Re: Problems with LilyJAZZ.ily
2013/12/2 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org Wouldn't it make sense to integrate the bend stuff into LilyPond? That would make it easier to match versions and behavior. I think that it would be great. I've never used it much because of version conflicts and because I hoped that 1196 would have been solved sooner or later. Now since the work on 1196 seems stalling, integrating the bend stuff in lilypond sounds sensible to me. I'll have the chance to test it in real music examples in the coming weeks. Should I split issue 1196? I may create a new issue to integrate this stuff and rename 1196 as add an engraver for bending. Because AFAIK the bend stuff is experimental and it would work better if a specific engraver was created. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Problems with LilyJAZZ.ily
2013/12/2 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@gmail.com writes:
it's because grace-notes are beamed per default with 2.17.96.
Change the example to
\bendGrace { \preBendRelease c8( \noBeam d)( } c2) r2
or better the definition of 'preBendRelease' to
Wouldn't it make sense to integrate the bend stuff into LilyPond? That
would make it easier to match versions and behavior.
Sure, but from what i see the code would require some cleanup to go
through review - the question is, who'd like to do this. I started
some cleanup (https://github.com/openlilylib/snippets/pull/16) but at
the moment i don't have time to do this thoroughly.
best,
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Basic command line question
Hello, I have not used command line for several years. Now I'd like to use musicxml2ly, and have forgotten how I invoked it in 2008. I first run cmd.exe on XP, changing to d:\my documents, then musicxml2ly overture.xml. But the prompt said that musicxml2ly is not an internal or external command or executable or batch processing file. I know I'm wrong, but don't know how to do. Could anyone point out the basic command line running method to correctly invoke things like musicxml2ly, svn etc? Regards Haipeng ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Basic command line question
Eluze wrote 胡海鹏 - Hu Haipeng wrote I have not used command line for several years. Now I'd like to use musicxml2ly, and have forgotten how I invoked it in 2008. I first run cmd.exe on XP, changing to d:\my documents, then musicxml2ly overture.xml. But the prompt said that musicxml2ly is not an internal or external command or executable or batch processing file. I know I'm wrong, but don't know how to do. Could anyone point out the basic command line running method to correctly invoke things like musicxml2ly, svn etc? usually on Windows - C:\Program Files (x86)\LilyPond\usr\bin is in the system variable / path / - check this with the command / set path / if the above folder is not in the variable you can invoke the procedure with C:\Program Files (x86)\LilyPond\usr\bin\musicxml2ly yourfile.xml if that doesn't work I'd suggest to reinstall LilyPond (with the installer) Eluze of course this should be written with apostrophes: C:\Program Files (x86)\LilyPond\usr\bin\musicxml2ly yourfile.xml Eluze -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Basic-command-line-question-tp154836p154838.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
promoting LilyPond (was: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially)
Hi all, a very important discussion! A couple thoughts: 2013/12/1 Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com: LP came out in the midst of other packages that already existed. As a result, it is fighting for marketshare in a relatively mature market. Granted, it is possible to overcome this hurdle, as Google Chrome seems to be doing in the Browser Wars, but it takes something special for that to happen. In the case of Firefox and Chrome, that something was IE's truly abysmal performance in the IE 6-8 years. That's true. What's more, web browser users are just consumers. With notation packages, they are creators: - learning how to create takes days or weeks (while learning how to consume takes minutes), - creators have a lot of their content tied to a specific format. 2013/12/1 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Urs wrote: Most people I tried to persuade simply said this isn't my cup of tea, I'm not a programmer”. THAT is the main problem right there — one we are likely never to overcome, as much as I hate to admit it. Yup... As i see it, 90% of people notating music will never want to use LilyPond, and we cannot do much about it: - they don't care about high quality (just want good enough), - they want to do things the easiest way, and LilyPond will never appear to be the easiest choice, - etc. Unfortunately, people who don't have money for Finale/Sibelius usually pirate it (instead of using Free Software). Also, some smaller publishers i've talked with seem not to care much about quality engraving, and big publishers have a lot of inertia and stick to tried programs. Still, something like 10% of people *could* be convinced to using LilyPond. Some of them (2-3% of notation software users?) would actually prefer using Lily for some reason. Let's not waste time trying to convince the ones who cannot be convinced, and instead try finding people who may actually like LilyPond, but don't know that they could use it: - people with no money AND strong etthics, who won't pirate software (e.g. monks/other religious people that typeset religious music), - public companies with little money, which cannot risk using pirated software, - people who want to Do Things The Right Way (usually geeks) - these usually won't be scared by text input at all, - professional engravers that really want perfect results, - other professionals who would benefit from very advanced workflows (using version control). This is what Urs was talking about and i really think it would be a very good opportunity for LilyPond. - people who still use Score - they do care about quality, they shouldn't be scared by learning curve, - organizations funded by governments (0 price should be a big advantage to them, and gonvernments should be promoting open culture anyway), - people who don't use any notation yet - students. 2013/12/1 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: Here are the problems I run into: (1) most musicians/composers/institutions are already using something. So we need to catch them before they do. Janek got a number of his choir colleagues to enter Stabat Mater (don't remember whose, Pergolesi?) into LilyPond. It was Handel's Dixit Dominus (http://lilypondblog.org/2013/06/crowd-engraving-whats-that-part-1/) - very simple notation-wise. But later we entered more complex pieces as well. Still, most of them were geeky people (physics PhD, a couple programmers, math students). The approach i used there (i mean crowd-engraving) proved to be a good one, but we'd have to make a lot things simpler to make this really effective. I mean, i was the only one who could combine the parts into the full score - creating \score blocks (real-life \score blocks, with all nuances and settings) is too difficult for beginners. So, what should we do now? I suggest to create some comparisons and promotional materials, similar to what is already in our Essay, but more diverse and in a more compact form. I already have some stuff like that which i could share and translate. Who'd like to join this effort? Also, the currently published series of articles on the lilypondblog.org aims to make a foundation for this effort (evangelize about LilyPond). best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:31 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: SoundsFromSound soundsfromso...@gmail.com writes: The biggest complaint I've heard from many of my peers (when it comes to possibly switching from Finale/Sibelius) is that LilyPond looks like way too much work and Text input?? That makes absolutely no sense for music. You're not writing a book! It's a score!. Well, I'd argue that a mouse makes absolutely no sense for music input. A practised typist can write several hundred words per minute and keep this up for quite a long time. Input the same amount of information with a mouse, and you'll have Repetitive Strain Injury in no time at all. I don't know about several hundred words per minute (is that even physically possible?), but the last time I took a secretarial test, I rated around 70-75 wpm. For transcription work, I use direct text input exclusively. It is faster and more intuitive than either point-and-click mouse entry or (computer) keyboard entry in point-and-click programs (the latter because I don't have to think about relative intervals). For composition and arranging, I sometimes directly input into LP, but I also use MuseScore to play with the notes (pun intended). When I am finished, I will manually retype the finished parts into my LP template. If I am composing away from the computer, I will frequently compose using LP syntax. By this point, I can look at LP code for SATB parts and more or less hear what it's supposed to sound like, check for objectionable parallels, etc., as well as if I were looking at traditional music notation. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Henning Hraban Ramm lilypon...@fiee.netwrote: I guess „we“ have a chance in combination with TeX, i.e. at universities etc. where TeX is in broad use, since the approach and needed expertise is similar. Good luck with that, at least if my university was any indication of things. The only users of (La)TeX was the mathematics department (and then, really only the professors---I learned LaTeX and wrote basically all my math papers using it, but I know of few other students who did...they opted to use the formula editor in Microsoft Word, which, admittedly, got better with Office 2007, but I digress). The math department and the music department don't talk to each other. Almost literally. Larger universities may have broader LaTeX support and better collaboration, but that's what I've seen. Carl P. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
improving LilyPond useability (was: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially)
