date:20120806


On 06/08/12 04:04, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

It is easy to see how these events could  help lilypond long-term, but
it's also easy for any response from us to be interpreted negatively.
Let the Sibelius users have their personal moment of pain/mourning; if
they need open-source music notation, they will certainly be able to
find us without our help.


I was not actually thinking primarily of bombarding mourning Sibelius users with 
publicity, which would clearly be unwelcome (neither piece of software supplies, 
yet, what Sibelius supplies).


Rather, I was thinking of LP and MuseScore approaching educational institutions 
and possibly also senior former members of Sibelius UK to try and develop 
something around the combination of (i) the spending that would otherwise have 
gone on Sibelius licence fees, (ii) the increasing drive for open source 
software in education, (iii) the drive for computer science education.


The opportunity here isn't primarily to get people using some particular piece 
of software but rather to get people to buy into a new way of funding and 
developing the cutting edge of music notation technology.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down


On 06/08/12 04:10, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

Architecturally it is very difficult. Rather than making lilypond much
more complicated to do incremental rendering, why not invert the
problem: have your editor control line breaks, and use lilypond to
render just one line of music at a time.


Why is it not preferable for this to happen internally within Lilypond -- to 
have Lilypond determine the line and page breaks, store that data in an .aux 
file or similar, and re-render only individual lines or pages as needed?


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down



m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
 
 On 5 août 2012, at 12:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
 joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
 
 On 02/08/12 17:51, Graham Percival wrote:
 In short: if there is a concerted effort to create a quick
 render output, I would be absolutely shocked if it wasn't at
 least 10 times faster than the current output.
 
 (1) How paralellized is the current code -- and if not much or at all,
 what do you think the scope is for doing so?  E.g. once basic pagination
 is in place, could all other elements be engraved in separate per-page
 threads?  Likewise, any parts of a score separated by an explicit page
 break could be engraved by separate threads.
 
 
 LilyPond currently only works on a single thread and the code base is
 definitely not optimized for parallel processing.  GCC may do this
 automatically when compiling LilyPond (I'm not sure how GCC works).  There
 are many places where parallel processing could be implemented in LilyPond
 - outputting broken lines and pages, as you suggest above, is one of them.
 
 (2) Are there any statistics on compile time vs. input file size?  It
 doesn't necessarily help Lilypond to be blazingly fast on a 2-page,
 4-part choral score if it's horrendously slow in a 100-page
 full-orchestra operatic score.  I recall that Valentin's opera was a
 nightmare to render both in terms of time and of memory used along the
 way.
 
 In 2.15 we did some profiling on this a while back and sped this up
 considerably (there was a bottleneck in the code) but we haven't done any
 speed-up here since then.  I think LilyPond line breaking is O(n log n),
 although someone more into CS than I would have to confirm this.
 
 
 (3) The real speed issue is not so much from-scratch compile times but
 recompile times -- how long _should_ it take to re-render the score if
 e.g. I add a single staccato dot to one note?
 
 One idea for LilyPond that has been kicked around for a while is that of
 .aux files.  LaTeX uses these and they help speed up compilation on second
 passes (they also make it more accurate).  The problem is that LilyPond
 currently has no API - it would take a few months of a few developers time
 to nail down a core API so that .aux files could be used predictably and
 without the creation of too many exceptions.  This is a high priority of
 mine but it is a bit too big for me these days and I've got my hands full
 w/ skyline work :-(
 
 Cheers,
 MS
 
 
 Sibelius' publicity always used to make much of the fact that if Wagner
 had wanted to add a new bar at the start of the entire Ring Cycle, using
 Sibelius it would have taken no more than 1 second.  That kind of
 speed-of-tweaking may be worth more than speed of first compile --
 ideally, you'd be able to type stuff into the editor in e.g. Frescobaldi,
 and see the score change in front of your eyes.
 
 ___
 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
 
 

Just here to post my thoughts:

Are there any potential changes to syntax that could speed up rendering, or
is the syntax arbitrarily decided and separate to the grunt work?

