Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Guy Stalnaker]

Haven't been a fan of some of the posts in this email thread (not too keen
on prescriptions for How. To. Compose. Music.) But this bit is damned fine.

I developed an idea about the history of music when I was working on my PhD
in Music Theory - there are two fundamental (note that - fundamental, there
is overlap of course, few human beings fit binary distinctions well) types
of composers: those who are evolutionary--who take what they are given from
their predecessors and change it by the force of their unique genius into
something new, perhaps revolutionary, and thereby alter music for those
that follow them (here we have Machaut, Gesualdo, Monteverdi, CPE Bach,
Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Mahler, Verdi, Debussy,
Schoenberg, Stravinsky); and those who absorb the influences of their
predecessors and peers and by their genius write music that surpasses them
(here we have Dufay, Palestrina, Victoria, Handel, J. S. Bach, Mozart,
Bellini, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Puccini, Strauss). This is not iron-clad
classification, of course, but it's been useful for me, especially when
talking to "non-professional" people about the Western classical music
tradition.

Thanks everyone -- this has been wonderful reading, especially Mr. Walsh's
Plato.

Regards.

Guy Stalnaker
jimmyg...@gmail.com

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:11 AM, N. Andrew Walsh 
wrote:

> Pfft. Amateurs.
>
> Ahem:
>
> ". . . But later, an unmusical anarchy was led by poets who had natural
> talent, but were ignorant of the laws of music...Through foolishness they
> deceived themselves into thinking that there was no right or wrong way in
> music, that it was to be judged good or bad by the pleasure it gave. By
> their works and their theories they infected the masses with the
> presumption to think themselves adequate judges. So our theatres, once
> silent, grew vocal, and aristocracy of music gave way to a pernicious
> theatrocracy...the criterion was not music, but a reputation for
> promiscuous cleverness and a spirit of law-breaking."
>
> Plato. Laws, 701.
>
> ___
> 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: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[N. Andrew Walsh]

Pfft. Amateurs.

Ahem:

". . . But later, an unmusical anarchy was led by poets who had natural
talent, but were ignorant of the laws of music...Through foolishness they
deceived themselves into thinking that there was no right or wrong way in
music, that it was to be judged good or bad by the pleasure it gave. By
their works and their theories they infected the masses with the
presumption to think themselves adequate judges. So our theatres, once
silent, grew vocal, and aristocracy of music gave way to a pernicious
theatrocracy...the criterion was not music, but a reputation for
promiscuous cleverness and a spirit of law-breaking."

Plato. Laws, 701.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Urs Liska]

Am 26.03.2018 um 15:35 schrieb Karlin High:

On 3/26/2018 8:21 AM, Urs Liska wrote:

This is one of my favourite reviews of a first performance.


[...]


Bets are open what this is about ;-)

Urs


Bulk-paste into Google, and it looks like...

http://www.raptusassociation.org/eroicagrezeptionsgesch.html

 



OK, the missing part is very nice too:

"Der andere Teil spricht dieser Arbeit schlechterdings allen Kunstwert 
ab und meint, darin sei ein ganz ungebändigtes Streben nach Auszeichnung 
und Sonderbarkeit sichtbar, das aber nirgends Schönheit oder wahre 
Erhabenheit und Kunst bewirkt hätte.  Durch seltsame Modulationen und 
gewaltsame Übergänge, durch das Zusammenstellen der heterogensten Dinge 
. . . könne zwar eine gewisse eben nicht wünschenswerte Originalität 
ohne viel Mühe gewonnen werden; aber nicht die Hervorbringung des bloß 
Ungewöhnlichen und Phantastischen, sondern des Schönen und Erhabenen sei 
es, wodurch sich das Genie beurkunde:"


"The second party totally refuses to acknowledge any artistic value and 
sees a completely unconstrained desire for excentricity and uniqueness, 
which nowhere produces Beauty or true dignity and art. By strange 
modulations and forced transitions, by combining the most heterogenous 
thoughts ... it's easy to create a certain (but not desirable) 
originality; but it's not the creation of the uncommon or phantastic 
along, but of the beautiful and dignified that real genius shows its face."


Which reminds of another famous quote:

"Das noch nie Dagewesene ist kein Beweis für die Güte einer 
(künstlerischen) Leistung, sondern kann genau so gut der Beweis für ihre 
noch nicht dagewesene Minderwertigkeit sein. "


"Being completely new is no evidence for the quality of an (artistic) 
expression, but can equally be evidence for its unheard-of inferiority."
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Karlin High]

On 3/26/2018 8:35 AM, Urs Liska wrote:


Well, that's cheating, isn't it?


I prefer to think of it as "compensating for a lack of musical 
education." :)


The first time I ever (knowingly) heard Beethoven was at age 15 when I 
borrowed a cassette tape of the Fifth Symphony from our local public 
library. Hey, everyone says this is so great... let's find out. Playing 
it in the minivan on the way home, my mother did not like it very much.


"But see, mom, the man was deaf when he wrote some of his music!"

"Well, I can sure believe that!"
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Urs,

> "Others [the group of benevolent listeners] fear that, if he'd continue on 
> that track, it might end badly for the composer and the audience. The music 
> could soon reach a point where anybody who isn't intimately familiar with the 
> rules and intricacies of the art just won't get *any* joy from it. Instead 
> they would leave the hall only with an unpleasant feeling of fatigue, 
> depressed by the amount of disjoint and cluttered ideas and a continuous 
> turmoil of all instruments."

Wow! Those 'benevolent listeners' literally predicted the future (a.k.a. the 
20th Century).
;)

Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Karlin High]

On 3/26/2018 8:21 AM, Urs Liska wrote:

This is one of my favourite reviews of a first performance.


[...]


Bets are open what this is about ;-)

Urs


Bulk-paste into Google, and it looks like...

http://www.raptusassociation.org/eroicagrezeptionsgesch.html



--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Urs Liska]

Am 26.03.2018 um 15:35 schrieb Karlin High:

On 3/26/2018 8:21 AM, Urs Liska wrote:

This is one of my favourite reviews of a first performance.


[...]


Bets are open what this is about ;-)

Urs


Bulk-paste into Google, and it looks like...

http://www.raptusassociation.org/eroicagrezeptionsgesch.html


Well, that's cheating, isn't it?



 






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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Urs Liska]

Am 26.03.2018 um 15:32 schrieb Guy Stalnaker:
This could have been written about Glass, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, 
Strauss, Puccini, Mahler, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Berlioz, Liszt, or 
Beethoven.


😀


That's the point of quoting it here ;-)
I've cited it in programme notes for a series of concerts with 
Schoenberg's songs, too.