Hi all, this is quite a different subject from the promoting LilyPond stuff, so i separated this thread. 2013/12/1 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: Kieren wrote: Result? Not a single successful convert [to Lily] to date. I think Frescobaldi with its templates would likely be helpful. Possibly also Denemo. Staring at an empty canvas without any controls is a bit disconcerting. Basically you need to have a printout with the basics at hand. How many pages is our tutorial? Learning Manual is 200 pages. 10 times too long - noone except the most nerdy people would read it (no surprise that i'm using Lily - i'm a nerd ;P). Even the Tutorial part of it is way too long (20 pages just to get the program running and another 20 pages to get very basic notation!!). I've created a Quick-start tutorial some time ago - my choir colleagues used it when crowd-typesetting Dixit Dominus. It's only 6 pages long and covers nearly all basic notation elements than a beginner would need - but it's not just a cheat-sheet: it introduces and teaches how to use Lily. Add to that 3 pages explaining how to write basic structure and we'd have something that gives an easy (but complete enough) introduction to LilyPond in half an hour (as opposed to 2 days of reading and heavy thinking for the Learning manual). I'd be more than happy to share this tutorial and translate it, but i don't have time to lead an effort to incorporate it in our docs. So, if someone wants to take responsibility for this, i'll help, but without support this will not work out! 2013/12/1 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: Henning Hraban Ramm lilypon...@fiee.net writes: Am 2013-12-01 um 19:15 schrieb David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648 Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for unpitched notes I hear you - as a magazine layouter I seldom get feedback at all, and then mostly some nitpicking of the authors. Hey, isolated durations are GREAT! I can remember some pieces where they would have been very handy. Well, the main reason I'm surprised is that a few years ago there were proposals about it and I said this will have to wait until some other parser parts are where they need to be and there was wailing and gnashing of teeth. Well, i think i know why there is so little resonance: too little advertising. You put the patch in the tacker - that's where patches should be added, but it doesn't make it very visible: issue tracker is not a newsreader. I barely manage to look at patches that hit the countdown - not always, in fact - and i suppose that there are not many people that regularly swoop the tracker to see what's going on. And i don't remember this patch being announced in some special way. What could you do to make sure that outstanding improvements are noticed? Good question. For example, write a post on the blog (or at least -user) saying A long-awaited feature is finally implemented, mention people who requested it (with links), show all things that will be possible thanks to this patch, throw in a custom-built binary containing the patch so that power users could test it before it's actually merged into master. I bet 10 Euro that you'd get 3 times more publicity if you do this :-) (If i win the bet, i'll donate the money to Lily development!) 2013/12/1 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's overwhelmingly daunting. …even for me, and I’m one of Lily’s biggest users in terms of number and size and “real-ness” of scores. Well, we'll probably need some open discussion of common problems and imaginary input that would make it considerably easier for people to overcome them. Well, that's what i'm trying to do for very long time: identify common problems (for example in articles on LilyPond blog, and in the analysis that was published in the LilyPond Report a long time ago). We tried this a year ago during GLISS - it didn't quite work out, but maybe we could try again. Anyway, we could do a poll about this. best, Janek PS 2013/12/1 Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com: But the feedback I get about Denemo is almost entirely positive - those who find it unusable just quietly switch to something else, out of politeness I guess. Most unhelpful! I've been guilty of this - I'm sorry! It's been a long time since i tried Denemo, and i no longer remember what the problem was. If i get some time to try again, i'll report. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On 01/12/13 15:09, immanuel litzroth wrote: 1) I don't seem to run into many of these problems with lilypond and I do transcriptions of small ensembles *and* export all the voices separately (that's including drums) -- I almost never have to clean up for readability issues, and don't have the time to do it for aesthetic issues. Lilypond is generally better at automatically placing most musical elements in the right place. There are usually fewer score -- parts discrepancies in Lilypond-engraved works as a result, but the general problem is still something that needs care and attention. Don't forget, too, that part of the reason you get good results out of Lilypond is because _you_ are the one using Lilypond and you know what it is that you want to achieve in the score. Part of the reason you know that you rarely have to clean up for readability issues in the parts is because ... you actually check the parts. It's probably more than can be said for your Sibelius-using suppliers. :-) After all, if they'd given a toss about the parts, that guitar part would have at least had a cue melody line in it ... 2) The contention was that this stuff would be easier in Sibelius. Not that you can get it right there too. Sibelius doesn't get things automatically right as well as Lilypond does, but it's usually much, much easier to correct or customize them when it doesn't give you what you want, which in turn means that it's easier to get what you want in general. But the lack of automation does make you vulnerable to idiots who don't do proper quality control or who have no clue about what is wanted. I don't know if you use or have used Sibelius, but if you're judging it solely on the grounds of the bad parts you get from bad suppliers, you're not really assessing the software at all. The real measure of engraving software shouldn't be, How readily does it stop an idiot from getting it wrong? but, How readily does it let a user achieve the notation they want to achieve? For the record, I'm not speaking out in favour of Sibelius in any general sense here. I just think that one should try and understand why it is that software like this has the user-base and staying power that it does. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Another time model (related to the usability thread)
Picking up on a comment of Kieren's, which I think doesn't need to hijack David's financial support thread... I find LilyPond's model of time to be the most inconvenient aspect of the input format -- so inconvenient that it alone may be enough to drive people away. Time is represented exclusively in terms of Inter-Onset Intervals. This is great for streams of events, but perfectly wretched for multiple streams that must coordinate. Example: Suppose I'm writing an orchestral piece with, oh, 40 staves. The music changes meter every 2 or 3 bars. One extended passage is a duet between two soloists; all other players rest. If I (wisely) use a global variable to coordinate the meter changes, I have to write the metrical structure in spacer rests. For the parts, I have to a/ write scheme to convert spacers to full-bar rests, after extracting only the segment of the global variable corresponding to the required bars, or b/ replicate the metric structure in dozens of staves, simply replacing s with R. (IIRC there's also some finagling involved in full-bar rests for meters like 5/8.) Now let's say that we don't live in a perfect world and I didn't write everything in perfect form on paper before engraving. Then I decide that one 2/4 bar should actually be 3/4. So now I have to change s2 to s2. in the global variable AND I have to change some representation of time (whether a literal R or a scheme function invocation) in EVERY part. These are likely to be in separate include files, making it a time-consuming and fragile operation (leaving aside the inevitable arithmetic errors that result when counting beats over frequent meter changes). This is in sharp contrast to Finale, where a full-bar rest is simply a bar with nothing in it. Change the meter for the measure stack, and the full-bar rests adjust automatically. And I haven't even mentioned inserting or deleting bars, which is trivial in Finale. In some ways, this is a worst-case scenario for LilyPond's input format. It's also a completely realistic scenario for new-music composers working with large ensembles, and LilyPond handles it embarrassingly poorly. It drove me batty when I was working on a /trio/. I can't imagine dealing with this in an orchestral score. (Unless there's some magic trick I don't know about, which is entirely possible.) It may be that LilyPond code is too low-level an abstraction for this use case, and that a kind of meta-code is what's needed. I guess Denemo is a step in that direction. I don't have a concrete proposal, but in the context of recent discussions, I thought this is worth pointing out as an area which a convert from Finale or Sibelius is likely to run into and think, But that's... insane (likely inserting various obscenities in place of the ellipsis). hjh ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: improving LilyPond useability
Hi, I believe first impressions are important, and I think that LilyPond lets itself down here. After installing LilyPond, a new user will discover a new icon on their desktop. They'll double click on it, and what do they get?a sort-of read me file (it's LilyPad, but you wouldn't know that unless you spotted the header/title), and a command prompt that doesn't work or do anything (many computer users have never seen or even heard of a command prompt!). So often people after buying a new shiny thingy, open the box, plug it in, and only after numerous failed attempts to get it to work, decide to read the manual...software users are not that different. If you've invested money you'll soldier on and figure it out, but if it didn't cost you anything, and you're left confused, you'll probably just close it down and move on. My tuppence worth. Phil. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Basic command line question
胡海鹏 - Hu Haipeng wrote I have not used command line for several years. Now I'd like to use musicxml2ly, and have forgotten how I invoked it in 2008. I first run cmd.exe on XP, changing to d:\my documents, then musicxml2ly overture.xml. But the prompt said that musicxml2ly is not an internal or external command or executable or batch processing file. I know I'm wrong, but don't know how to do. Could anyone point out the basic command line running method to correctly invoke things like musicxml2ly, svn etc? usually on Windows - C:\Program Files (x86)\LilyPond\usr\bin is in the system variable /path/ - check this with the command /set path/ if the above folder is not in the variable you can invoke the procedure with C:\Program Files (x86)\LilyPond\usr\bin\musicxml2ly yourfile.xml if that doesn't work I'd suggest to reinstall LilyPond (with the installer) Eluze -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Basic-command-line-question-tp154836p154837.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
