cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
On 08/25/2011 01:41 PM, Urs Liska wrote: So I think in order to improve acceptance of LilyPond also with bigger publishers the main prerequisite would be to have a wider infrastructure of reliable engravers around. If it has become normal to look for somebody editing with LilyPond it may be an option for publishing houses. Then maybe the exact look of the result isn't that crucial anymore as publishers change their look and feel anyway from time to time. I don't think you understand the issue from the publisher's point of view. The issue is not Can you create the publisher's look and feel with Lilypond? (you surely can) or Can you find a reliable Lilypond engraver? (again, you surely can, although it would be nice if there were more). The issue is that if you have a manuscript score engraved in Lilypond that needs lots of small individual custom tweaks (as almost all scores do prior to publication), it's almost certainly easier to redo the score from scratch in Finale and then make additional necessary tweaks, than it is to correct the existing Lilypond score. A corresponding issue exists in scientific publishing -- many scientists use LaTeX to prepare manuscripts, but in the publishers' typesetting process these are often retyped from scratch in Word prior to copyediting and layout, because minor tweaks to text and layout are far easier to make in Word and InDesign than they are in LaTeX, for all LaTeX' power and beauty. Availability of more highly-skilled Lilypond engravers will certainly help adoption, but it doesn't solve the crucial issue which leads publishers (and others) to use other tools. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
2011/8/25 Robert Schmaus robert.schm...@web.de: On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:42 +0200, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be interested in preparing those and persuading publishers to accept LilyPond, but i'm afraid it will be premature thing to do before GLISS and some more changes concerning slurs, dynamics, ties and beams. :( (in other words: i think that Lily output, while quite nice out-of-the-box, still has noticeable shortcomings: bringing it to publication quality usually requires *lots* of small tweaks, not quite feasible to do. I can discuss this on examples if you'd like.) Exactly! But maybe it's still possible to get them interested at least. I guess they would need a perspective of a relatively stable version ahead which requires only simple tweaking for the final polish. I'm sure the mills of Schott grind slowly, too, and if there's a long-term chance that they expand their software portfolio to LilyPond ... one needs to make them see the upsides for them, for composers, for the creative process ... Maybe... On the other hand, they may think noone gives any guarantee that this software will be actively developed and that our problems will be addressed. It's better not to promise improvements, but to present them with the improved product. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
On 08/25/2011 10:16 AM, Robert Schmaus wrote: i.e. an environment where all tweaking can be done by very simple statements like \break and such. Otherwise they would need to employ a Professional LilyTweaker (career opportunities guys!). Unfortunately, it's not just the ease of the code to make the tweak (although that is a major issue): as Kieran emphasized, it's the validation of the tweak -- checking that it's correct -- that makes it a real problem. In Finale you see straight away if it's right or wrong. In Lilypond you have to recompile each time. Again, scale that up across a 50-page score, and multiple rounds of recompiling to get each single custom tweak right, and you see the problem. Yes, you can work around it often by working on individual passages separate from the rest of the score, but it's still a major issue. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
On 08/25/2011 01:16 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Except when you are ordering orchestral scores for Monteverdi's Vespers, use Renaissance tuning that is usually a minor third off, play partly with historical instruments, practice with modern instruments and would like to have the choir scores transposed to be on pitch. A good Lilypond source will require very little touchup work for pulling out the (expensive) custom order. Yes, but that's not what I mean by an individual custom tweak. On a score level, that's a large-scale stylistic change to the engraving, which is the kind of thing that Lilypond does extremely well. What I'm referring to is the myriad small changes that are needed when preparing a score -- things like the precise placement of hairpins, slurs, and other markings. Take a score like this one by Alban Berg: http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/12907 ... and look in the first movement alone to see how many hairpins and dynamic marks have tiny customizations in their placement. Now think about the corresponding ease of doing that in Finale (drag/drop) and the corresponding difficulty of doing that in Lilypond (custom code in every case, and you need to rebuild each time to make sure you got the tweak right). ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