On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 8:22 AM Urs Liska > wrote:




Am 26.03.2018 um 14:52 schrieb Karlin High:
> On 3/25/2018 6:43 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>> Apparently you haven’t been to any new classical music concerts in
>> the last half-century. It’s*quite* clear that many composers —
>> especially inexperienced ones — have no problem composing dissonant
>> pieces without access to the the actual timbre and overtone
>> composition of the music they’re writing.
>
> "
> There was a time when the first performance of a recent commission
> struck fear into the most broad-minded listener. We used to brace
> ourselves for horror and were rarely disappointed. In those
days, the
> struggle to write more atonally than the next man was palpable. No
> self-respecting composer would pen a concord if he wanted to be
taken
> seriously by his peers: to do so was to be compared to those who
made
> soft-harmony arrangements of famous melodies. Now soft harmony has
> become dignified, with all manner of clever names —
tintinnabuli, holy
> minimalism; while popular tunes are quickly identified as being
> ‘chant’, and quoted whole.
> "
> - Peter Phillips
>


>
>

"Die einen, [seine] ganz besonderen Freunde, behaupten, gerade dieses
Werk sei ein Meisterstück, das sei eben der wahre Stil für die höhere
Musik, und wenn sie jetzt nicht gefällt, so komme das nur daher, weil
das Publikum nicht kunstgebildet genug sei, alle diese hohen
Schönheiten
zu fassen; nach ein paar tausend Jahren aber würde sie ihre Wirkung
nicht verfehlen ... [Die Gruppe der wohlwollenden Zuhörer] fürchtet
aber, wenn [er] auf diesem Wege fortwandert, so werde er und das
Publikum übel dabei fahren. Die Musik könne sobald dahin kommen, daß
jeder, der nicht genau mit den Regeln und Schwierigkeiten der Kunst
vertraut ist, schlechterdings gar keinen Genuß bei ihr finde, sondern
durch eine Menge unzusammenhängender und überhäufter Ideen und einen
fortwährenden Tumult aller Instrumente zu Boden gedrückt, nur mit
einem
unangenehmen Gefühl der Ermattung den Konzertsaal verlasse."

This is one of my favourite reviews of a first performance. My
shot at a
translation:

"One group, the composer's very special friends, proclaim particularly
this composition to be a master work, bearing the genuine style for
higher music, and if people don't like it now, it's just because the
audience isn't studied well enough to grasp all this high beauty;
a few
thousand years later it would definitely not miss its effect anymore
[...] Others [the group of benevolent listeners] fear that, if he'd
continue on that track, it might end badly for the composer and the
audience. The music could soon reach a point where anybody who isn't
intimately familiar with the rules and intricacies of the art just
won't
get *any* joy from it. Instead they would leave the hall only with an
unpleasant feeling of fatigue, depressed by the amount of disjoint and
cluttered ideas and a continuous turmoil of all instruments."

Unfortunately I don't have the book at hand where I originally copied
this from, so I can't look up the middle section (what the third
group,
the vocal opponents, have to say). But I think even with this you get
the gist.

Bets are open what this is about ;-)

Urs


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



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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[David Wright]

On Mon 26 Mar 2018 at 15:21:57 (+0200), Urs Liska wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 26.03.2018 um 14:52 schrieb Karlin High:
> >On 3/25/2018 6:43 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> >>Apparently you haven’t been to any new classical music concerts
> >>in the last half-century. It’s*quite* clear that many composers
> >>— especially inexperienced ones — have no problem composing
> >>dissonant pieces without access to the the actual timbre and
> >>overtone composition of the music they’re writing.
> >
> >"
> >There was a time when the first performance of a recent commission
> >struck fear into the most broad-minded listener. We used to brace
> >ourselves for horror and were rarely disappointed. In those days,
> >the struggle to write more atonally than the next man was
> >palpable. No self-respecting composer would pen a concord if he
> >wanted to be taken seriously by his peers: to do so was to be
> >compared to those who made soft-harmony arrangements of famous
> >melodies. Now soft harmony has become dignified, with all manner
> >of clever names — tintinnabuli, holy minimalism; while popular
> >tunes are quickly identified as being ‘chant’, and quoted whole.
> >"
> >- Peter Phillips
> >
> >
> >
> 
> "Die einen, [seine] ganz besonderen Freunde, behaupten, gerade dieses
> Werk sei ein Meisterstück, das sei eben der wahre Stil für die höhere
> Musik, und wenn sie jetzt nicht gefällt, so komme das nur daher, weil
> das Publikum nicht kunstgebildet genug sei, alle diese hohen Schönheiten
> zu fassen; nach ein paar tausend Jahren aber würde sie ihre Wirkung
> nicht verfehlen ... [Die Gruppe der wohlwollenden Zuhörer] fürchtet
> aber, wenn [er] auf diesem Wege fortwandert, so werde er und das
> Publikum übel dabei fahren. Die Musik könne sobald dahin kommen, daß
> jeder, der nicht genau mit den Regeln und Schwierigkeiten der Kunst
> vertraut ist, schlechterdings gar keinen Genuß bei ihr finde, sondern
> durch eine Menge unzusammenhängender und überhäufter Ideen und einen
> fortwährenden Tumult aller Instrumente zu Boden gedrückt, nur mit einem
> unangenehmen Gefühl der Ermattung den Konzertsaal verlasse."
> 
> This is one of my favourite reviews of a first performance. My shot
> at a translation:
> 
> "One group, the composer's very special friends, proclaim
> particularly this composition to be a master work, bearing the
> genuine style for higher music, and if people don't like it now,
> it's just because the audience isn't studied well enough to grasp
> all this high beauty; a few thousand years later it would definitely
> not miss its effect anymore [...] Others [the group of benevolent
> listeners] fear that, if he'd continue on that track, it might end
> badly for the composer and the audience. The music could soon reach
> a point where anybody who isn't intimately familiar with the rules
> and intricacies of the art just won't get *any* joy from it. Instead
> they would leave the hall only with an unpleasant feeling of
> fatigue, depressed by the amount of disjoint and cluttered ideas and
> a continuous turmoil of all instruments."
> 
> Unfortunately I don't have the book at hand where I originally
> copied this from, so I can't look up the middle section (what the
> third group, the vocal opponents, have to say). But I think even
> with this you get the gist.
> 
> Bets are open what this is about ;-)

That's what google is for, attached.

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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Guy Stalnaker]

This could have been written about Glass, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Strauss,
Puccini, Mahler, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Berlioz, Liszt, or Beethoven.