WRT (1): Someone in this thread suggested using individual threads to render
a bar at a time. The end result would be messy, but what if one or two
threads were dedicated to running 'behind' the main threads to clean up and
knit together output? The number of clean-up threads would need to be
determined either dynamically during compile or statically before each
release comes out depending on projected workloads of each thread with
respect to theorised usage scenarios. I reckon, bearing in mind my complete
lack of knowledge about the Lilypond back end and programming in general,
that even though there'd be a ton of overhead, it'd be worth it - hardly
anybody runs single-thread systems nowadays. 

Bearing in mind, that any threading, in my opinion, should be aimed at
providing speed increases to large renders - 20-30s, at least; on shorter
renders any speed increases would be hard to notice, whereas in large
renders even increases of 5-10% would be huge over the whole process of
putting a score into Lilypond. And even having two threads would give much
greater boosts than that.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Sibelius-Software-UK-office-shuts-down-tp34245636p34260307.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

user interaction with notation software

2012-08-06 Thread Klaus Föhl

Hello,

The other week I was talking with a couple of music people.

Talking to Person A about upcoming concert programme, showing some
choir musicsheets I typeset with Lilypond after A had groaned about
sometimesless-than-perfect computer output. Person A was amazed about
the clarity, well readable for choir singers. Using 2.12 I had tweaked
some vertical spacing to fit the music onto one page, but most settings
like font size, font etc. were all standard setting unchanged.

Less impressed by the text-based input, even when I pointed out that
I usually cut-and-paste the header parts. Still the non-music notation
(a2 c1 d4 f) is not fully intuitive to someone who is used to see note heads.
Was interested to learn that lyrics and music, separately noted in the text
file, can then automatically be joined together.

When talking about the concept of staff and voices, person A stressed the
importance to him of the vertical context when noting orchestral scores
(beyond chords).

One thing that appealed was the possibility of variables that could be used
multiple times, and if a change to a groove were to be made, the change then
would only be necessary to be done once.

The other appealing fact was the availability for Windows, for Mac,
for Linux and for free...


Regarding Person B, I could watch some music arranging using Sibelius 6.
The melody line had been cut-and-pasted into two more staff lines,
and the arranging action was then pushing notes around with arrow keys
interspersed with music pre-listening. Setting the repeat/volta sign
seemed to be a purely graphical action, (re)aligning chord letters
required the manual nudging of every single chord letter
(but an alignment reference line was provided).

Looking for the repeat notation required some limited time for
pulldown-menu-searching. The music required some 1.2 pages initially,
but there was a menu point squeeze onto one page (or similarly named)
which then was envoked, music was visually checked, ok, end of this work step.

So far my two wee observations

Klaus


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond developeruser meeting in Waltrop, August 24th to 28th

2012-08-06 Thread Janek Warchoł

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
 Just a suggestion, but given the recent news regarding Sibelius (cf.
 discussion on User list), why not drop a line to a couple of the main
 MuseScore developers and as them if they'd like to come along?

 It would be a nice outreach gesture and might lead to some productive
 discussions.

Good idea.  I can write an email to them - is anyone opposed?

Janek

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond developeruser meeting in Waltrop, August 24th to 28th

2012-08-06 Thread Graham Percival

On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 02:13:06PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
 joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
  Just a suggestion, but given the recent news regarding Sibelius (cf.
  discussion on User list), why not drop a line to a couple of the main
  MuseScore developers and as them if they'd like to come along?
 
  It would be a nice outreach gesture and might lead to some productive
  discussions.
 
 Good idea.  I can write an email to them - is anyone opposed?

Talk to musescore developers?  Sure, if you want.

- Graham

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: LilyPond developeruser meeting in Waltrop, August 24th to 28th


On 06/08/12 13:13, Janek Warchoł wrote:

Good idea.  I can write an email to them - is anyone opposed?


I think Werner Schweer is based in Bielefeld, which if Google Maps is anything 
to go by is only a little over an hour's drive from Waltrop.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

2012-08-06 Thread Hilary Snaden


On 2012-08-06 04:04, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

It is worth reminding that by providing high-quality notation tools
for free, both Musescore and LilyPond have been a contributing factor
in both Sibelius' and Finale (see
http://www.makemusic.com/Pressroom/Default.aspx?pid=555) current
problems

It is easy to see how these events could  help lilypond long-term, but
it's also easy for any response from us to be interpreted negatively.
Let the Sibelius users have their personal moment of pain/mourning; if
they need open-source music notation, they will certainly be able to
find us without our help.