2) The contention was that this stuff would be easier in Sibelius. Not that you can get it right there too. Sibelius doesn't get things automatically right as well as Lilypond does, but it's usually much, much easier to correct or customize them when it doesn't give you what you want, which in turn means that it's easier to get what you want in general. But the lack of automation does make you vulnerable to idiots who don't do proper quality control or who have no clue about what is wanted. I don't know if you use or have used Sibelius, but if you're judging it solely on the grounds of the bad parts you get from bad suppliers, you're not really assessing the software at all. The real measure of engraving software shouldn't be, How readily does it stop an idiot from getting it wrong? but, How readily does it let a user achieve the notation they want to achieve? For the record, I'm not speaking out in favour of Sibelius in any general sense here. I just think that one should try and understand why it is that software like this has the user-base and staying power that it does. I've tried Sibelius and Finale (way back...) and I far prefer Lilypond to both. But I'm a C++ programmer that uses emacs 10h/day, I might be a little eccentric :-) Immanuel ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: improving LilyPond useability
Phil Burfitt phil.burf...@talktalk.net writes: I believe first impressions are important, and I think that LilyPond lets itself down here. After installing LilyPond, a new user will discover a new icon on their desktop. They'll double click on it, and what do they get?a sort-of read me file (it's LilyPad, but you wouldn't know that unless you spotted the header/title), and a command prompt that doesn't work or do anything (many computer users have never seen or even heard of a command prompt!). Well, we are selling a Porsche engine. So that people can start doing something useful with it right away, it gets delivered built into a dune buggy. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: promoting LilyPond
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: 2013/12/1 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Urs wrote: Most people I tried to persuade simply said this isn't my cup of tea, I'm not a programmer”. THAT is the main problem right there — one we are likely never to overcome, as much as I hate to admit it. Yup... As i see it, 90% of people notating music will never want to use LilyPond, and we cannot do much about it: - they don't care about high quality (just want good enough), I think the high quality is a nice touch. Part of the reason we have it is that the programmers don't spend all of their time catering to GUI centric stuff. But it has nothing to do really with text based input. There are other text-based formats like ABC, MusiXTeX, PMX, GuitarTeX and so on. Picking LilyPond over any of them should be a no-brainer, but it obviously isn't. - they want to do things the easiest way, and LilyPond will never appear to be the easiest choice, We should not worry too much about appearance. It's the realities we have to work on. It's a text based format is no excuse for complexity. One does not make violins more popular by transcribing piano music for them and vice versa, so we really need to work on playing to our own strengths instead of being apologetic. The basic mantra for any tools is: simple tasks should be simple to do. And we have quite a way to go there still. Unfortunately, people who don't have money for Finale/Sibelius usually pirate it (instead of using Free Software). Also, some smaller publishers i've talked with seem not to care much about quality engraving, and big publishers have a lot of inertia and stick to tried programs. If quality engraving comes at the cost of the amount of manual tweaks you put into your scores, it's not a selling point for LilyPond. LilyPond's strengths are what it is able to do automatically: transpositions, partial partitures, catering to different page formats, fast adaption to different orchestras... Your score is _malleable_. Let's not waste time trying to convince the ones who cannot be convinced, and instead try finding people who may actually like LilyPond, but don't know that they could use it: - people with no money AND strong etthics, who won't pirate software (e.g. monks/other religious people that typeset religious music), Again, I don't think the no money aspect should be a primary selling point. - public companies with little money, which cannot risk using pirated software, How about companies which cannot risk getting locked in to software that may stop being maintained in future? - other professionals who would benefit from very advanced workflows (using version control). This is what Urs was talking about and i really think it would be a very good opportunity for LilyPond. Oh, web collaboration and score crowdsourcing is essential. Mutopia is all but dead. Should we try to get a hook into Wikimedia? At any rate, we need to pitch LilyPond to _ourselves_ and listen what annoys us. Particularly when explaining LilyPond to others and/or pitching it to them. The approach i used there (i mean crowd-engraving) proved to be a good one, but we'd have to make a lot things simpler to make this really effective. I mean, i was the only one who could combine the parts into the full score - creating \score blocks (real-life \score blocks, with all nuances and settings) is too difficult for beginners. Good, then we have to make a lot of things simpler to make this really effective. I would imagine that the combining parts into the full score thing is something that a live template engine for Frescobaldi should help with. Where a live template is not just some code copied for a starting point, but more something like a folding editor of a predetermined structure where you tie parts in that are stored in separate files. Then you can hand out that template, and regularly update those files that people are _not_ currently working on (for example, git merges fine when everybody edits different files). -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:31 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Well, I'd argue that a mouse makes absolutely no sense for music input. A practised typist can write several hundred words per minute and keep this up for quite a long time. Input the same amount of information with a mouse, and you'll have Repetitive Strain Injury in no time at all. I don't know about several hundred words per minute (is that even physically possible?), but the last time I took a secretarial test, I rated around 70-75 wpm. Well, I misremembered. The world record appears to be 236 wpm, and that's not really several. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: improving LilyPond useability
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:06:13 - Phil Burfitt phil.burf...@talktalk.net wrote: So often people after buying a new shiny thingy, open the box, plug it in, and only after numerous failed attempts to get it to work, decide to read the manual Well they'd hit the same wall with Latex, it doesn't do anything by default, yet still it's the undisputed standard for scientific typesetting. I'd say that lilypond is more or less as good as Latex (which is not perfect, it *is* rather messy at times), the great difference is there is much more interest in Latex so there is excellent documentation and a lot of community activity. Now, one could make the argument that the crowd Lilypond has to appeal to (musicians) is in general far less accostumed to command line programs rather then Latex's crowd (scientist); I'd argue back that Lilypond doesn't really have to appeal to someone who doesn't see the advantages of WYSIWYM vs. WYSIWYG and doesn't take the time to learn it. I mean, lilypond is text-editor + command-line by design, you don't really get around these programs without reading docs (and you shouldn't try to make it easy). So I think improving lilypond's usability should boil down to: 1) better language functionality (personally I haven't used lilypond all that much so I can't really point out any show-stopper there) 2) better docs and nothing else my 2 cents, cheers renato -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSnLowAAoJEBz6xFdttjrf7EMIAIEuDvT36WaQ8MwA60TqinFK rIngCy9PfVVqVYKS/YgiP3DkV5/GWapEx36HKJkJmZrmYL46Xfs4i0G1Rw+3CqIi 3zOqA8kg4N0iQvrfbuzf7f3GQENN26lFdLVT2RCtm8qMnA+GT9JfzCavXTZPNdvQ 8/PXoAaHE1AAZFcFmTI63+WMHfGGKexLCvlKbLNRCRUojJAKNAjtHg+uXIbDkuRM dzY6oWKPBdkPGn5C2Bvn60MfuolC7/k4EtvvGFNPqeVETYHY+Vzl5LMe86zVuBKX OlH0p9AHxeav21uRPLvkZdNDRjZYk5CyEFz2jwGstax9Dg2nir+waMJzDUtGcOo= =BMq3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: improving LilyPond useability
-Original Message-
From: Janek Warchoł [mailto:janek.lilyp...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 8:50 AM
To: LilyPond Users; Jan Nieuwenhuizen; David Kastrup; Urs Liska; Noeck;
Kieren MacMillan; Joseph Wakeling; Benjamin CL; Richard Shann
Subject: improving LilyPond useability (was: Supporting my work on LilyPond
financially)
Learning Manual is 200 pages. 10 times too long - noone except the most
nerdy people would read it (no surprise that i'm using Lily - i'm a nerd ;P).
Even the Tutorial part of it is way too long (20 pages just to get the
program
running and another 20 pages to get very basic notation!!).
\repeat unfold 300 { +1 }
I've created a Quick-start tutorial some time ago - my choir colleagues used
it when crowd-typesetting Dixit Dominus. It's only
6 pages long and covers nearly all basic notation elements than a beginner
would need - but it's not just a cheat-sheet: it introduces and teaches how to
use Lily. Add to that 3 pages explaining how to write basic structure and
we'd
have something that gives an easy (but complete enough) introduction to
LilyPond in half an hour (as opposed to 2 days of reading and heavy thinking
for the Learning manual).
Sounds awesome.
I'd be more than happy to share this tutorial and translate it, but i don't
have
time to lead an effort to incorporate it in our docs. So, if someone wants to
take responsibility for this, i'll help, but without support this will not
work
out!