😀

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 8:22 AM Urs Liska  wrote:

>
>
> Am 26.03.2018 um 14:52 schrieb Karlin High:
> > On 3/25/2018 6:43 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> >> Apparently you haven’t been to any new classical music concerts in
> >> the last half-century. It’s*quite* clear that many composers —
> >> especially inexperienced ones — have no problem composing dissonant
> >> pieces without access to the the actual timbre and overtone
> >> composition of the music they’re writing.
> >
> > "
> > There was a time when the first performance of a recent commission
> > struck fear into the most broad-minded listener. We used to brace
> > ourselves for horror and were rarely disappointed. In those days, the
> > struggle to write more atonally than the next man was palpable. No
> > self-respecting composer would pen a concord if he wanted to be taken
> > seriously by his peers: to do so was to be compared to those who made
> > soft-harmony arrangements of famous melodies. Now soft harmony has
> > become dignified, with all manner of clever names — tintinnabuli, holy
> > minimalism; while popular tunes are quickly identified as being
> > ‘chant’, and quoted whole.
> > "
> > - Peter Phillips
> > <
> https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/12/why-church-music-is-back-in-vogue-and-squeaky-gate-music-has-had-its-day/
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Die einen, [seine] ganz besonderen Freunde, behaupten, gerade dieses
> Werk sei ein Meisterstück, das sei eben der wahre Stil für die höhere
> Musik, und wenn sie jetzt nicht gefällt, so komme das nur daher, weil
> das Publikum nicht kunstgebildet genug sei, alle diese hohen Schönheiten
> zu fassen; nach ein paar tausend Jahren aber würde sie ihre Wirkung
> nicht verfehlen ... [Die Gruppe der wohlwollenden Zuhörer] fürchtet
> aber, wenn [er] auf diesem Wege fortwandert, so werde er und das
> Publikum übel dabei fahren. Die Musik könne sobald dahin kommen, daß
> jeder, der nicht genau mit den Regeln und Schwierigkeiten der Kunst
> vertraut ist, schlechterdings gar keinen Genuß bei ihr finde, sondern
> durch eine Menge unzusammenhängender und überhäufter Ideen und einen
> fortwährenden Tumult aller Instrumente zu Boden gedrückt, nur mit einem
> unangenehmen Gefühl der Ermattung den Konzertsaal verlasse."
>
> This is one of my favourite reviews of a first performance. My shot at a
> translation:
>
> "One group, the composer's very special friends, proclaim particularly
> this composition to be a master work, bearing the genuine style for
> higher music, and if people don't like it now, it's just because the
> audience isn't studied well enough to grasp all this high beauty; a few
> thousand years later it would definitely not miss its effect anymore
> [...] Others [the group of benevolent listeners] fear that, if he'd
> continue on that track, it might end badly for the composer and the
> audience. The music could soon reach a point where anybody who isn't
> intimately familiar with the rules and intricacies of the art just won't
> get *any* joy from it. Instead they would leave the hall only with an
> unpleasant feeling of fatigue, depressed by the amount of disjoint and
> cluttered ideas and a continuous turmoil of all instruments."
>
> Unfortunately I don't have the book at hand where I originally copied
> this from, so I can't look up the middle section (what the third group,
> the vocal opponents, have to say). But I think even with this you get
> the gist.
>
> Bets are open what this is about ;-)
>
> Urs
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Urs Liska]

Am 26.03.2018 um 14:52 schrieb Karlin High:

On 3/25/2018 6:43 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Apparently you haven’t been to any new classical music concerts in 
the last half-century. It’s*quite* clear that many composers — 
especially inexperienced ones — have no problem composing dissonant 
pieces without access to the the actual timbre and overtone 
composition of the music they’re writing.


"
There was a time when the first performance of a recent commission 
struck fear into the most broad-minded listener. We used to brace 
ourselves for horror and were rarely disappointed. In those days, the 
struggle to write more atonally than the next man was palpable. No 
self-respecting composer would pen a concord if he wanted to be taken 
seriously by his peers: to do so was to be compared to those who made 
soft-harmony arrangements of famous melodies. Now soft harmony has 
become dignified, with all manner of clever names — tintinnabuli, holy 
minimalism; while popular tunes are quickly identified as being 
‘chant’, and quoted whole.

"
- Peter Phillips
 





"Die einen, [seine] ganz besonderen Freunde, behaupten, gerade dieses
Werk sei ein Meisterstück, das sei eben der wahre Stil für die höhere
Musik, und wenn sie jetzt nicht gefällt, so komme das nur daher, weil
das Publikum nicht kunstgebildet genug sei, alle diese hohen Schönheiten
zu fassen; nach ein paar tausend Jahren aber würde sie ihre Wirkung
nicht verfehlen ... [Die Gruppe der wohlwollenden Zuhörer] fürchtet
aber, wenn [er] auf diesem Wege fortwandert, so werde er und das
Publikum übel dabei fahren. Die Musik könne sobald dahin kommen, daß
jeder, der nicht genau mit den Regeln und Schwierigkeiten der Kunst
vertraut ist, schlechterdings gar keinen Genuß bei ihr finde, sondern
durch eine Menge unzusammenhängender und überhäufter Ideen und einen
fortwährenden Tumult aller Instrumente zu Boden gedrückt, nur mit einem
unangenehmen Gefühl der Ermattung den Konzertsaal verlasse."

This is one of my favourite reviews of a first performance. My shot at a 
translation:


"One group, the composer's very special friends, proclaim particularly 
this composition to be a master work, bearing the genuine style for 
higher music, and if people don't like it now, it's just because the 
audience isn't studied well enough to grasp all this high beauty; a few 
thousand years later it would definitely not miss its effect anymore 
[...] Others [the group of benevolent listeners] fear that, if he'd 
continue on that track, it might end badly for the composer and the 
audience. The music could soon reach a point where anybody who isn't 
intimately familiar with the rules and intricacies of the art just won't 
get *any* joy from it. Instead they would leave the hall only with an 
unpleasant feeling of fatigue, depressed by the amount of disjoint and 
cluttered ideas and a continuous turmoil of all instruments."


Unfortunately I don't have the book at hand where I originally copied 
this from, so I can't look up the middle section (what the third group, 
the vocal opponents, have to say). But I think even with this you get 
the gist.


Bets are open what this is about ;-)

Urs


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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Karlin High]

On 3/25/2018 6:43 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

Apparently you haven’t been to any new classical music concerts in the last 
half-century. It’s*quite*  clear that many composers — especially inexperienced 
ones — have no problem composing dissonant pieces without access to the the 
actual timbre and overtone composition of the music they’re writing.