I agree. As with other software, some Sibelius users may feel happier 
paying inaccessible developers and their managers, directors, 
shareholders, etc, for closed-source software which stores their work in 
non-human-readable, undocumented binary formats. The rest can easily 
find the LilyPond software, website, manuals, snippets and mailing lists.



It would be nice if someone from the sibelius team came out and gave
some hints about how the .sib format is structured.  We could be of
help by rescuing the years of work many users have stashed away as
.sib files.


That may be a while off yet. According to Wikipedia A Facebook pressure 
group has been formed to protest against the closure of the London 
office. A website dedicated to encouraging Avid to sell Sibelius to 
ensure its continued development is now live.


The latter claims that Avid intends to offshore further coding work to 
Ukraine.



(I had a brief look at the file format years ago; the problem is that
they run some sort of compression scheme over their data)


Was the compression recognisable?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

2012-08-06 Thread Neil Thornock

 It is easy to see how these events could  help lilypond long-term, but
 it's also easy for any response from us to be interpreted negatively.
 Let the Sibelius users have their personal moment of pain/mourning; if
 they need open-source music notation, they will certainly be able to
 find us without our help.

From my perspective, the loss of Sibelius is bad for *everyone* with a
stake in music. I never used Sibelius; I never liked it. But many did,
and many found their first creative voice through the software. I
don't think its retraction will leave a void that will simply be
filled by something else.

It's a possible sign that music -- the type many of us are involved in
-- is losing in the greater culture war. It's not LilyPond vs
Sibelius vs Finale but rather Quality Music vs Cheap Entertainment.

We're losing.

-- 
Neil Thornock, D.M.
The recent premiere of ...and a bunch of other stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQtvPet3k8c
Assistant Professor of Music
Composition/Theory
Brigham Young University

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

2012-08-06 Thread Tim Roberts

George_ wrote:
 WRT (1): Someone in this thread suggested using individual threads to render
 a bar at a time. The end result would be messy, but what if one or two
 threads were dedicated to running 'behind' the main threads to clean up and
 knit together output?

Multithreading works well when there are natural subdivisions of the
work.  It's really hard to come up with a natural subdivision for
Lilypond.  Bars are not particularly fundamental to Lilypond music.  Bar
lines are just another thing that get engraved.  Plus, Lilypond does not
require that all staves in a system have the same bar structure. 
Dividing into systems would be convenient, but you don't really know
where the next system starts until you're done with the current one.

Having done quite a lot of threaded programming, when I think of the job
Lilypond is doing, I don't see any natural breakdown.  It's a very
sequential process.

Now, it might be possible to have one thread producing an internal
representation of the score -- kind of an intermediate language -- and
have another thread sucking on that representation and blowing PDF or
EPS or MIDI or whatever.  Even that would only be possible if the
internal representation did not change fundamentally after it was
created.  When I see status messages that say, for example fitting
music onto 4 or 5 pages, that leads me to believe that there is global
optimization going on that might go back and move things on earlier pages.

-- 
Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com
Providenza  Boekelheide, Inc.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

2012-08-06 Thread David Kastrup

Tim Roberts t...@probo.com writes:

 George_ wrote:
 WRT (1): Someone in this thread suggested using individual threads to render
 a bar at a time. The end result would be messy, but what if one or two
 threads were dedicated to running 'behind' the main threads to clean up and
 knit together output?

 Multithreading works well when there are natural subdivisions of the
 work.  It's really hard to come up with a natural subdivision for
 Lilypond.  Bars are not particularly fundamental to Lilypond music.  Bar
 lines are just another thing that get engraved.  Plus, Lilypond does not
 require that all staves in a system have the same bar structure. 
 Dividing into systems would be convenient, but you don't really know
 where the next system starts until you're done with the current one.

Uh, no?  AFAIK, LilyPond uses linear programming, and that requires
combing through a currently active set of optima and generating the next
set.  That is at its heart a parallel operation.