I would definitely be willing to help with this, but I’m afraid that my skill
set may be too limited to take the lead--in particular, I don't speak any
languages well enough to translate them into English without resorting to
Google.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Another time model (related to the usability thread)
Am 2013-12-02 um 20:56 schrieb James Harkins jamshar...@gmail.com: Now let's say that we don't live in a perfect world and I didn't write everything in perfect form on paper before engraving. Then I decide that one 2/4 bar should actually be 3/4. So now I have to change s2 to s2. in the global variable AND I have to change some representation of time (whether a literal R or a scheme function invocation) in EVERY part. These are likely to be in separate include files, making it a time-consuming and fragile operation (leaving aside the inevitable arithmetic errors that result when counting beats over frequent meter changes). I have similar problems if I try to get „just the song“ from a sample that’s intended for e.g. piano: Ok, I don’t need that prelude, and the changes in this repetition’s alternate don’t concern the vocals, so do it without alternate … And then I see too late I need the alternative anyway, but from a different measure on, and afterwards I want that prelude back. So I need to change at least vocals and chords synchronously, if there aren’t more voices. But I can’t imagine a way to enhance this situation with LilyPond’s text approach, as much as I like it otherwise. Maybe there’s a chance with Frescobaldi in the future. Greetlings, Hraban --- fiëé visuëlle Henning Hraban Ramm http://www.fiee.net http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/ https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Error in Manual?
There seems to be an error in the manual (perhaps a hold over from older version). I'm getting two problems on section 4.3.1 and elsewhere. This kind of notation: \override BarLine.stencil = ##f gives me an error. I need to use \override BarLine #'stencil = ##f instead, but a number of the examples use the dot. Also, the \omit function is not recognized by my versions (was using version 12.4, but updating to the most recent stable version has the same problem). --Jason Yust ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Error in Manual?
On 2013-12-02 18:11, Jason Yust wrote: There seems to be an error in the manual (perhaps a hold over from older version). I'm getting two problems on section 4.3.1 and elsewhere. This kind of notation: \override BarLine.stencil = ##f gives me an error. I need to use \override BarLine #'stencil = ##f instead, but a number of the examples use the dot. Also, the \omit function is not recognized by my versions (was using version 12.4, but updating to the most recent stable version has the same problem). Looks like you are viewing version 2.17.x version of the manual and using 2.16.x version of Lilypond. if you look at the url you will see the version, e.g. http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/learning/visibility-and-color-of-objects or http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/learning/visibility-and-color-of-objects So, always use the same version in the program and the manual. // Anders -- English isn't my first language. So any error or strangeness is due to the translation. Please correct my English so that I may become better. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
I'm a retired school teacher, I know some C++, I'd be happy to help out with dev if I can, though I may not know enough, but would be willing to try. I know some c++ and lisp/scheme and music theory. I have a Windows 7 laptop, Netbeans for C++ dev. Let me know if there may be ways to help out with the development end. - thanks On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:29 AM, immanuel litzroth ilitzr...@gmail.comwrote: 2) The contention was that this stuff would be easier in Sibelius. Not that you can get it right there too. Sibelius doesn't get things automatically right as well as Lilypond does, but it's usually much, much easier to correct or customize them when it doesn't give you what you want, which in turn means that it's easier to get what you want in general. But the lack of automation does make you vulnerable to idiots who don't do proper quality control or who have no clue about what is wanted. I don't know if you use or have used Sibelius, but if you're judging it solely on the grounds of the bad parts you get from bad suppliers, you're not really assessing the software at all. The real measure of engraving software shouldn't be, How readily does it stop an idiot from getting it wrong? but, How readily does it let a user achieve the notation they want to achieve? For the record, I'm not speaking out in favour of Sibelius in any general sense here. I just think that one should try and understand why it is that software like this has the user-base and staying power that it does. I've tried Sibelius and Finale (way back...) and I far prefer Lilypond to both. But I'm a C++ programmer that uses emacs 10h/day, I might be a little eccentric :-) Immanuel ___ 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: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
R.D. Latimer rdlati...@gmail.com writes: I'm a retired school teacher, I know some C++, I'd be happy to help out with dev if I can, though I may not know enough, but would be willing to try. I know some c++ and lisp/scheme and music theory. I have a Windows 7 laptop, Netbeans for C++ dev. Let me know if there may be ways to help out with the development end. - thanks Well, we have a Ubuntu VM setup called Lilydev that is used for development on Windows: there are so many dependencies to other free software easily available and installed on typical GNU/Linux systems that the developers have at some point of time given up on native Windows development. Not sure whether you'll be able to use the Netbeans with that. Try checking out the Contributor's Guide URL:http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/contributor/index.html and see whether this gives you a somewhat better idea what you are dealing with here. What we need badly is actually code reviewers: there are a lot of lone wolf developers around who create and commit changes without a lot of review going on between them. Having a person pitch in and state what kind of new code needs commenting/explaining for the average programmer to be able to maintain/follow it is likely helpful. You have to be aware, however, that the current commenting style in the code will make you feel like a veterinarian doing an internship in a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, trying to set the bones in broken chicken wings. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: improving LilyPond useability
- Original Message - From: Renato renn...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 4:49 PM I mean, lilypond is text-editor + command-line by design Of course, but what it the point of invoking a command prompt that _doesn't work_ when clicking on the lilypond icon (the view from a windows machine), and popping-up lilypad which will possibly confuse the user who has just downloaded a program called lilypond? you don't really get around these programs without reading docs (and you shouldn't try to make it easy). I disagree with you shouldn't try to make it easy. Wouldn't it be far better after installing lilypond, to present the user with a cut down tutorial and usage instructions in a read-me file, and two desktop icons/shortcuts...one for this read-me file, and the other for invoking lilypond without arguments, which would then throw out a usage message? Phil. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: improving LilyPond useability
Phil Burfitt phil.burf...@talktalk.net writes: From: Renato renn...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 4:49 PM I mean, lilypond is text-editor + command-line by design Of course, but what it the point of invoking a command prompt that _doesn't work_ when clicking on the lilypond icon (the view from a windows machine), and popping-up lilypad which will possibly confuse the user who has just downloaded a program called lilypond? you don't really get around these programs without reading docs (and you shouldn't try to make it easy). I disagree with you shouldn't try to make it easy. Yup. The whole point with Lilypad was to make the first steps easier. Wouldn't it be far better after installing lilypond, to present the user with a cut down tutorial and usage instructions in a read-me file, and two desktop icons/shortcuts...one for this read-me file, and the other for invoking lilypond without arguments, which would then throw out a usage message? Well, I have no idea. I don't use user-friendly operating systems. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Other programming languages LilyPond
A friend of mine, who is a long time Finale user, asked me today: Does LilyPond allow you to use programming languages like Lua for scripting or functions to expand its capabilities? That's one of the things I love about Finale nowadays. I was not sure how to answer. Does LilyPond have any use (need?) to work w/ Lua or other languages besides Scheme? Would that add anything to the package or just be superfluous? Ben - composer | sound designer LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) -- http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Other-programming-languages-LilyPond-tp154861.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Other programming languages LilyPond
Answer him that A) Lilypond does have its builtin extension language, and that this is so intertwined with LilyPond's internal working that it allows to do _very_ much, surely more and more fundamental than any scripting engine. B) As LP input files are plain you can use _any_ programming language to modify, analyze or even generate LilyPond input files. Depending on your relation to the asker you might admit that A) actually _does_ have some learning curve. Urs SoundsFromSound soundsfromso...@gmail.com schrieb: A friend of mine, who is a long time Finale user, asked me today: Does LilyPond allow you to use programming languages like Lua for scripting or functions to expand its capabilities? That's one of the things I love about Finale nowadays. I was not sure how to answer. Does LilyPond have any use (need?) to work w/ Lua or other languages besides Scheme? Would that add anything to the package or just be superfluous? Ben - composer | sound designer LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) -- http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Other-programming-languages-LilyPond-tp154861.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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: Ferneyhough-style Interruptive Polyphony
This is incredibly impressive.
Piaras's implementation of an allow-interrupt-engraver provides a more or
less drop-in solution for this difficult technique.
From the .ly attachment:
\new Staff \with {
\consists #allow-interrupt-engraver
}
What're are the chances that an Allow_interrupt_engraver could be added to
the official distribution?
Trevor.
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Piaras Hoban phoba...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi list,
A few weeks back I posted seeking a little help in implementing one of the
more peculiar notational devices of Brian Ferneyhough, namely 'interruptive
polyphony'.
I've managed to find a way to implement these automatically and wanted to
share the code in case anyone in future is looking to do something similar
or could find it helpful otherwise.