"
There was a time when the first performance of a recent commission 
struck fear into the most broad-minded listener. We used to brace 
ourselves for horror and were rarely disappointed. In those days, the 
struggle to write more atonally than the next man was palpable. No 
self-respecting composer would pen a concord if he wanted to be taken 
seriously by his peers: to do so was to be compared to those who made 
soft-harmony arrangements of famous melodies. Now soft harmony has 
become dignified, with all manner of clever names — tintinnabuli, holy 
minimalism; while popular tunes are quickly identified as being ‘chant’, 
and quoted whole.

"
- Peter Phillips


--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> I think it's likely rather hard to compose dissonant pieces without
>> access to the actual timbre (and thus overtone composition) used for
>> playing it.
>
> Apparently you haven’t been to any new classical music concerts in the
> last half-century. It’s *quite* clear that many composers — especially
> inexperienced ones — have no problem composing dissonant pieces
> without access to the the actual timbre and overtone composition of
> the music they’re writing.

Well, not everybody is a Stravinski.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> I think it's likely rather hard to compose dissonant pieces without
>> access to the actual timbre (and thus overtone composition) used
>> for playing it.
> 
> Apparently you haven’t been to any new classical music concerts in
> the last half-century.  It’s *quite* clear that many composers —
> especially inexperienced ones — have no problem composing dissonant
> pieces without access to the the actual timbre and overtone
> composition of the music they’re writing.

Hehehehe!  How true :-)


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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David,

> I think it's likely rather hard to compose dissonant pieces without
> access to the actual timbre (and thus overtone composition) used for
> playing it.

Apparently you haven’t been to any new classical music concerts in the last 
half-century. It’s *quite* clear that many composers — especially inexperienced 
ones — have no problem composing dissonant pieces without access to the the 
actual timbre and overtone composition of the music they’re writing.

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[David Kastrup]

Vaughan McAlley  writes:

> Lilypond, a piano, a good inner ear (which I’m lucky to have), or whatever
> the kids are using these days are all just tools. I’d be wrong to say a
> piece of mine is superior to *The Rite of Spring* because Stravinsky worked
> it all out on a piano and I use my inner ear.

I think it's likely rather hard to compose dissonant pieces without
access to the actual timbre (and thus overtone composition) used for
playing it.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Vaughan (et al.),

> I’d be wrong to say a piece of mine is superior to The Rite of Spring because 
> Stravinsky worked it all out on a piano and I use my inner ear.

Preach!

Best,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Nathan Sprangers]

One of my professors suggested sketching a piece on a 4 staff system when
composing/orchestrating. I did try doing this in lilypond with the idea
that snippets and phrases from each staff would be stored as variables
which could then be used in the full score. So sort of working backward
from a reduction to a full score. For the purpose of orchestrating it
worked alright, but even working with a reduced score, lilypond is not an
efficient tool for composing/creating.

-Nathan

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:08 AM, jtruc34  wrote:

> That may seem like a stupid question, but I've been using LilyPond with
> Frescobaldi for a year and a half, but I start to ask myself if it is as
> efficient as if I had used another tool like Musescore.
>
> I explain: I don't have at all a powerful computer, and I think that an
> essential feature that I have to have to compose efficiently is to see what
> I've written in real-time. There is such a feature in Frescobaldi name
> "continuous engraving" (or something like that, my version is not in
> English), but on my slow computer and with a big project such as a 20-pages
> quartet or symphony, it takes at least 40 to 50 seconds to render.
>
> In addition, it would be great to hear the music out of the midi file by
> clicking on the preview (like on almost every WYSIWYG music software) but
> Frescobaldi's midi player is pretty useless for that.
>
> I'm not saying that LilyPond and Frescobaldi are bad, it's probably just me
> who don't know the right tools or the right way to use them. I'm asking to
> find a way to make my workflow more convenient to compose.
>
> Do you have any suggestions?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
>
> ___
> 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: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Frauke Jurgensen]

Note that I pointed out specifically the play-back feature, which the
previous poster said they were relying on to tell them if they had
translated to notation correctly. To build the connection between notation
and ear, it's better to be making the noises yourself, not getting a
computer to do it for you. Your procedural memory needs to be trained.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, 21:42 Flaming Hakama by Elaine, <
ela...@flaminghakama.com> wrote:

>
>>> From: Tom Cloyd 
>> To: Frauke Jurgensen 
>> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:24:48 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?
>> 100% in agreement. Developing that inner ear is immeasurably valuable,
>> but it takes effort, and that effort is made only when there's motivation.
>> Having only oneself to rely on provides the context for that motivation.
>> (HA! Can you guess MY occupation?)
>>
>
>
> I call hogwash.  Developing inner ear has nothing to do with using pencil
> & paper vs using notation software.  A more meaningful distinction is
> whether you are composing by ear or not:
>
> * If you are plucking out every note and chord at the piano, then notating
> the ones you like with pencil & paper (or into notation software), you are
> NOT developing your inner ear.
> * If you come up with all the notes in your head and enter them directly
> into notation software (or on paper), then you are are using your inner ear.
>
>
> I agree that the processes of composition, arranging/orchestration and
> engraving are distinct, and should be approached as such.  And I agree that
> developing your inner ear is crucial.  But you can do all of that with the
> help of notation software, or not.
>
>
> David Elaine Alt
> 415 . 341 .4954   "Confusion is
> highly underrated"
> ela...@flaminghakama.com
> skype: flaming_hakama
> Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> ___
> 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: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[N. Andrew Walsh]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Vaughan McAlley 
wrote:

 If it isn’t hard, you can probably do better.

+1

>From my own (admittedly pretty out-there) view on how and what one
composes, I can also say that *not* having immediate acoustic feedback of
the work you're doing also serves a benefit. Two examples, from very
different cases:

I work with Lily occasionally on contract for a client whose musical skills
are amateur at best, and whose working process is exactly the process
Kieran and David alluded to above: he picks out tunes on piano, and then
writes down what he likes. This effectively limits his composition to 1)
what he can play (which is basically overly-sentimental pop music), and 2)
what his prior experience contains (which is the same, plus late-70s
academic modernism comprising essentially a rigid dodecaphony). In this
case, all he can do with composing is rehash what he already has, and it
makes for very uninteresting music.

Secondly, from my own experience as a composer, I stopped using any kind of
auditory aid or notation software to compose some 20 years ago, early in my
schooling. After that, it would very frequently occur that I would hear
results in performance that weren't at all what I had imagined when
writing. The instrumentation, the acoustics, the different ways living
musicians approach various techniques, etc., all contributed to my often
being confronted with "my" composition that turned out to sound completely
new to me. That learning experience was invaluable, as I gained knowledge
of how to write sounds I *hadn't* heard in advance.