 Having done quite a lot of threaded programming, when I think of the
 job Lilypond is doing, I don't see any natural breakdown.  It's a very
 sequential process.

Hm.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

2012-08-06 Thread Lucas Gonze

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com wrote: 
 Is it architecturally possible to make a significant amount of
 overhead go away? Are incremental compiles plausible?

 Architecturally it is very difficult. Rather than making lilypond much
 more complicated to do incremental rendering, why not invert the
 problem: have your editor control line breaks, and use lilypond to
 render just one line of music at a time.

This is an excellent idea.

It would also help expose the semantics of the piece to the front end code.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down




Tim Roberts wrote:
 
 George_ wrote:
 WRT (1): Someone in this thread suggested using individual threads to
 render
 a bar at a time. The end result would be messy, but what if one or two
 threads were dedicated to running 'behind' the main threads to clean up
 and
 knit together output?
 
 Multithreading works well when there are natural subdivisions of the
 work.  It's really hard to come up with a natural subdivision for
 Lilypond.  Bars are not particularly fundamental to Lilypond music.  Bar
 lines are just another thing that get engraved.  Plus, Lilypond does not
 require that all staves in a system have the same bar structure. 
 Dividing into systems would be convenient, but you don't really know
 where the next system starts until you're done with the current one.
 
 Having done quite a lot of threaded programming, when I think of the job
 Lilypond is doing, I don't see any natural breakdown.  It's a very
 sequential process.
 
 Now, it might be possible to have one thread producing an internal
 representation of the score -- kind of an intermediate language -- and
 have another thread sucking on that representation and blowing PDF or
 EPS or MIDI or whatever.  Even that would only be possible if the
 internal representation did not change fundamentally after it was
 created.  When I see status messages that say, for example fitting
 music onto 4 or 5 pages, that leads me to believe that there is global
 optimization going on that might go back and move things on earlier
 pages.
 
 -- 
 Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com
 Providenza  Boekelheide, Inc.
 
 
 ___
 lilypond-user mailing list
 lilypond-user@gnu.org
 https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
 
 

Well, what if we divide the work using \bookpart {} or \score {}? Each
bookpart is separated by a page break, so it seems unlikely that there would
be cross-dependencies. I don't know how widespread usage of the syntax is,
but this is what I meant when I asked if there were any syntax changes that
could be used to implement multithreading. 
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Sibelius-Software-UK-office-shuts-down-tp34245636p34262504.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: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

2012-08-06 Thread Johan Vromans

David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:

 That makes my copyright red flags go up. Can you check back with
 Kirill and possible other authors under which conditions you are
 allowed to share?

The plug-in and the postprocessor are both GPL.

 We'll likely also have to check the conditions for
 distributing Sibelius plugins in general to see whether they can be
 matched to basic free software distribution, in which case pointing at
 those tools would be fine.

A Sibelius plug-in is a just script written in a
JavaScript/Basic/Pascal-like language. It doesn't contain anything
Sibelius-related (e.g. modules, headers, or other code).

-- Johan

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Christ van Willegen
cvwille...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com wrote:
 (I had a brief look at the file format years ago; the problem is that
 they run some sort of compression scheme over their data)

 What I'd do in cases like this is:

 - Create a 'score' with only a middle C1 in it
 - Same with a C2
 - Same with a D1
 - Same with a B1
 - Other staff symbol
 - Other key
 - Look at the binary differences
 - Play around with the numbers
 - See if Sib can re-import it after change

 Then, re-itererate for 2 notes...

 Takes a long time, but may help.

 If there are a _lot_ of binary changes between a C1 and a C2, then
 it's probably some encrypted/compressed format...

You can simply run a .sib file through gzip.  If it does not compress
(and it really doesn't) the file is already compressed.
-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:57 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
 Tim Roberts t...@probo.com writes:

 George_ wrote:
 WRT (1): Someone in this thread suggested using individual threads to render
 a bar at a time. The end result would be messy, but what if one or two
 threads were dedicated to running 'behind' the main threads to clean up and
 knit together output?