On 08/25/2011 02:06 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: Plus, they need need to be sure that when they try to edit that file in 3 years that lilypond will still process it without any work and it should look exactly like before. That's also one of the current problems iwth lilypond: The syntax changes regularly, and you need to update your scores every few months to be able to run them properly. I'm not sure that's as big an issue as you think it is -- from what I recall of the Finale forums, back when I used them, many of the professional engravers would stick with older Finale versions, partly because of compatibility issues, partly because stability was more important to them than the newer functionality. In any case it would be relatively easy to get around that kind of concern by implementing Long-Term Support releases on a longer time-scale than the regular release schedule. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org writes: David Kastrup writes: - develop a GUI fro easy tweaking That would be interesting. Plug: http://lilypond.org/schikkers-list/ It links to a Lilypond report with a non-existing link. One can go to the general Lilypond report page and click on the direct article link in order to get an SQL error. Anyway, I guess Schikker's list would become more interesting if Lilypond was able to save the typesetting and layout optimization state at the start of a page. Which is point of contradictory since the actual start of page is determined in colloboration with global optimization following afterwards, so one can go for reasonably frequent snapshots instead. Now here is one way to do this in a ridiculously primitive manner: decide on a refresh time you consider tolerable. Start a lilypond process, and a timer task that fires a timer signal with the refresh rate. When the timer fires, fork the process, suspend the child, record all open file positions, and continue with the process. Now if you edit the main source file and say refresh, take the position of the first change in the file and look up the last suspended child that has not yet seen the changed file position, throw away all suspended children after that child, fork a new one and let the compilation commence from where you left off. Of course this requires that Lilypond does most of the hard processing while reading the input, and produces output as soon as it can. And one should likely check what one can do to let guile help more with fork's copy-on-write page semantics than it likely does (I can imagine that the average garbage collection is not particularly copy-on-write-friendly). -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Janek, I hate to say it, but in the matter of tweaking slurs LilyPond sucks really hard compared to Finale. I see only two solutions: - develop a GUI fro easy tweaking - improve slur formatting tremendously. each requires loads of work and has its drawbacks. Agreed… and that also goes for many other issues (cross-staff stems and chords, text scripts, etc.) Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Joseph (et al.), In Finale you see straight away if it's right or wrong. In Lilypond you have to recompile each time. More to the point, one of the reasons that Sibelius overtook Finale (to whatever degree it has) was that the compile-to-preview times were shorter: in Finale, a large score took several seconds, whereas in Sibelius is was instantaneous (or so the marketing went). In other words, we're not even fighting a my opera takes five minutes to compile where thirty seconds would be okay issue — we're looking at I want to see it RIGHT NOW. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Kieren MacMillan writes: Plug: http://lilypond.org/schikkers-list/ No Mac OS? =( Do not ask what binary ports others have provided for you, ask yourself what binary ports you can provide for others. Jan -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:23 -0400, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: Joseph (et al.), In Finale you see straight away if it's right or wrong. In Lilypond you have to recompile each time. More to the point, one of the reasons that Sibelius overtook Finale (to whatever degree it has) was that the compile-to-preview times were shorter: in Finale, a large score took several seconds, whereas in Sibelius is was instantaneous (or so the marketing went). In other words, we're not even fighting a my opera takes five minutes to compile where thirty seconds would be okay issue — we're looking at I want to see it RIGHT NOW. So, let's admit that this is one comparative weaknes of lilypond -- which it will always have, as far as I can see, even if there's ample room for improvements of all sorts -- and compare it to its comparative strengths. we're all using lilypond because of those, otherwise we might as well turn to sibelius right away. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Hi Jan, Plug: http://lilypond.org/schikkers-list/ No Mac OS? =( Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: dynamic padding struggles
Hi Keith, It seems the default way of computing the Y-offset both handles the 'staff-padding that we want, and insists that dynamics be a distance 'padding above the note-head. Bug? Setting 'padding = -BIG works for the example; maybe it will do for you score? Yes — thanks for the tip! I'm now running into another problem: after a line-break with a connected dynamic (in this example, a crescendo leads to the mp I'm hoping to have drop to the staff), these overrides don't work. Is there an easy way to globally (or locally, I suppose) uncouple a dynamic from its preceding hairpin? Thanks, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
On 08/25/2011 08:36 AM, Joseph Wakeling wrote: A corresponding issue exists in scientific publishing -- many scientists use LaTeX to prepare manuscripts, but in the publishers' typesetting process these are often retyped from scratch in Word prior to copyediting and layout, because minor tweaks to text and layout are far easier to make in Word and InDesign than they are in LaTeX, for all LaTeX' power and beauty. Well — and here is the case for MusicXML support again — they are likely to *import* the LaTeX into their production process. They will not actually retype the text. (They may need to re-key the equations, because equations, like music, are typographically complex. (Barbie says, “Math is hard!”)) If there were an easy way for a publishing house to import or ingest a LilyPond score and get the notes and meter, maybe articulation, dynamics, and tempo, there would likely be more acceptance of LilyPond files. Even at a publishing house that uses the tool, they’re likely to strip and rebuild the file anyway. The very power that LaTeX and LilyPond provide makes it possible for creators to do all sorts of perverse things that the publisher really does not want. A solid, basic MusicXML export would make it possible for the publisher to get at the meat of the composition and then apply their house style. ~Chris -- Chris Maden, text nerd URL: http://crism.maden.org/ Those who learn from history are doomed to become cynics. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