For those who want to get really abstract about this, there's an excellent
book on æsthetics (as a branch of philosophy) by Christoph Menke, called
"Force" (in German as "Kraft") that explores the idea that we expand as
people, more specifically as artists,  through the direct encounter with
the unknown and unknowable, broadening our minds to incorporate
possibilities we hadn't anticipated. Very worthwhile reading.

For those reasons, I'd agree with the others here, that it's fundamentally
important that you spend the extra effort to separate the creation of the
music from its presentation. You need both skills, and you can't really
exercise the first one to its fullest if it's constrained by the latter.

(another personal anecdote from my schooling: I once had a fellow student
at music school who blithely declared, "I just don't write anything that I
can't notate easily in Finale." This was in the 90s, when Finale came on
floppies, and my horror at that statement has put me off using notation
software for my own scores ever since)

Cheers,

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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Tom Cloyd]

" If it isn’t hard, you can probably do better." - Love that. I'd say the
same about writing, of which I do a lot. It's easier than it was, but still
hard, if it's to be really good.

But...let's not tell Rossini that, OK? His work alone disputes the notion,
even if he might not. I don't know of anyone who could write more quickly
than he, although at times Mozart might have been his equal. Interesting
question, and best answered by those who know far morer than I.

t.

~

“Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons
exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ~ Neil Gaiman

~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA LMHC (WA) | t...@tomcloyd.com
Psychotherapist (psychological trauma, dissociative disorders)
Spokane, Washington, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
TomCloyd.com  | Google+
 | Facebook

~

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Vaughan McAlley 
wrote:

> On 24 March 2018 at 11:25, Flaming Hakama by Elaine <
> ela...@flaminghakama.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Tom Cloyd 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hogwash? Well, not really. Your point about what is possible is fine. I
>>> don't disagree. But my point remains, and my error was in not making it
>>> clear enough. I'll try again.
>>>
>>> It has to do with cognitive load and the concept of "limited attentional
>>> workspace", a key concept in cognitive psychology.
>>>
>>> Re: cognitive load: I'll wager that many of us are not exactly fluent in
>>> Lilypond. I'm certainly not. Using it is fun,
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I'd go that far!  It does amazing things, and that can be
>> rewarding.
>>
>>
>>
>>> but definitely requires thought and effort. Notating my developing score
>>> by hand is VERY much less effortful. Thus it imposes much less of a
>>> cognitive load.
>>>
>>> Re: limited attentional workspace: One of the best validated concepts in
>>> cognitive psychology is the idea that we can only keep a limited number of
>>> "things" in our consciousness at any one time. Our attentional workspace is
>>> seriously limited.
>>>
>>> So here's the point, given those two ideas: If one is not fluent in
>>> Lilypond, then it imposes a non-trivial cognitive load on us, reducing the
>>> energy we have to do other effortful things, such as create the music in
>>> our mind without recourse to an instrument. Furthermore, the sheer number
>>> of elements to track in a developing Lilypond program places real demands
>>> on our attentional workspace.
>>>
>>> Thus, I argue, NOT using Lilypond during the most creative part of
>>> composition give us much more cognitive reserve, of both sorts, for
>>> composing, including the part involving working without an instrument to
>>> "hear' the music on.
>>>
>>> I hope I'm making more sense now!
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying your point.
>>
>> Yes, I agree.  If the tools you are using are not familiar and
>> comfortable, then fiddling with tools will distract you from the important
>> work of composing.
>>
>> And I will readily admit that I much more enjoy writing on paper at a
>> piano than any other way!
>>
>> But once you are familiar enough with the tools, there are fewer reasons
>> to avoid using them for composing.  Beyond that, you actually can gain some
>> benefits by "auditioning" things more robustly when composing directly in
>> notation software, in particular things  you can't play on piano.And of
>> course, you save a little time since you don't have to re-enter some of the
>> material.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David Elaine Alt
>> 415 . 341 .4954 <(415)%20341-4954>
>> "Confusion is highly underrated"
>> ela...@flaminghakama.com
>> skype: flaming_hakama
>> Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>>
>> ___
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>
>>
> Lilypond, a piano, a good inner ear (which I’m lucky to have), or whatever
> the kids are using these days are all just tools. I’d be wrong to say a
> piece of mine is superior to *The Rite of Spring* because Stravinsky
> worked it all out on a piano and I use my inner ear. In this case, the
> destination is more important than the journey. But whatever you use, it’s
> important that you have as much mental capacity as possible available when
> composing, because composing is really hard. If it isn’t hard, you can
> probably do better.
>
> Vaughan
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Vaughan McAlley]

On 24 March 2018 at 11:25, Flaming Hakama by Elaine <
ela...@flaminghakama.com> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Tom Cloyd  wrote:
>
>> Hogwash? Well, not really. Your point about what is possible is fine. I
>> don't disagree. But my point remains, and my error was in not making it
>> clear enough. I'll try again.
>>
>> It has to do with cognitive load and the concept of "limited attentional
>> workspace", a key concept in cognitive psychology.
>>
>> Re: cognitive load: I'll wager that many of us are not exactly fluent in
>> Lilypond. I'm certainly not. Using it is fun,
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure I'd go that far!  It does amazing things, and that can be
> rewarding.
>
>
>
>> but definitely requires thought and effort. Notating my developing score
>> by hand is VERY much less effortful. Thus it imposes much less of a
>> cognitive load.
>>
>> Re: limited attentional workspace: One of the best validated concepts in
>> cognitive psychology is the idea that we can only keep a limited number of
>> "things" in our consciousness at any one time. Our attentional workspace is
>> seriously limited.
>>
>> So here's the point, given those two ideas: If one is not fluent in
>> Lilypond, then it imposes a non-trivial cognitive load on us, reducing the
>> energy we have to do other effortful things, such as create the music in
>> our mind without recourse to an instrument. Furthermore, the sheer number
>> of elements to track in a developing Lilypond program places real demands
>> on our attentional workspace.
>>
>> Thus, I argue, NOT using Lilypond during the most creative part of
>> composition give us much more cognitive reserve, of both sorts, for
>> composing, including the part involving working without an instrument to
>> "hear' the music on.
>>
>> I hope I'm making more sense now!
>>
>> Tom
>>
>
>
>
> Thanks for clarifying your point.
>
> Yes, I agree.  If the tools you are using are not familiar and
> comfortable, then fiddling with tools will distract you from the important
> work of composing.
>
> And I will readily admit that I much more enjoy writing on paper at a
> piano than any other way!
>
> But once you are familiar enough with the tools, there are fewer reasons
> to avoid using them for composing.  Beyond that, you actually can gain some
> benefits by "auditioning" things more robustly when composing directly in
> notation software, in particular things  you can't play on piano.And of
> course, you save a little time since you don't have to re-enter some of the
> material.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Elaine Alt
> 415 . 341 .4954 <(415)%20341-4954>
> "Confusion is highly underrated"
> ela...@flaminghakama.com
> skype: flaming_hakama
> Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>
Lilypond, a piano, a good inner ear (which I’m lucky to have), or whatever
the kids are using these days are all just tools. I’d be wrong to say a
piece of mine is superior to *The Rite of Spring* because Stravinsky worked
it all out on a piano and I use my inner ear. In this case, the destination
is more important than the journey. But whatever you use, it’s important
that you have as much mental capacity as possible available when composing,
because composing is really hard. If it isn’t hard, you can probably do
better.