 Multithreading works well when there are natural subdivisions of the
 work.  It's really hard to come up with a natural subdivision for
 Lilypond.  Bars are not particularly fundamental to Lilypond music.  Bar
 lines are just another thing that get engraved.  Plus, Lilypond does not
 require that all staves in a system have the same bar structure.
 Dividing into systems would be convenient, but you don't really know
 where the next system starts until you're done with the current one.

 Uh, no?  AFAIK, LilyPond uses linear programming, and that requires
 combing through a currently active set of optima and generating the next
 set.  That is at its heart a parallel operation.

The problem is that to get at the input data for linear programming,
it has to run a lot of callbacks, many of which have side effects, eg.
due to caching.

If you do that multithreaded, you have to properly serialize all
side-effects, which I think is intractable, since the data structures
were never setup to be thread safe.

Also, going MT will give you a max 8x speedup (assuming perfect
parallelization on an 8 core machine). That is not going to bring down
processing costs to interactive rates.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

2012-08-06 Thread Jonathan Wilkes

 Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 07:24:06 -0600

 From: Neil Thornock neilthorn...@gmail.com
 To: han...@xs4all.nl
 Cc: m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com,    
 Lilypond-User
     lilypond-user@gnu.org
 Subject: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down
 Message-ID:
     caca7e6nnx3wiuiw9jfyiivik_dgomtptayqwt5jlojpaem6...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

  It is easy to see how these events could  help lilypond long-term, but
  it's also easy for any response from us to be interpreted negatively.
  Let the Sibelius users have their personal moment of pain/mourning; if
  they need open-source music notation, they will certainly be able to
  find us without our help.

 From my perspective, the loss of Sibelius is bad for *everyone* with a
 stake in music. I never used Sibelius; I never liked it. But many did,
 and many found their first creative voice through the software. I
 don't think its retraction will leave a void that will simply be
 filled by something else.

 It's a possible sign that music -- the type many of us are involved in
 -- is losing in the greater culture war. It's not LilyPond vs
 Sibelius vs Finale but rather Quality Music vs Cheap 
 Entertainment.

Uncompromising artistic discipline certainly has its pedagogical usefulness,
but when Orwellian concepts begin to creep in-- like a vague war
apparently dragging on for decades yet with heroes in perpetual danger
of defeat-- maybe it's time to come out of the woodshed.

 We're losing.

War is Peace. :)

-Jonathan

 -- 
 Neil Thornock, D.M.
 The recent premiere of ...and a bunch of other stuff:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQtvPet3k8c
 Assistant Professor of Music
 Composition/Theory
 Brigham Young University

 --

 ___
 lilypond-user mailing list
 lilypond-user@gnu.org
 https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

 End of lilypond-user Digest, Vol 117, Issue 20
 **

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down


On 06/08/12 20:26, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

Also, going MT will give you a max 8x speedup (assuming perfect
parallelization on an 8 core machine). That is not going to bring down
processing costs to interactive rates.


I think you're focusing on the wrong kind of architecture.

_This_ is the kind of setup that you should be aiming to exploit the 
multithreaded possibilities of:

http://www.zdnet.com/boston-virdis-192-core-server-consumes-only-300-watts-of-datacenter-power-701654/


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 06/08/12 20:26, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

Also, going MT will give you a max 8x speedup (assuming perfect
parallelization on an 8 core machine). That is not going to bring down
processing costs to interactive rates.

I think you're focusing on the wrong kind of architecture.

I'm talking about the architecture of computers that people can buy in
the shops today. While cute, a 192-way ARM server is useless in
realistic scenarios. See eg.
http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/pt-BR/us/pubs/archive/36448.pdf
- aka. Let's use 9 pregnant women, we'd have a baby within the
month.

Unless you have a embarrassingly parallel problem to begin with (which
music typesetting is not), lots of parallelism only buys you
synchronization overhead, both lock contention at run-time, and the
overhead of having to write race-condition-free parallel code.

Note that lilypond is embarassingly parallel at the file level, so for
the regression test, we already distribute the files on as many CPUs
as we have available.

_This_ is the kind of setup that you should be aiming to exploit the
multithreaded possibilities of:
http://www.zdnet.com/boston-virdis-192-core-server-consumes-only-300-watts-of-datacenter-power-701654/

--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

How to use clef moderntab

2012-08-06 Thread Ben Eichler

Hi there,


I'm a brand new user of Lilypond, just downloaded this morning! I'm using
it to create more beautiful scores for my guitar and bass students.