On 08/25/2011 01:41 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote: Yes. I hate to say it, but in the matter of tweaking slurs LilyPond sucks really hard compared to Finale. I don't think this is really a helpful way of looking at it, to be honest. Lilypond is a _superb_ piece of software that has the widest support for diverse musical notation of any program I've come across. Its creators have developed an extremely well-thought-out syntax for computer representation of musical notation and meaning, and an extremely powerful engine to transform that syntax into attractive output. However, there's very often with software (or any tools) a tradeoff between functionality and ease of use, and Lilypond's focus is very much on the former. What that means in practice is that Lilypond solves some problems better than others. So, for example, it's great at getting most things right _without_ manual intervention. It's great at correctly aligning music and lyrics. It's excellent at implementing global stylistic rules, and at supporting unusual but logical notations in a natural way (try asking Lilypond for a 7/10 time signature, for example, or a tuplet that crosses a barline). It fits wonderfully into the workflow of algorithmic composers, and supports many contemporary notations far more readily than Finale or Sibelius. I don't have experience with world or ancient music notations, but my impression is that its support here is excellent as well. And, of course, it's highly extensible, possibly more so than any other music package. By contrast Finale solves better issues of easy data entry, tweaking, playback, integration with other media types such as video, and so on. That means it solves better the key problems from the point of view of most professional engravers/publishers. But once you get beyond a certain class of notations, Finale's support becomes limited and relies more and more often on cheats and workarounds. It would be very nice if Lilypond could make some usability advances, and become easier to tweak. But it might come at the cost of progress on the kind of things that really make Lilypond valuable. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Am 25.08.2011 18:03, schrieb Joseph Wakeling: On 08/25/2011 01:41 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote: Yes. I hate to say it, but in the matter of tweaking slurs LilyPond sucks really hard compared to Finale. I don't think this is really a helpful way of looking at it, to be honest. Lilypond is a _superb_ piece of software that has the widest support for diverse musical notation of any program I've come across. Its creators have developed an extremely well-thought-out syntax for computer representation of musical notation and meaning, and an extremely powerful engine to transform that syntax into attractive output. However, there's very often with software (or any tools) a tradeoff between functionality and ease of use, and Lilypond's focus is very much on the former. What that means in practice is that Lilypond solves some problems better than others. What I would also like to stress here is that, while being not very straightforward and admittedly slower to tweak anything such as slurs, I find it extremely assuring that Lilypond allows me to retain full control over the tweaks. It is a very nice thing to be able to undo any manual intervention at any later time and independent of any other changes. And it may be useful to have these tweaks available in an explicit manner. For example I always feel uneasy with manual tweaks by dragging a mouse because I can't guarantee any coherence (for example in a graphics program). Best Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Joseph Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes: On 08/25/2011 01:41 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote: Yes. I hate to say it, but in the matter of tweaking slurs LilyPond sucks really hard compared to Finale. I don't think this is really a helpful way of looking at it, to be honest. Lilypond is a _superb_ piece of software that [...] It would be very nice if Lilypond could make some usability advances, and become easier to tweak. But it might come at the cost of progress on the kind of things that really make Lilypond valuable. Honestly? Heaps of praise coupled with a diffuse improvements might make things worse may be an _elevating_ way of looking at Lilypond, but I consider this even less helpful than pinpointing a weakness. Tweaking slurs might become nicer, for example, if one might tweak something like slur attraction of individual notes, telling Lilypond which noteheads should try pulling the slur closer. That would likely beat fiddling with control points with regard to user friendliness while still maintaining a batchy character. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Am 25.08.2011 17:48, schrieb Christopher R. Maden: On 08/25/2011 08:36 AM, Joseph Wakeling wrote: A corresponding issue exists in scientific publishing -- many scientists use LaTeX to prepare manuscripts, but in the publishers' typesetting process these are often retyped from scratch in Word prior to copyediting and layout, because minor tweaks to text and layout are far easier to make in Word and InDesign than they are in LaTeX, for all LaTeX' power and beauty. Well — and here is the case for MusicXML support again — they are likely to *import* the LaTeX into their production process. They will not actually retype the text. (They may need to re-key the equations, because equations, like music, are typographically complex. (Barbie says, “Math is hard!”)) If there were an easy way for a publishing house to import or ingest a LilyPond score and get the notes and meter, maybe articulation, dynamics, and tempo, there would likely be more acceptance of LilyPond files. Even at a publishing house that uses the tool, they’re likely to strip and rebuild the file anyway. The very power that LaTeX and LilyPond provide makes it possible for creators to do all sorts of perverse things that the publisher really does not want. A solid, basic MusicXML export would make it possible for the publisher to get at the meat of