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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Peter Engelbert]

I developed my inner ear almost entirely as an adult, so I learned it
consciously.

It came first from solfeging everything I came into contact with. That
helped me understand the diatonic tendencies of notes.

Then I studied counterpoint. In doing my exercises, i would do it on paper
first.  When I was finished, I always played one voice while singing the
other. Then I would switch the voices and do it again. I started to build
up a sense for how lines work together, and for what  different vertical
intervals sound like in different contexts.

When I found a teacher, he taught me harmony using the Boulanger method.
Long harmony exercises in four voices that were meant to be played at the
piano. You are given a baseline only and are forbidden to write the other
voices in. Play three voices and sing one. Repeat for all the voices.
Transpose through all possible keys and do the same. When you could do that
with one exercise (which would usually take 2 weeks of steady practice)
then you moved on to the next.

Then the same thing but with modulations.

Doing this provides you with aural standards against which exceptions are
measured. It becomes clear that the tenor line, for one, follows specific
motions from each chord to the next, and practicing it ad nauseum meant
that I had experiential knowledge of what that voice “meant” in that
context. I could look at a bass line in any key and sing the standard tenor
line that would go with the “standard” 4-voice realization.

The logical follow up to this is to play the Bach fugues while singing one
of the voices. Or the chorales. At every step, you are connecting music to
the VOICE first, the BODY second, and the MIND dead last.

At least, that’s how I developed my inner ear. I guarantee that anyone
following a similar method will have similar results.

And I wouldn’t dream of composing anything “into the computer”. It’s there
to check your work if you need it (if you don’t rely on it, it can actually
HELP you develop as you compare the midi to your own internal
representation). You just have to be sure to develop your internal
representation as fully as possible before checking your work.

Hope this provides some useful information,
Peter

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 14:42 Flaming Hakama by Elaine <
ela...@flaminghakama.com> wrote:

>
>>> From: Tom Cloyd 
>> To: Frauke Jurgensen 
>> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:24:48 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?
>
>
>> 100% in agreement. Developing that inner ear is immeasurably valuable,
>> but it takes effort, and that effort is made only when there's motivation.
>> Having only oneself to rely on provides the context for that motivation.
>> (HA! Can you guess MY occupation?)
>>
>
>
> I call hogwash.  Developing inner ear has nothing to do with using pencil
> & paper vs using notation software.  A more meaningful distinction is
> whether you are composing by ear or not:
>
> * If you are plucking out every note and chord at the piano, then notating
> the ones you like with pencil & paper (or into notation software), you are
> NOT developing your inner ear.
> * If you come up with all the notes in your head and enter them directly
> into notation software (or on paper), then you are are using your inner ear.
>
>
> I agree that the processes of composition, arranging/orchestration and
> engraving are distinct, and should be approached as such.  And I agree that
> developing your inner ear is crucial.  But you can do all of that with the
> help of notation software, or not.
>
>
> David Elaine Alt
> 415 . 341 .4954   "Confusion is
> highly underrated"
> ela...@flaminghakama.com
> skype: flaming_hakama
> Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> ___
> 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: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Tom Cloyd  wrote:

> Hogwash? Well, not really. Your point about what is possible is fine. I
> don't disagree. But my point remains, and my error was in not making it
> clear enough. I'll try again.
>
> It has to do with cognitive load and the concept of "limited attentional
> workspace", a key concept in cognitive psychology.
>
> Re: cognitive load: I'll wager that many of us are not exactly fluent in
> Lilypond. I'm certainly not. Using it is fun,
>


I'm not sure I'd go that far!  It does amazing things, and that can be
rewarding.



> but definitely requires thought and effort. Notating my developing score
> by hand is VERY much less effortful. Thus it imposes much less of a
> cognitive load.
>
> Re: limited attentional workspace: One of the best validated concepts in
> cognitive psychology is the idea that we can only keep a limited number of
> "things" in our consciousness at any one time. Our attentional workspace is
> seriously limited.
>
> So here's the point, given those two ideas: If one is not fluent in
> Lilypond, then it imposes a non-trivial cognitive load on us, reducing the
> energy we have to do other effortful things, such as create the music in
> our mind without recourse to an instrument. Furthermore, the sheer number
> of elements to track in a developing Lilypond program places real demands
> on our attentional workspace.
>
> Thus, I argue, NOT using Lilypond during the most creative part of
> composition give us much more cognitive reserve, of both sorts, for
> composing, including the part involving working without an instrument to
> "hear' the music on.
>
> I hope I'm making more sense now!
>
> Tom
>



Thanks for clarifying your point.

Yes, I agree.  If the tools you are using are not familiar and comfortable,
then fiddling with tools will distract you from the important work of
composing.

And I will readily admit that I much more enjoy writing on paper at a piano
than any other way!

But once you are familiar enough with the tools, there are fewer reasons to
avoid using them for composing.  Beyond that, you actually can gain some
benefits by "auditioning" things more robustly when composing directly in
notation software, in particular things  you can't play on piano.And of
course, you save a little time since you don't have to re-enter some of the
material.


Thanks,

David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954 <(415)%20341-4954>
"Confusion is highly underrated"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Tom Cloyd]

Hogwash? Well, not really. Your point about what is possible is fine. I
don't disagree. But my point remains, and my error was in not making it
clear enough. I'll try again.

It has to do with cognitive load and the concept of "limited attentional
workspace", a key concept in cognitive psychology.

Re: cognitive load: I'll wager that many of us are not exactly fluent in
Lilypond. I'm certainly not. Using it is fun, but definitely requires
thought and effort. Notating my developing score by hand is VERY much less
effortful. Thus it imposes much less of a cognitive load.