Attached is the first measure of Ferneyhough's Terrain. Would be
interesting
to compare fully with original score as lilypond's time-keeping seems a tad
more accurate than the original... :-)
best wishes,
piaras hoban
interruptive-polyphony.ly
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n153387/interruptive-polyphony.ly
interruptive-polyphony.png
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n153387/interruptive-polyphony.png
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Ferneyhough-style-Interruptive-Polyphony-tp153387.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
Trevor Bača
trevorb...@gmail.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Other programming languages LilyPond
SoundsFromSound soundsfromso...@gmail.com writes: A friend of mine, who is a long time Finale user, asked me today: Does LilyPond allow you to use programming languages like Lua for scripting or functions to expand its capabilities? That's one of the things I love about Finale nowadays. I was not sure how to answer. Does LilyPond have any use (need?) to work w/ Lua or other languages besides Scheme? Would that add anything to the package or just be superfluous? Scheme _is_ its scripting language. There is some Lua branch in GuileV2, but it's unclear when it will be production quality, unclear when LilyPond will run on GuileV2, and unclear whether both efforts could be combined. However, LilyPond makes heavy use of Scheme's functional nature by doing lots of small expressions and stuff in Scheme syntactically. That would not transfer easily to Lua. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Other programming languages LilyPond
2013/12/2 Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org: B) As LP input files are plain you can use _any_ programming language to modify, analyze or even generate LilyPond input files. You may show him this post: http://lilypondblog.org/2013/07/programmatically-generating-lilypond-input/ (or some other from http://lilypondblog.org/category/using-lilypond/advanced/) best, Janke ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Other programming languages LilyPond
David Kastrup wrote SoundsFromSound lt; soundsfromsound@ gt; writes: A friend of mine, who is a long time Finale user, asked me today: Does LilyPond allow you to use programming languages like Lua for scripting or functions to expand its capabilities? That's one of the things I love about Finale nowadays. I was not sure how to answer. Does LilyPond have any use (need?) to work w/ Lua or other languages besides Scheme? Would that add anything to the package or just be superfluous? Scheme _is_ its scripting language. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Thanks David! That's pretty much where I stood on Scheme, but I didn't know how (or if) I should compare it to Lua, for example, for the conversation. Janek Warchoł wrote 2013/12/2 Urs Liska lt; ul@ gt;: B) As LP input files are plain you can use _any_ programming language to modify, analyze or even generate LilyPond input files. You may show him this post: http://lilypondblog.org/2013/07/programmatically-generating-lilypond-input/ (or some other from http://lilypondblog.org/category/using-lilypond/advanced/) best, Janke Thanks! I will forward those links for sure. - composer | sound designer LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) -- http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Other-programming-languages-LilyPond-tp154861p154866.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Other programming languages LilyPond
Urs Liska wrote: Answer him that ... As LP input files are plain you can use _any_ programming language to modify ... or even generate LilyPond input files. This is a nod to Urs's word _any_. All my scores are made via LP. But each LP input file is made by a program I've written either in J (descendant superset of APL) or in good old BASH -- roughly as far apart as programming languages get. This isn't meant to plug for J, which needs to be -- I gather -- either loved unconditionally or ignored. Cheers, P ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Other programming languages LilyPond
On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:11 PM, PMA peterarmstr...@aya.yale.edu wrote: Urs Liska wrote: Answer him that ... As LP input files are plain you can use _any_ programming language to modify ... or even generate LilyPond input files. This is a nod to Urs's word _any_. All my scores are made via LP. But each LP input file is made by a program I've written either in J (descendant superset of APL) or in good old BASH -- roughly as far apart as programming languages get. Ha - I'd love to hear more about this. What kind of work are you doing that involves using J in this manner? I've written perl scripts that generate lilypond snippets to include in Anki decks for self-study of jazz theory. There's all kinds of crazy programming people can do with Lilypond. Curt ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Other programming languages LilyPond
Am 02.12.2013 23:34, schrieb Curt: I've written perl scripts that generate lilypond snippets to include in Anki decks for self-study of jazz theory. There's all kinds of crazy programming people can do with Lilypond. Curt How are Anki decks/cards stored, can they be somehow be edited in a collaborative effort? I think this could also be a nice addition to the Learning Manual (or independently). Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Experiences with smaller staff sizes?
Hi all, can you tell me about your experiences with smaller staff sizes? When I started using LilyPond I was impressed by the default look and feel of the scores. Rather often I felt the need to fit more music on the page, and for a beginner the most natural (and probably only) way to achieve this is to globally reduce the staff size. But when reduced staff size to about 17 or even less for some kinds of scores I found the overall impression much less impressive than before. While still being beautifully balanced and laid out it became somewhat anemic. For a long time I didn't get around this limitation until I for the first time dared to actually tweak the global appearance - which proved surprisingly simple: Reduce staff size, increase default font size and adjust a number of line thicknesses, paddings etc. This way I found a setting that looks really nice in my eyes - apart from the limitation that there actually _are_ items you cannot adjust. When we came to that point in our Fried songs edition Janek actually made a few patches to LilyPond to make arpeggio brackets and portato dashes thicker than default. While I think it's extremely cool that it's possible to hack a patch and run a project on custom LilyPond builds this is neither a default option (which project counts a real LilyPond developer to its staff?) nor desirable (go and tell anybody that you need a dev to achieve a coherent visual appearance ...). Anybody else with good or bad experiences when engraving LilyPond scores with considerable smaller staff size than default? Best Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Other programming languages LilyPond
Urs Liska wrote Am 02.12.2013 23:34, schrieb Curt: I've written perl scripts that generate lilypond snippets to include in Anki decks for self-study of jazz theory. There's all kinds of crazy programming people can do with Lilypond. Curt How are Anki decks/cards stored, can they be somehow be edited in a collaborative effort? I think this could also be a nice addition to the Learning Manual (or independently). Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Curt, I'm also interested in hearing more about Anki and your scripts! - composer | sound designer LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) -- http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Other-programming-languages-LilyPond-tp154861p154871.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: improving LilyPond useability
- Original Message - From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 7:11 PM Wouldn't it be far better after installing lilypond, to present the user with a cut down tutorial and usage instructions in a read-me file, and two desktop icons/shortcuts...one for this read-me file, and the other for invoking lilypond without arguments, which would then throw out a usage message? Well, I have no idea. I don't use user-friendly operating systems. :) But I assume you _do_ want a user-friendly lilypond. I was reminded of my own initial surprise on downloading and running lilypond for the first time some years back, by the following email earlier today... http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-12/msg00061.html Given that the vast majority of computer users are on windows machines (for better or worse), I wonder just how many new users (and therefore potential contributers) confronted with this situation, have _not_ sought help, and have just given up. Phil. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Experiences with smaller staff sizes?
Urs Liska ul at openlilylib.org writes: When I started using LilyPond I was impressed by the default look and feel of the scores. Rather often I felt the need to fit more music on the page, and for a beginner the most natural (and probably only) way to achieve this is to globally reduce the staff size. But when reduced staff size to about 17 or even less for some kinds of scores I found the overall impression much less impressive than before. While still being beautifully balanced and laid out it became somewhat anemic. I know that you know that LilyPond does not simply scale down the lines and fonts, but uses relatively heavier weights at the smaller staff-sizes. It sounds like you feel the effect should be stronger. I use 15 to 22-point staff-heights, and find the results easily readable. Miniature scores, with about a 12-point staff, from LilyPond are not as heavy as traditionally-engraved miniature scores. Personally, the word 'clean' comes to mind before 'anemic' when I compare LilyPond scores at small sizes to the lock of older pocket scores, but I see what you mean. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: improving LilyPond useability
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Phil Burfitt phil.burf...@talktalk.netwrote: - Original Message - From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 7:11 PM Wouldn't it be far better after installing lilypond, to present the user with a cut down tutorial and usage instructions in a read-me file, and two desktop icons/shortcuts...one for this read-me file, and the other for invoking lilypond without arguments, which would then throw out a usage message? Given that the vast majority of computer users are on windows machines (for better or worse), I wonder just how many new users (and therefore potential contributers) confronted with this situation, have _not_ sought help, and have just given up. Phil. The thing that has always confused me on LP is that when I install it on a Mac, I get a LilyPond app with an icon that I can click on and open up a LP editor with built-in compiler (at least, this is what the user experiences). In Windows, I don't get the same thing. I think the Lilypond vs. Lilypad is a user expectation issue. If, as a Windows user, I install Lilypond, I want to open a program called Lilypond, and I want it to be called Lilypond. Just like if I go to a website, I'd like the base URL to remain whatever I typed in unless there's a good reason for it. Carl P. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Experiences with smaller staff sizes?