the composition and then apply their house style. ~Chris +1 I will try to get this a bit clearer in the next months. I am working on a few editions ATM that are primarily meant as performance material, but really should be published (historical (multiple) piano arrangements of prominent works of the Viennes School). For two of them the copyright is owned by Universal Edition and Edition Peters, so basically only them are allowed to publish the scores. U.E. had already taken back their promise to publish the arrangement because they wouldn't pay for the engraving (i.e. they would have expected me to provide Finale or Sibelius files). The third piece is more promising: From a historical point of view it should be evident that it should be published by Universal Edition (Alban Berg's own eight hand piano arrangement of his orchestral pieces op. 6). But as Berg has become public domain in 2005 I could publish it everywhere I like (with consent of the manuscript's owner). So I think the negotiating position is somewhat more interesting ;-) Basically it's an economic consideration. Let's take for granted that - at least now and for the foreseeable future - such publishing houses will definitely prepare their prints with Finale or Sibelius. Cheapest option for them is to get a Finale file directly from the editor/author (when I first hat the contact they told me they would give me their house specifications in order to set up the file correctly from the start. Unfortunately I didn't get this - as I couldn't have used it anyway - because it would of course have been very interesting now). Most expensive option is to get a manuscript (be it handwritten or printed by any software) and get it engraved in-house (or by anybody the choose to ask). Getting a MusicXML file that can be tweaked to the desired form would probably be somewhere in between. So it is then the question how much money they want to invest for the given publishing project. BTW this actually means that publishing houses nowadays calculate with not having to pay for the engraving anymore. In fact one step in the whole process has practically been eliminated - and with this the possible income of so many engravers. From the perspective of the Lilypond user (who in this context would be either a composer or an editor) having MusicXML output would just raise the chances to be cheap enough to come into business with a publishing house. Best Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Extra white space for Chordnames
\score{
\new ChordNames \with {
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'nonstaff-relatedstaff-spacing = #'(
(basic-distance . 10)
(minimum-distance . 10)
(padding . 10)
)
}
\chordmode { c2 f c f }
\new Staff
\relative c'{ c4 d f a c4 d f a}
}
there is another question to which i couldn't find an answer in the docs:
when is a nonstaff item (like ChordNames, Lyrics ...) related to a staff
item?
in the example above there is no explicit definition of a relationship but
you must use relatedstaff to get it work.
when using alignBelowContext, lyricsto or others it seems clear that it gets
related - but above?
thanks
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Extra-white-space-for-Chordnames-tp32328161p32336348.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond's SVG output
Hi, I'm using lilypond's SVG output to produce playable notation using JavaScript and HTML5 audio: http://percussion360.com/ Tim. On 24/08/11 08:46, Marek Klein wrote: Hello, 2011/8/18 Sandor Spruit a.g.l.spr...@uu.nl mailto:a.g.l.spr...@uu.nl Hello, I recently had an informal discussion with some collegues on the use of SVG, in general. They are in music research, I am a developer working on a completely unrelated topic - so please forgive me my ignorance w.r.t. music-related terminology. We discussed the possibilities to use music scores on web pages, and they immediately referred to Lilypond because of its quality output. While browsing this list's archives, and other on-line discussions for that matter, two questions came up: - In what version, exactly, did Lilypond drop the use of groups (svg:g) in its output? I read a debate on this issue, where the key argument against groups was the trouble people have in editing grouped SVG elements in Inkscape. I can, however, imagine all sorts of situations in which group elements could be very useful - from a developer's point of view at least. This leads to the second question: - For what purpose are people putting music up on the web; what's the typical use case? Just publishing it for others to read? Hyperlinking to it, from it? Annotations? Keeping bits and pieces of music for later reference? Learning? Studying? Comparing versions? I may, at some point, be in the position to do some work on this. But I'm hesitant to dive in at the deep end - meaning Lilypond tens of thousands of lines of code ... A bit of guidance might help though :) cheers, Sandor Spruit Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University _ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org mailto:lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/__listinfo/lilypond-user https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user I can not answer your questions, but maybe developers list is better place to ask... forwarding. Marek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
On 08/25/2011 05:48 PM, Christopher R. Maden wrote: Well — and here is the case for MusicXML support again — they are likely to *import* the LaTeX into their production process. Yes, good STM typesetting providers will do this -- but not all do. I speak from both the experience of having perfect (and uncomplicated) LaTeX articles mangled at the typsetting phase by journals, and also having sourced typsetting services for a new STM publisher. A solid, basic MusicXML export would make it possible for the publisher to get at the meat of the composition and then apply their house style. I'm curious -- to what extent DO music publishers actually make use of MusicXML? It's never been clear to me what purpose it really serves, or when and where it's really used. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: MusicXML exporter (was Re: Lilypond lobbying?)