Re: limited attentional workspace: One of the best validated concepts in
cognitive psychology is the idea that we can only keep a limited number of
"things" in our consciousness at any one time. Our attentional workspace is
seriously limited.

So here's the point, given those two ideas: If one is not fluent in
Lilypond, then it imposes a non-trivial cognitive load on us, reducing the
energy we have to do other effortful things, such as create the music in
our mind without recourse to an instrument. Furthermore, the sheer number
of elements to track in a developing Lilypond program places real demands
on our attentional workspace.

Thus, I argue, NOT using Lilypond during the most creative part of
composition give us much more cognitive reserve, of both sorts, for
composing, including the part involving working without an instrument to
"hear' the music on.

I hope I'm making more sense now!

Tom

~

“Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons
exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ~ Neil Gaiman

~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA LMHC (WA) | t...@tomcloyd.com
Psychotherapist (psychological trauma, dissociative disorders)
Spokane, Washington, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
TomCloyd.com <http://www.tomcloyd.com/> | Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/106042234820400717450> | Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/645665272216298/>
~

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Flaming Hakama by Elaine <
ela...@flaminghakama.com> wrote:

>
>>> From: Tom Cloyd 
>> To: Frauke Jurgensen 
>> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:24:48 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?
>> 100% in agreement. Developing that inner ear is immeasurably valuable,
>> but it takes effort, and that effort is made only when there's motivation.
>> Having only oneself to rely on provides the context for that motivation.
>> (HA! Can you guess MY occupation?)
>>
>
>
> I call hogwash.  Developing inner ear has nothing to do with using pencil
> & paper vs using notation software.  A more meaningful distinction is
> whether you are composing by ear or not:
>
> * If you are plucking out every note and chord at the piano, then notating
> the ones you like with pencil & paper (or into notation software), you are
> NOT developing your inner ear.
> * If you come up with all the notes in your head and enter them directly
> into notation software (or on paper), then you are are using your inner ear.
>
>
> I agree that the processes of composition, arranging/orchestration and
> engraving are distinct, and should be approached as such.  And I agree that
> developing your inner ear is crucial.  But you can do all of that with the
> help of notation software, or not.
>
>
> David Elaine Alt
> 415 . 341 .4954 <(415)%20341-4954>
> "Confusion is highly underrated"
> ela...@flaminghakama.com
> skype: flaming_hakama
> Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> ___
> 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: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David,

>> 100% in agreement. Developing that inner ear is immeasurably valuable, but 
>> it takes effort, and that effort is made only when there's motivation. 
>> Having only oneself to rely on provides the context for that motivation. 
>> (HA! Can you guess MY occupation?)
> 
> I call hogwash.  Developing inner ear has nothing to do with using pencil & 
> paper vs using notation software.  A more meaningful distinction is whether 
> you are composing by ear or not:
> 
> * If you are plucking out every note and chord at the piano, then notating 
> the ones you like with pencil & paper (or into notation software), you are 
> NOT developing your inner ear.

Not strictly true: the fundamental piano sound has a very different attack, 
sustain, decay, and release than just about any other instrument, whereas a 
mockup ("using notation software" for that purpose) can be made to sound 
"exactly" like the instrument(s) in question. So at the piano, you *must* 
develop your inner ear in order to get past the piano sound to the sound of the 
actual instrumentation in question.

Granted, one develops one’s inner ear *more* by writing without playback of any 
sort (at the piano or in software), but since you started splitting hairs, I 
thought I’d join in the fun…  :^p

> I agree that the processes of composition, arranging/orchestration and 
> engraving are distinct, and should be approached as such.  And I agree that 
> developing your inner ear is crucial.  But you can do all of that with the 
> help of notation software, or not.

+1

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

>
>
>> From: Tom Cloyd 
> To: Frauke Jurgensen 
> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:24:48 -0700
> Subject: Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?
> 100% in agreement. Developing that inner ear is immeasurably valuable, but
> it takes effort, and that effort is made only when there's motivation.
> Having only oneself to rely on provides the context for that motivation.
> (HA! Can you guess MY occupation?)
>


I call hogwash.  Developing inner ear has nothing to do with using pencil &
paper vs using notation software.  A more meaningful distinction is whether
you are composing by ear or not:

* If you are plucking out every note and chord at the piano, then notating
the ones you like with pencil & paper (or into notation software), you are
NOT developing your inner ear.
* If you come up with all the notes in your head and enter them directly
into notation software (or on paper), then you are are using your inner ear.


I agree that the processes of composition, arranging/orchestration and
engraving are distinct, and should be approached as such.  And I agree that
developing your inner ear is crucial.  But you can do all of that with the
help of notation software, or not.


David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "Confusion is
highly underrated"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Tom Cloyd]

100% in agreement. Developing that inner ear is immeasurably valuable, but
it takes effort, and that effort is made only when there's motivation.
Having only oneself to rely on provides the context for that motivation.
(HA! Can you guess MY occupation?)

t.

~

“Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons
exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ~ Neil Gaiman

~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA LMHC (WA) | t...@tomcloyd.com
Psychotherapist (psychological trauma, dissociative disorders)
Spokane, Washington, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
TomCloyd.com  | Google+
 | Facebook

~

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Frauke Jurgensen 
wrote:

> I would agree with those who counsel paper and pencil for the
> compositional process itself. I would also argue that developing the link
> between notation and your inner ear is extremely helpful if you're going to
> use notation, and that software with playback features can be
> counterproductive in getting people to develop that link. I ban my students
> from using notation software in first year, at least, and strongly
> discourage it among more advanced students.
>
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, 07:38 Henning Hraban Ramm, 
> wrote:
>
>> I as a singer/songwriter with limited notational skills also use pen and
>> staff paper for the first draft(s) but then need a tool that lets me hear
>> if I got the rhythm right. (Even if that’s always a matter of
>> interpretation and may change in every verse.)
>> And as a quality aware typesetter and a programmer I just love LilyPond.
>> But if I’m trying several rhythmic variants (syncopes, triplets), because
>> I often don’t know what it is exactly what I hear in my head, it’s a
>> tedious approach to e.g. change several places and maybe voices from
>> syncopation to tuplets and back, or is it a timing change... Some of my
>> songs are quite irregular, but I want proper sheets.
>>
>> Greetlings, Hraban
>> ---
>> fiëé visuëlle
>> Henning Hraban Ramm
>> http://www.fiee.net
>>
>>
>> Am 2018-03-23 um 04:34 schrieb Tom Cloyd :
>>
>> > I have always found that nothing beats plain pencil and sheets of staff
>> paper, until I have the basic piece fairly complete. For me, it's clearly
>> faster to make even a second draft on paper than to move at that point to
>> LP and continue from there. I consider fast "hand writing" on staff paper
>> to be a basic composing skill, long used by those who come before us.
>> >
>> > Working this way, alterations are so much easier, in the initial
>> stages. Later, I find the reverse to be true. I do love getting to the
>> point where it's time to produce an actual engraved score, but revisions
>> certainly do continue after that.
>> >
>> > Tom
>> >
>> > ~
>> >
>> > “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons
>> exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ~ Neil Gaiman
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Frauke Jurgensen]