Am 03.12.2013 00:22, schrieb Keith OHara: Urs Liska ul at openlilylib.org writes: When I started using LilyPond I was impressed by the default look and feel of the scores. Rather often I felt the need to fit more music on the page, and for a beginner the most natural (and probably only) way to achieve this is to globally reduce the staff size. But when reduced staff size to about 17 or even less for some kinds of scores I found the overall impression much less impressive than before. While still being beautifully balanced and laid out it became somewhat anemic. I know that you know that LilyPond does not simply scale down the lines and fonts, but uses relatively heavier weights at the smaller staff-sizes. It sounds like you feel the effect should be stronger. Basically yes. And I'm noticing that I can't adjust everything to the same amount. Say I make everything heavier, either because the opticals effect should be stronger or because I just _want_ that score to be heavy. Then some items, particularly articulations and a few other things like the mentioned arpeggio bracket will be out of balance because I can't simply override their #'line-thickness. I think we managed to catch the more visible things through Janek's patches, but there still are grobs that aren't perfectly consistent with the global look and feel of the score. I use 15 to 22-point staff-heights, and find the results easily readable. I didn't mean to say readability is affected. It's just that these scores lack that wow effect ;-) Best Urs Miniature scores, with about a 12-point staff, from LilyPond are not as heavy as traditionally-engraved miniature scores. Personally, the word 'clean' comes to mind before 'anemic' when I compare LilyPond scores at small sizes to the lock of older pocket scores, but I see what you mean. ___ 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: Experiences with smaller staff sizes?
2013/12/3 Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org: Am 03.12.2013 00:22, schrieb Keith OHara: I know that you know that LilyPond does not simply scale down the lines and fonts, but uses relatively heavier weights at the smaller staff-sizes. It sounds like you feel the effect should be stronger. Basically yes. And I'm noticing that I can't adjust everything to the same amount. Say I make everything heavier, either because the opticals effect should be stronger or because I just _want_ that score to be heavy. Then some items, particularly articulations and a few other things like the mentioned arpeggio bracket will be out of balance because I can't simply override their #'line-thickness. Yup. What we need is to be able to choose font weight independently from size - so that i could say use the glyphs from feta13 (heavy appearance) but scale them to fit 17 pt staff size. As i'm right now doing a quite thorough cleanup of the metafont code (i'm working on making accidenals fit better with text, and it seems that the mf code is so horrible that it's hard to work with it), maybe i'll be able to implement this sooner than later. best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: improving LilyPond useability
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:14:52 - Phil Burfitt phil.burf...@talktalk.net wrote: you don't really get around these programs without reading docs (and you shouldn't try to make it easy). I disagree with you shouldn't try to make it easy. what I meant was you shouldn't try to make it easy to get around fiddling with the program without reading the docs, i.e. you shouldn't try to encourage not reading the docs renato -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSnR3LAAoJEBz6xFdttjrftggIAMvwVeJ0KVumSEazSdshnBSD Iijui2hMr/bCtjGjTh+r8WZjK/8xw4XKA10xW9idGp9hM1KfP/Rn2w9bonUQCLjn f0anxJj9hevfhhtsGzMmvr5L2yJJ15USnSGkgjmhMHx2UcJBQDQ2v2AIopnott22 LpC/Pe8YyYR/ha5yzu+cmCxb81C/oNpLnh4uuGg0KlYhCpaT8QszxQOaiKFsyo+J h4/tNGQYrLdRNG90BDaIVHR8mrAG9F5k18xA9+QB+E40uiB6XiX09yGcyhebtFry aa0NzyAWWb7yhH3BBjeyY6a4pJETfn2egXGBMPZfqHesaeLdgB0qIIyC7dBiYxA= =d1Sz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Another time model (related to the usability thread)
James Harkins jamshark70 at gmail.com writes: Time is represented exclusively in terms of Inter-Onset Intervals [i.e. durations]. This is great for streams of events, but perfectly wretched for multiple streams that must coordinate. Example: Suppose I'm writing an orchestral piece with, oh, 40 staves. The music changes meter every 2 or 3 bars. One extended passage is a duet between two soloists; all other players rest. If I (wisely) use a global variable to coordinate the meter changes, I have to write the metrical structure in spacer rests. For the parts, I have to a/ write scheme to convert spacers to full-bar rests, [...] Now let's say that we don't live in a perfect world and I didn't write everything in perfect form on paper before engraving. Then I decide that one 2/4 bar should actually be 3/4. So now I have to change s2 to s2. in the global variable AND I have to change some representation of time (whether a literal R or a scheme function invocation) in EVERY part. Of course specifying time in terms of durations is more convenient than specifying absolute time, or we would need to change every following note when we insert a few measures. It does come up often that we want to say full-measure-rest until the next key-change of skip until the next rehearsal mark or sometimes even drone D until the double-bar If we had an easy way to enter a duration of until-X, then ability to place the next note X comes naturally. Sometimes 'X' is the end of the entire piece. Would that ease the difficulties mentioned above ? LilyPond has a bunch functions of trying to help #(skip-of-lenngth #(mmrest-of-length \barNumberCheck\D \pushToTag but none seem to do the job simply (and it took me quite a while to remember what they were called closely enough in order to look them up in the manual.) LilyPond does some similar things for us already. For example we usually enter rehearsal marks just once in some \global variable, that we include in parallel with the variables that contain the music, and LilyPond will split a R1*32 rest into segments to print those marks correctly in the parts. If the parallel-music iterator could accept until-X durations, and listen for some event that identifies itself as 'X' that might make entry a lot easier. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: promoting LilyPond
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes: LilyPond's strengths are what it is able to do automatically: transpositions, partial partitures, catering to different page formats, fast adaption to different orchestras... Your score is _malleable_. LilyPond excels at *vertical* malleability, but it's nearly disastrous when it comes to horizontal malleability, as I recently opined in another thread. Changes to metrical structure, and adding/deleting bars, are difficult, if not excruciating. I would argue that these tasks are at least as common, if not more common, then the ones you mention here. hjh ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Schikkers List (was: Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially)
This is *exactly* why I've been playing/experimenting with GUI backends/frontends since 2004. If you haven't done so, please have a look at Schikkers List http://lilypond.org/schikkers This looks really cool! (Has it improved a lot or is the html5 demo new, compared to last year? The last time I looked, it didn't work for me) I think this is what we need - at least for beginners. A gnome-gui is anounced but I can't find it. In the download folder every sub-folder is again the download folder. Are there linux executables or a deb package? Or do I have to compile it? Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Other programming languages LilyPond
Curt wrote: On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:11 PM, PMApeterarmstr...@aya.yale.edu wrote: ...All my scores are made via LP. But each LP input file is made by a program I've written either in J (descendant superset of APL) or in good old BASH -- roughly as far apart as programming languages get. Ha - I'd love to hear more about this. What kind of work are you doing that involves using J in this manner? ... Curt I program in J almost exclusively, since the pursuit of my brainstorms (music-bound or not) tends to favor handy ad-hoc number crunching. That is J's manner. Using it for music, I make .ly the output format, as anyone might from whatever preferred language. So, except as a free-floating take on J, I'm not sure where the Ha comes in. Pete ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Embeddable MIDI
Invoking lilypond-book allows me to generate HTML with lilypond tags into HTML with PNG images. I've got that bit down. But is there a way to embed the MIDI into the document? Using \midi with generate the midi file but it doesn't embed it into the HTML document. Also, on a less important matter, is there a way to change where and what is generated? Meaning, I only need PNG images embedded into HTML. But I don't need eps, tex, texi, ly, ect. Each lilypond snippet seems to go into a directory XX. Could I change this and put them all into the same directory? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: promoting LilyPond
I've laid low because I'm still new enough that I don't have much to contribute unless it is a question, but here I might actually have something to say: On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:00, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Again, I don't think the no money aspect should be a primary selling point. I definitely agree there. We often have the idea that You get what you pay for. Too much emphasis on free may cheapen LilyPond in people's minds. Personal anecdote: Two or three years ago I gave LilyPond a try as a candidate to replace my aging Finale 2000. I eventually decided that free software was not going to be sufficient for my needs and that I would have to go ahead and pay for the real thing. I doubt whether my assessment was fair, but that's the way I saw it. So instead I paid the big bucks (for me) to upgrade to the then-current Finale 2011. I can't remember why I then arrived at the decision I did. I don't know if the LP version at that time was insufficient compared to today, or more likely, I didn't know how to make it work. It may have been the shape notes (which now I know of the super easy \aikenheads). The reason that I came back for a second try was not that it was free, since I had already paid for the real thing. I don't remember what made me think of it, but I remembered the essay on LilyPond's goal of superior engraving, and I decided to give it a second try. I fared better the second time. I have redone some of my past work in LilyPond, and I like the new results better. I doubt now I'll go back to Finale. Part of the change of my mindset was my experience with Finale. I was disappointed by how little it had improved after 11 years of updates. I became disappointed with its output once I saw what LilyPond could do. And although a GUI should be quite a bit easier to use for most people, Finale remains to my mind one of the most unintuitive GUI programs there is. I spent a lot of time in its manuals and searching its forums. To get to the point, the you get what you pay for mindset was replaced for me by the idea that you can take the easy way out or you can take the time to do it right. LilyPond then compared favorably from the second perspective to me. It was the challenge that led to perfection. I hope no one takes offense at these comparisons. I only mean them as my own first and second impressions (fair or otherwise) to show how in my case the free price was not what drew me in. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Another time model (related to the usability thread)