As an engraver AND an independent publisher (both of printed, and soon digital interactive sheet music) it has been imperitive for my to find ways of efficiently separting the content from the actual publishing layout, so that changes to format and/or content can be easily managed without one being entirely dependent on the other. As a printing method, all my sheet music content is imported as linked graphics into my desktop publishing software so that as soon as a change is made and the relevant piece of music is recompiled, my layout document automatically is updated with the new graphic content. I don't know how a larger publisher would work, but I would imagine they would follow some similar principle so that tweaks could easily be made without having to modify the layout. I've been following the MusicXML export discussion closely, because I have also been looking at converting some sheet music content into MusicXML so it can be delivered by the Legato Music interactive sheet music viewer. As I delve deeper into the process, I don't see how I can avoid having to make formatting/layout changes to the version that is delivered as interactive sheet music. So that even if there were a smooth export process from Lilypond to MusicXML, I would still need to tweak the formatting and layout, perhaps significantly. It would almost make my life easier just to have a fast, precise way to deliver the content rather than a way of trying to retain the precise format. I wind up doing my formatting in Finale, since the Legato support folks recommend the MusicXML export from Finale (using Recordare's export plugins) as the cleanest output for the Legato music player. By the way, I'll contribute $75 US to the MusicXML exporter project(s). -- Jack Cooper, BerLen Music www.berlenmusic.com www.jack-cooper.com___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Joseph Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 08/25/2011 06:17 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Honestly? Heaps of praise coupled with a diffuse improvements might
make things worse may be an _elevating_ way of looking at Lilypond, but
I consider this even less helpful than pinpointing a weakness.
I don't like X sucks comments -- better to understand _why_ things are
one way or another, especially when (like Lilypond) there are good
reasons. For what it's worth, where improvements might make things
worse are concerned I was thinking about Lilypond getting a GUI
frontend -- easy to tweak -- but being constrained in future development
by what could be done in the GUI rather than what could be done with
text input.
But if you want examples of weaknesses:
* Placement of ornaments that do not fall directly over a notehead.
It's absolutely typical in classical music to have e.g. a turn
start on the second beat of a 2nd note, but this is very difficult
to implement well in Lilypond, as it involves both tweaking the
horizontal offset of the ornament itself _and_ increasing the
horizontal space assigned to the 2nd note.
* Placement of dynamic marks that do not fall directly under a
notehead.
c1*1/4 s1*3/4\p
* _Easy_ attachment of extra descriptive text to dynamic marks
(pp subito, f ma non troppo, molto p), and intelligent placement of
those dynamic marks. Something like \f{rtext=ma non troppo}, or
\p{ltext=molto}.
The Expressive marks snippets contain Horizontally aligning custom
dynamics. Should be a good start.
* Placement of hairpins that do not begin or end directly on a
notehead. There needs to be an _easy_ way to indicate
This crescendo starts on this note but 1 quarter-note in
c1*1/4 s1*3/4\
(e.g. \{delay=4}, \{delay=2*8}) and possibly also This crescendo
continues for 7 eighth notes instead of ending on the next \! or
dynamic mark (e.g. \{length=7*8} [no delayed start] or
\{delay=4,length=7*8} [1/4-note delayed start).
c1*1/4 s1*5/8\ s1*1/8\!
* More generally, a simple functional notation that allows you to
override common properties of musical objects, instead of the
\once \override notation. Some of what I've suggested above is
heading in that direction, but I'm sure there's a better notation.
I have work stashed away while working on the property stuff that would
make #{ ... #} inside of music functions useful for a lot more than just
sequential music, greatly simplifying turning a lot of stuff into music
functions.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: dynamic padding struggles
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:04:20 -0700, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: after a line-break with a connected dynamic (in this example, a crescendo leads to the mp I'm hoping to have drop to the staff), these overrides don't work. Is there an easy way to globally (or locally, I suppose) uncouple a dynamic from its preceding hairpin? There was a bug (enhancement request, actually) that was adressed a while ago http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=305 The idea is that you can indicate a hairpin need not line up with the next dynamic, by saying \\breakDynamicSpan for that hairpin. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