In the notation reference under section 2.4.1 Custom
tablatureshttp://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/common-notation-for-fretted-strings#custom-tablatures
there
is an alternative clef used called moderntab, which is a really nice
clean sans-serif clef. I tried inserting the declaration just as it was in
the code snippet, and it doesn't render in the pdf output! So I checked the
log, and this is what I'm getting:

*# -*-compilation-*-*
*Processing `C:/Users/Ben/Desktop/raindance2.ly'*
*Parsing...*
*Interpreting music... [8]*
*Preprocessing graphical objects...*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab_change' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab_change' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found*
*Finding the ideal number of pages...*
*Fitting music on 1 page...*
*Drawing systems...*
*Layout output to `/Users/Ben/Desktop/raindance2.ps'...*
*Converting to `/Users/Ben/Desktop/raindance2.pdf'...*
*success: Compilation successfully completed*

This is how I declared the staves (the variable symbols holds the musical
notes):

*\new StaffGroup *
*\new Staff \symbols {*
*\clef bass_8*
*}*
*\new TabStaff \symbols {*
*\clef moderntab*
*\set TabStaff.stringTunings = #bass-tuning*
*}*
**

Can anybody help me solve this novice's problem? Many thanks,


-Ben
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

2012-08-06 Thread Neil Thornock

 It's a possible sign that music -- the type many of us are involved in
 -- is losing in the greater culture war. It's not LilyPond vs
 Sibelius vs Finale but rather Quality Music vs Cheap
 Entertainment.

 Uncompromising artistic discipline certainly has its pedagogical usefulness,
 but when Orwellian concepts begin to creep in-- like a vague war
 apparently dragging on for decades yet with heroes in perpetual danger
 of defeat-- maybe it's time to come out of the woodshed.

No, that's not what I mean... Orchestras are going bankrupt, record
labels are going out of business, bands have much less chance of
making income now than before... Beatles were one of the top iTunes
downloads 2 years ago. How is a musician of today with a vision --
of any type -- supposed to make it these days (unless holed up in a
woodshed at some university, heaven forbid)? Cheap entertainment is
ruining the industry, with streaming, downloading, piracy galore, etc.
Unfortunately, the cheap is forced on many musicians now, since the
$2 required for quality productions just isn't worth it.

Sibelius was good for us. Many of my students came to music because of
software like Sibelius. A precious few came to LilyPond because of the
music. This opportunism is a bit mis-guided. I think we ought to be
fighting to save Sibelius as much as anything.



 We're losing.

 War is Peace. :)

 -Jonathan


 --
 Neil Thornock, D.M.
 The recent premiere of ...and a bunch of other stuff:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQtvPet3k8c
 Assistant Professor of Music
 Composition/Theory
 Brigham Young University



 --

 ___
 lilypond-user mailing list
 lilypond-user@gnu.org
 https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


 End of lilypond-user Digest, Vol 117, Issue 20
 **



 ___
 lilypond-user mailing list
 lilypond-user@gnu.org
 https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



-- 
Neil Thornock, D.M.
The recent premiere of ...and a bunch of other stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQtvPet3k8c
Assistant Professor of Music
Composition/Theory
Brigham Young University

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down



Han-Wen Nienhuys-5 wrote:
 
 On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
 joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
 On 06/08/12 20:26, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

 Also, going MT will give you a max 8x speedup (assuming perfect
 parallelization on an 8 core machine). That is not going to bring down
 processing costs to interactive rates.


 I think you're focusing on the wrong kind of architecture.
 
 I'm talking about the architecture of computers that people can buy in
 the shops today. While cute, a 192-way ARM server is useless in
 realistic scenarios. See eg.
 http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/pt-BR/us/pubs/archive/36448.pdf
 - aka. Let's use 9 pregnant women, we'd have a baby within the
 month.
 
 Unless you have a embarrassingly parallel problem to begin with (which
 music typesetting is not), lots of parallelism only buys you
 synchronization overhead, both lock contention at run-time, and the
 overhead of having to write race-condition-free parallel code.
 