Keith OHara k-ohara5a5a at oco.net writes: Of course specifying time in terms of durations is more convenient than specifying absolute time, or we would need to change every following note when we insert a few measures. Assuming that durations and absolute time are the only two options. I'm not making that assumption. I don't know what the solution would look like (yet), but I think any solution would involve a higher-level representation than LilyPond code currently expresses well. It does come up often that we want to say full-measure-rest until the next key-change or skip until the next rehearsal mark or sometimes even drone D until the double-bar If we had an easy way to enter a duration of until-X, then ability to place the next note X comes naturally. Sometimes 'X' is the end of the entire piece. Would that ease the difficulties mentioned above ? It might, if such a function would conform the full-bar rests to the time signatures (which may be in another parallel expression). This still depends on some external marker. If it could handle something like ... until the next rehearsal mark - 4 bars, that could help somewhat, but it wouldn't help every case. Suppose I need to insert a bar, 2 bars before that rehearsal mark. Then I have to change the function invocation to next rehearsal mark - 5 bars. Error prone. Basically the only way is to do as much as you can by hand, compile the PDF, and then track down the mistakes. LilyPond has a bunch functions of trying to help #(skip-of-lenngth #(mmrest-of-length \barNumberCheck\D \pushToTag but none seem to do the job simply (and it took me quite a while to remember what they were called closely enough in order to look them up in the manual.) LilyPond does some similar things for us already. For example we usually enter rehearsal marks just once in some \global variable, that we include in parallel with the variables that contain the music, and LilyPond will split a R1*32 rest into segments to print those marks correctly in the parts. If you insert a bar, you'd have to change R1*32 to R1*33 by hand. Or, if you change the 10th out of the 32 bars into a 3/4 measure, I believe you would then have to change R1*32 to R1*9 R2. R1*22 -- highly error prone. The skip- and mmrest-of-length functions would be slightly less error prone for the second case, as (I suppose) you would just have to subtract one beat from the given length. Still, there is no automatic way to change the duration of a passage of music and have full-bar rests adjusts automatically. (Obviously, voices that have events in them would need manual intervention.) ~~ As I see it, the main problem is that there is no reliable way in LilyPond to know the absolute time of any music expression. Within a music expression, you know the time relative to the start of the expression. But you can use the same music variable at 2, 3 or 10 different absolute time points -- and you can make another score using the same variable (in an include file) that places the variable at time points that are different from the first score. Inserting a bar at m25 in one score, and inserting a different bar at m33 of the second score, would make a complete hash out of the variable's source code in the include file. The level of complexity involved to ask Frescobaldi or another editor to do this is nightmarish to consider. The editor would have to divide -- automatically -- variables into sub-variables, and somehow associate the automatically-generated variables with one and only one score. I don't think it's worth it (assuming it's even possible -- and I have serious doubts about that). That's why I said I think LilyPond's input structure might be too low-level for this use case. The LilyPond language is clumsy at expressing this macro-level of bar-and-meter structure -- clumsy, because it requires redundancy in the manual input. And I'm not sure that it's worth messing around with the LP language itself, because it expresses the information required to engrave a score quite well. It doesn't express the information required to /edit/ the score conveniently. If there were an alternate input language that /does/ express editing information more straightforwardly, this language could write LP code for engraving -- similar to the way that FAUST (Functional AUdio STream language) expresses DSP algorithms at a high level and writes C++ for them, or Emacs/org-mode exports its own markup syntax to LaTeX, HTML, Markdown etc. hjh ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Another time model (related to the usability thread)
On Dec 2, 2013 9:40 PM, James Harkins jamshar...@gmail.com wrote: Keith OHara k-ohara5a5a at oco.net writes: Of course specifying time in terms of durations is more convenient than specifying absolute time, or we would need to change every following note when we insert a few measures. Assuming that durations and absolute time are the only two options. I'm not making that assumption. I don't know what the solution would look like (yet), but I think any solution would involve a higher-level representation than LilyPond code currently expresses well. It does come up often that we want to say full-measure-rest until the next key-change or skip until the next rehearsal mark or sometimes even drone D until the double-bar If we had an easy way to enter a duration of until-X, then ability to place the next note X comes naturally. Sometimes 'X' is the end of the entire piece. Would that ease the difficulties mentioned above ? It might, if such a function would conform the full-bar rests to the time signatures (which may be in another parallel expression). This still depends on some external marker. If it could handle something like ... until the next rehearsal mark - 4 bars, that could help somewhat, but it wouldn't help every case. Suppose I need to insert a bar, 2 bars before that rehearsal mark. Then I have to change the function invocation to next rehearsal mark - 5 bars. Error prone. Basically the only way is to do as much as you can by hand, compile the PDF, and then track down the mistakes. As I see it, the main problem is that there is no reliable way in LilyPond to know the absolute time of any music expression. Within a music expression, you know the time relative to the start of the expression. But you can use the same music variable at 2, 3 or 10 different absolute time points -- and you can make another score using the same variable (in an include file) that places the variable at time points that are different from the first score. Inserting a bar at m25 in one score, and inserting a different bar at m33 of the second score, would make a complete hash out of the variable's source code in the include file. The level of complexity involved to ask Frescobaldi or another editor to do this is nightmarish to consider. The editor would have to divide -- automatically -- variables into sub-variables, and somehow associate the automatically-generated variables with one and only one score. I don't think it's worth it (assuming it's even possible -- and I have serious doubts about that). That's why I said I think LilyPond's input structure might be too low-level for this use case. The LilyPond language is clumsy at expressing this macro-level of bar-and-meter structure -- clumsy, because it requires redundancy in the manual input. And I'm not sure that it's worth messing around with the LP language itself, because it expresses the information required to engrave a score quite well. It doesn't express the information required to /edit/ the score conveniently. If there were an alternate input language that /does/ express editing information more straightforwardly, this language could write LP code for engraving -- similar to the way that FAUST (Functional AUdio STream language) expresses DSP algorithms at a high level and writes C++ for them, or Emacs/org-mode exports its own markup syntax to LaTeX, HTML, Markdown etc. I think that low-level vs. high-level is the key. GUIs can throw in behind-the-scenes data structures to handle things like adding arbitrary measures. Or they can use a format like MusicXML to store things natively at the measure level, then convert/update the LP representation as needed. You really can't do that using LP directly without a serious refactoring of the usual way people define parts and music, at least if I'm understanding things correctly. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Another time model (related to the usability thread)
Hi James (et al.), If you insert a bar, you'd have to change R1*32 to R1*33 by hand. Or, if you change the 10th out of the 32 bars into a 3/4 measure, I believe you would then have to change R1*32 to R1*9 R2. R1*22 -- highly error prone. \pushToTag was designed (by David K, and paid for in part by a bounty from me) to solve exactly that problem. Now all one needs is a function to take skips (e.g., from a global variable) and turn them into multi-measure-rests — which is probably relatively easy to do — and there's no more problem. =) All the best, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Other programming languages LilyPond
On 3 December 2013 13:18, PMA peterarmstr...@aya.yale.edu wrote: I program in J almost exclusively, since the pursuit of my brainstorms (music-bound or not) tends to favor handy ad-hoc number crunching. +1 but with Lua. I’ve done some useful things. Alternatives are Frescobaldi snippets if you know Python, and you can do a lot with regexes, which is a side-effect of Lilypond’s text file format. David Kastrup wrote: Scheme _is_ its scripting language. There is some Lua branch in GuileV2, but it's unclear when it will be production quality, unclear when LilyPond will run on GuileV2, and unclear whether both efforts could be combined. That looks really interesting—I’d probably do all sorts of stuff. But then Lilypond would become a Frankenstein’s monster of extensions in different languages. So I should probably just learn Scheme. Incidentally, when I first arrived on the Lilypond mailing list, I recognized David Kastrup from the Lua mailing list. So he does know Lua quite well, even if he keeps it quiet :-) Vaughan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Another time model (related to the usability thread)
James Harkins jamshark70 at gmail.com writes:
Keith OHara k-ohara5a5a at oco.net writes:
If we had an easy way to enter a duration of until-X, then ability to
place the next note X comes naturally. Sometimes 'X' is the end of
the entire piece. Would that ease the difficulties mentioned above ?