 Note that lilypond is embarassingly parallel at the file level, so for
 the regression test, we already distribute the files on as many CPUs
 as we have available.
 
 _This_ is the kind of setup that you should be aiming to exploit the
 multithreaded possibilities of:
 http://www.zdnet.com/boston-virdis-192-core-server-consumes-only-300-watts-of-datacenter-power-701654/
 
 -- 
 Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
 
 ___
 lilypond-user mailing list
 lilypond-user@gnu.org
 https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
 
 

The reason this is important is because while IPC goes up incrementally and
relatively slowly (IPC has done little more than double between 2005 [P4
660] and now [i7 3930X]) and clock speed is relatively stagnant (it's
unlikely we'll ever get 8GHz stock x86 CPUs the way Intel predicted), core
count is the only real way to dramatically improve performance - over a
similar period, core count has gone up six-fold (in high-end parts), and
it's set to continue. I agree, talking about a typesetting program running
on a 192-core ARM server is a bit silly, but then, so is saying that an
8-fold increase in speed won't make the process instantaneous, then implying
that for this reason we shouldn't look for ways to make it work.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Sibelius-Software-UK-office-shuts-down-tp34245636p34264057.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: How to use clef moderntab

2012-08-06 Thread Shane Frasier

Ben,

I am still a bit of a novice myself, but I think you want to do something like:

\new StaffGroup 
\new Staff {
\clef bass_8
\symbols
}
\new TabStaff {
\clef moderntab
\set TabStaff.stringTunings = #bass-tuning
\symbols
}


Shane
-
Shane Frasier
sfras...@mac.com



On Aug 6, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Ben Eichler wrote:

 Hi there,
 
 
 I'm a brand new user of Lilypond, just downloaded this morning! I'm using it 
 to create more beautiful scores for my guitar and bass students.
 
 In the notation reference under section 2.4.1 Custom tablatures there is an 
 alternative clef used called moderntab, which is a really nice clean 
 sans-serif clef. I tried inserting the declaration just as it was in the code 
 snippet, and it doesn't render in the pdf output! So I checked the log, and 
 this is what I'm getting:
 
 # -*-compilation-*-
 Processing `C:/Users/Ben/Desktop/raindance2.ly'
 Parsing...
 Interpreting music... [8]
 Preprocessing graphical objects...
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab_change' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab_change' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 warning: clef `markup.moderntab' not found
 Finding the ideal number of pages...
 Fitting music on 1 page...
 Drawing systems...
 Layout output to `/Users/Ben/Desktop/raindance2.ps'...
 Converting to `/Users/Ben/Desktop/raindance2.pdf'...
 success: Compilation successfully completed
 
 This is how I declared the staves (the variable symbols holds the musical 
 notes):
 
 \new StaffGroup 
 \new Staff \symbols {
 \clef bass_8
 }
 \new TabStaff \symbols {
 \clef moderntab
 \set TabStaff.stringTunings = #bass-tuning
 }
 
 
 Can anybody help me solve this novice's problem? Many thanks,
 
 
 -Ben
 ___
 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: How to use clef moderntab

2012-08-06 Thread Nick Payne


On 07/08/12 09:03, Ben Eichler wrote:

/\new StaffGroup /
/\new Staff \symbols {/
/\clef bass_8/
/}/
/\new TabStaff \symbols {/
/\clef moderntab/
/\set TabStaff.stringTunings = #bass-tuning/
/}/
//


Move \symbols after the clef declaration:

\version 2.15.42

symbols = { a, e a1 }

\new StaffGroup 
\new Staff {
\clef bass_8
\symbols
}
\new TabStaff {
\clef moderntab
\set TabStaff.stringTunings = #bass-tuning
\symbols
}

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

How to use clef moderntab

2012-08-06 Thread wjm


Greetings,
You wrote
++
\new StaffGroup 
\new Staff \symbols {
\clef bass_8
}
\new TabStaff \symbols {
\clef moderntab
\set TabStaff.stringTunings = #bass-tuning
}

++
From the Notation Reference - slightly edited

\new TabStaff
{
  \clef moderntab
  \music
}

Note the ordering of the 'words' ie the syntax.
:)
Hope this helps

Cheers
Bill

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:56 PM, George_ georgexu...@gmail.com wrote:
 The reason this is important is because while IPC goes up incrementally and
 relatively slowly (IPC has done little more than double between 2005 [P4
 660] and now [i7 3930X]) and clock speed is relatively stagnant (it's
 unlikely we'll ever get 8GHz stock x86 CPUs the way Intel predicted), core
 count is the only real way to dramatically improve performance - over a
 similar period, core count has gone up six-fold (in high-end parts), and
 it's set to continue. I agree, talking about a typesetting program running
 on a 192-core ARM server is a bit silly, but then, so is saying that an
 8-fold increase in speed won't make the process instantaneous, then implying
 that for this reason we shouldn't look for ways to make it work.

I'm trying to explain that the constant factor (namely 8-fold) comes
at a tremendous cost. Writing multithreaded code without getting stuck
in race-conditions and deadlocks is extremely difficult and time
consuming, and lilypond already has a shortage of developers without
taking on parallelism.

In the context of the original remark (making lilypond more suited as
a rendering engine), multithreading is simply a stupid way to spend
programmer resources. If you're writing a GUI using Lily as a
renderer, have the GUI manage the data structures (and possibly, the
parallelism), so LilyPond can suffice to stay simple and
single-threaded,

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Can anyone help to code what is in png.

2012-08-06 Thread David Kastrup

MING TSANG tsan...@rogers.com writes:

 I try to code per the png.   I don't know what it is call, therefore I
 cannot search LSR.

 Help is appreciated.

The LSR is just the second important reference.  The most important
reference is the notation manual, and it is ordered by topic.  In this
case, you would look under durations, in the chapter/section Musical
notation/Rhythms/Writing Rhythms/Durations.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down




Han-Wen Nienhuys-5 wrote:
 
 On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:56 PM, George_ georgexu...@gmail.com wrote:
 The reason this is important is because while IPC goes up incrementally
 and
 relatively slowly (IPC has done little more than double between 2005 [P4
 660] and now [i7 3930X]) and clock speed is relatively stagnant (it's
 unlikely we'll ever get 8GHz stock x86 CPUs the way Intel predicted),
 core
 count is the only real way to dramatically improve performance - over a
 similar period, core count has gone up six-fold (in high-end parts), and
 it's set to continue. I agree, talking about a typesetting program
 running
 on a 192-core ARM server is a bit silly, but then, so is saying that an
 8-fold increase in speed won't make the process instantaneous, then
 implying
 that for this reason we shouldn't look for ways to make it work.
 
 I'm trying to explain that the constant factor (namely 8-fold) comes
 at a tremendous cost. Writing multithreaded code without getting stuck
 in race-conditions and deadlocks is extremely difficult and time
 consuming, and lilypond already has a shortage of developers without
 taking on parallelism.
 
 In the context of the original remark (making lilypond more suited as
 a rendering engine), multithreading is simply a stupid way to spend
 programmer resources. If you're writing a GUI using Lily as a
 renderer, have the GUI manage the data structures (and possibly, the
 parallelism), so LilyPond can suffice to stay simple and
 single-threaded,
 
 -- 
 Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
 
 ___
 lilypond-user mailing list
 lilypond-user@gnu.org
 https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
 
 
Where does the GUI come from?
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Sibelius-Software-UK-office-shuts-down-tp34245636p34264410.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: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:50 AM, George_ georgexu...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm trying to explain that the constant factor (namely 8-fold) comes
 at a tremendous cost. Writing multithreaded code without getting stuck
 in race-conditions and deadlocks is extremely difficult and time
 consuming, and lilypond already has a shortage of developers without
 taking on parallelism.

 In the context of the original remark (making lilypond more suited as
 a rendering engine), multithreading is simply a stupid way to spend
 programmer resources. If you're writing a GUI using Lily as a
 renderer, have the GUI manage the data structures (and possibly, the
 parallelism), so LilyPond can suffice to stay simple and
 single-threaded,

 Where does the GUI come from?

See Lucas Gonzo's mail earlier in the thread,

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down