It might, if such a function would conform the full-bar rests to the time
signatures (which may be in another parallel expression).
Full-bar rests already conform to the time-signatures. (In 3/4 time,
though, R2. is printed to look the same as R1 in 4/4 time, per tradition.)
part= { \compressFullBarRests R1*90/8 g'2. c'2. }
global= {\time 4/4 s1*3 \time 9/8 s1*9/8*4 \time 3/4 s2.*5 \mark! s2.*2 }
\new Staff \global \part
We can use the variable \part anywhere we want in the music, and the
multimeasure-rest engraver breaks the long rest at time-signature changes.
If it could finish the rest when it hears the ! (and let the music
iterator know that it is time to move on to the g') then maybe we could
write \RestUntil! instead of figuring out the 90/8 duration.
This still depends
on some external marker. If it could handle something like ... until the
next rehearsal mark - 4 bars, that could help somewhat, but it wouldn't
help every case. Suppose I need to insert a bar, 2 bars before that
rehearsal mark. Then I have to change the function invocation to next
rehearsal mark - 5 bars. Error prone.
Instead of specifying an offset from a rehearsal mark, maybe simpler to
have an independent type of marker to put in the \global stream. Then
the entries of the parts are visible all at once in \global
global = { R1*32 \markA R1*30 \markervln34 R1*18 \markB }
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Schikkers List
Noeck writes: http://lilypond.org/schikkers This looks really cool! (Has it improved a lot or is the html5 demo new, compared to last year? The last time I looked, it didn't work for me) Thanks. I found some time this spring and it improved a lot. I haven't had any time to work on it since summer. Does it work for you now? I think this is what we need - at least for beginners. That was what I'm aiming at. I was hoping to have something like this on the lilypond.org home page, and possibly have `active' snippets in the tutorial. To make this into a full fledged gui will take some more time. A gnome-gui is anounced but I can't find it. In the download folder every sub-folder is again the download folder. Are there linux executables or a deb package? Or do I have to compile it? The gnome gui currently doesn't bring you anything more than the html gui. I haven't shipped binaries, you'll have to compile it yourself -- and that's quite some work. Greetings, 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: Schikkers List (was: Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially)
2013/12/3 Noeck noeck.marb...@gmx.de This is *exactly* why I've been playing/experimenting with GUI backends/frontends since 2004. If you haven't done so, please have a look at Schikkers List http://lilypond.org/schikkers This looks really cool! (Has it improved a lot or is the html5 demo new, compared to last year? The last time I looked, it didn't work for me) I think this is what we need - at least for beginners. A gnome-gui is anounced but I can't find it. In the download folder every sub-folder is again the download folder. Are there linux executables or a deb package? Or do I have to compile it? It was hosted on github years ago, but now I see that last update is 3 years ago. The demo is not working on Chromium 31.0.1650.57 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Problems with LilyJAZZ.ily
2013/12/2 Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com 2013/12/2 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org Wouldn't it make sense to integrate the bend stuff into LilyPond? That would make it easier to match versions and behavior. I think that it would be great. I've never used it much because of version conflicts and because I hoped that 1196 would have been solved sooner or later. Now since the work on 1196 seems stalling, integrating the bend stuff in lilypond sounds sensible to me. I'll have the chance to test it in real music examples in the coming weeks. Should I split issue 1196? I may create a new issue to integrate this stuff and rename 1196 as add an engraver for bending. Because AFAIK the bend stuff is experimental and it would work better if a specific engraver was created. I've just added issue 3700: https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3700 and updated 1196. Hope it's ok ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Schikkers List
Federico Bruni writes: It was hosted on github years ago, but now I see that last update is 3 years ago. Yes. The demo is not working on Chromium 31.0.1650.57 It was down. Please try again? 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: promoting LilyPond
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Garrett McGilvray wrote: The reason that I came back for a second try was not that it was free, since I had already paid for the real thing. I don't remember what made me think of it, but I remembered the essay on LilyPond's goal of superior engraving, and I decided to give it a second try. I fared better the second time. I have redone some of my past work in LilyPond, and I like the new results better. I doubt now I'll go back to Finale. I would be interested to see a comparison of some *good* scores engraved using Finale (and/or Sibelius) and the same scores using LilyPond. Maybe you can post some examples? It's easy to show a really bad Finale result and compare it with how much better LilyPond can do this. But it is more fair to compare a good Finale/Sibelius score, prepared by a skilled and experienced Finale/Sibelius user, and then try to use LilyPond to do things better. In many cases it will be a matter of taste which of the results people will like best. Many of my collegues - actually probably all of them - use Finale or Sibelius. I have never heard anyone of them complain My scores look bad! Please suggest a better alternative for me! A comparison: When the audio CD was introduced it became a huge success because everyone could hear the difference in sound quality and the improvement in user-friendlyness. When after that the Super-Audio CD was introduced it was only embraced by a very small number of people who wanted the very best sound quality. For most people CD-quality was and still is synonym to perfect audio. And even MP3 is good enough for them. Why would you need Super-Audio? -- MT ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Another time model (related to the usability thread)
Hi Keith (et al.),
Instead of specifying an offset from a rehearsal mark, maybe simpler to
have an independent type of marker to put in the \global stream. Then
the entries of the parts are visible all at once in \global
global = { R1*32 \markA R1*30 \markervln34 R1*18 \markB }
In what way does \pushToTag not do this already?
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: promoting LilyPond
Although it might look strange, I think that fair comparison depends of the intended use. For advanced users, of course, a finely tuned score of each software would give better idea of possible end result. But, for a lot of users who don't need (or want or know how) those refinements and the standard output (out of the box, without manual tweaking) will be important. Regarding the feeling of people about the quality of their tool, it's simple: most people don't think that their Word layout is crappy. The same can occur with musical scores, except that even less people know musical typography. So, a lot of people won't think or feel my score is bad if they don't know which way they could loot better. Some situation will show LilyPond better, other will show Finale or Sibelius. An (really) adventurous image about that could be Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Philippe -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/promoting-LilyPond-was-Supporting-my-work-on-LilyPond-financially-tp154839p154896.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: promoting LilyPond
Am 03.12.2013 08:23, schrieb flup2: Although it might look strange, I think that fair comparison depends of the intended use. For advanced users, of course, a finely tuned score of each software would give better idea of possible end result. But, for a lot of users who don't need (or want or know how) those refinements and the standard output (out of the box, without manual tweaking) will be important. Regarding the feeling of people about the quality of their tool, it's simple: most people don't think that their Word layout is crappy. The same can occur with musical scores, except that even less people know musical typography. So, a lot of people won't think or feel my score is bad if they don't know which way they could loot better. Some situation will show LilyPond better, other will show Finale or Sibelius. I have the experience from the dual perspective (producing and consuming): Playing in orchestras and ensembles you'll get all sorts of scores, and I can definitely second what's written in the lilypond.org essay: the better the material the better the performance (I think this section of the LilyPond introduction was probably the most important single incentive for me to try out LilyPond). But when I'm talking to composers about it they only vaguely and theoretically understand what I'm saying. In general they consider their scores good enough by default. They may think hard about how to unambiguously visualizing their intention and help the player with the right cue notes or (sometimes) page breaks and the like. But making them accept that the engraving quality itself matters is a _hard_ task. Probably composers should get mandatory courses in sight-reading from differently engraved material throughout their studies ;-) The Word layout example is very good. I can't think of many fellow scholars I've met who'd care for layout and typography of their texts. Maybe they're astonished when they see their texts professionally typeset in a publication, but they wouldn't start to think about using better tools for their own writing. I know of exactly one fellow student who told us he learnt LaTeX to write his doctoral thesis - but not for its typography but for creating Schenker like graphics. Urs An (really) adventurous image about that could be Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Philippe -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/promoting-LilyPond-was-Supporting-my-work-on-LilyPond-financially-tp154839p154896.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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: Schikkers List
There seems to be a bug - see attached screenshot. Key signatures are inserted always as if in treble clef rather than appropriate to the selected clef. -- Mark Knoop attachment: bug.png___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