I would agree with those who counsel paper and pencil for the compositional
process itself. I would also argue that developing the link between
notation and your inner ear is extremely helpful if you're going to use
notation, and that software with playback features can be counterproductive
in getting people to develop that link. I ban my students from using
notation software in first year, at least, and strongly discourage it among
more advanced students.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, 07:38 Henning Hraban Ramm,  wrote:

> I as a singer/songwriter with limited notational skills also use pen and
> staff paper for the first draft(s) but then need a tool that lets me hear
> if I got the rhythm right. (Even if that’s always a matter of
> interpretation and may change in every verse.)
> And as a quality aware typesetter and a programmer I just love LilyPond.
> But if I’m trying several rhythmic variants (syncopes, triplets), because
> I often don’t know what it is exactly what I hear in my head, it’s a
> tedious approach to e.g. change several places and maybe voices from
> syncopation to tuplets and back, or is it a timing change... Some of my
> songs are quite irregular, but I want proper sheets.
>
> Greetlings, Hraban
> ---
> fiëé visuëlle
> Henning Hraban Ramm
> http://www.fiee.net
>
>
> Am 2018-03-23 um 04:34 schrieb Tom Cloyd :
>
> > I have always found that nothing beats plain pencil and sheets of staff
> paper, until I have the basic piece fairly complete. For me, it's clearly
> faster to make even a second draft on paper than to move at that point to
> LP and continue from there. I consider fast "hand writing" on staff paper
> to be a basic composing skill, long used by those who come before us.
> >
> > Working this way, alterations are so much easier, in the initial stages.
> Later, I find the reverse to be true. I do love getting to the point where
> it's time to produce an actual engraved score, but revisions certainly do
> continue after that.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > ~
> >
> > “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons
> exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ~ Neil Gaiman
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

I as a singer/songwriter with limited notational skills also use pen and staff 
paper for the first draft(s) but then need a tool that lets me hear if I got 
the rhythm right. (Even if that’s always a matter of interpretation and may 
change in every verse.)
And as a quality aware typesetter and a programmer I just love LilyPond.
But if I’m trying several rhythmic variants (syncopes, triplets), because I 
often don’t know what it is exactly what I hear in my head, it’s a tedious 
approach to e.g. change several places and maybe voices from syncopation to 
tuplets and back, or is it a timing change... Some of my songs are quite 
irregular, but I want proper sheets.

Greetlings, Hraban
---
fiëé visuëlle
Henning Hraban Ramm
http://www.fiee.net


Am 2018-03-23 um 04:34 schrieb Tom Cloyd :

> I have always found that nothing beats plain pencil and sheets of staff 
> paper, until I have the basic piece fairly complete. For me, it's clearly 
> faster to make even a second draft on paper than to move at that point to LP 
> and continue from there. I consider fast "hand writing" on staff paper to be 
> a basic composing skill, long used by those who come before us. 
> 
> Working this way, alterations are so much easier, in the initial stages. 
> Later, I find the reverse to be true. I do love getting to the point where 
> it's time to produce an actual engraved score, but revisions certainly do 
> continue after that. 
> 
> Tom
> 
> ~
> 
> “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, 
> but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ~ Neil Gaiman



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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Tom Cloyd]

I have always found that nothing beats plain pencil and sheets of staff
paper, until I have the basic piece fairly complete. For me, it's clearly
faster to make even a second draft on paper than to move at that point to
LP and continue from there. I consider fast "hand writing" on staff paper
to be a basic composing skill, long used by those who come before us.

Working this way, alterations are so much easier, in the initial stages.
Later, I find the reverse to be true. I do love getting to the point where
it's time to produce an actual engraved score, but revisions certainly do
continue after that.

Tom

~

“Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons
exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ~ Neil Gaiman

~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA LMHC (WA) | t...@tomcloyd.com
Psychotherapist (psychological trauma, dissociative disorders)
Spokane, Washington, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
TomCloyd.com  | Google+
 | Facebook

~

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Vaughan McAlley 
wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, 08:08 Nathan Sprangers, 
> wrote:
>
>> I've been using lilypond for a much shorter time, but my impression is
>> that lilypond excels when you know exactly what you want to input. It's
>> also difficult to work on different parts of the score unless you set up
>> some sort of system to break the piece into smaller chunks.
>>
>> So I've been doing more work at the piano than I used to, then creating
>> my score in lilypond based on my hand written sketch. Honestly, working at
>> the piano has been more efficient than doing similar work in musescore.
>>
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2018 11:41 AM, "jtruc34"  wrote:
>>
>>> That may seem like a stupid question, but I've been using LilyPond with
>>> Frescobaldi for a year and a half, but I start to ask myself if it is as
>>> efficient as if I had used another tool like Musescore.
>>>
>>> I explain: I don't have at all a powerful computer, and I think that an
>>> essential feature that I have to have to compose efficiently is to see
>>> what
>>> I've written in real-time. There is such a feature in Frescobaldi name
>>> "continuous engraving" (or something like that, my version is not in
>>> English), but on my slow computer and with a big project such as a
>>> 20-pages
>>> quartet or symphony, it takes at least 40 to 50 seconds to render.
>>>
>>> In addition, it would be great to hear the music out of the midi file by
>>> clicking on the preview (like on almost every WYSIWYG music software) but
>>> Frescobaldi's midi player is pretty useless for that.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that LilyPond and Frescobaldi are bad, it's probably just
>>> me
>>> who don't know the right tools or the right way to use them. I'm asking
>>> to
>>> find a way to make my workflow more convenient to compose.
>>>
>>> Do you have any suggestions?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>
> It sounds like Denemo might suit you. But like Nathan, I try to be dealing
> with as little technology as possible when I'm actually composing.
> Unfortunately, even pencils need sharpening and erasers need to be
> remembered :-)
>
> Vaughan
>
>>
>>
> ___
> 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: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Vaughan McAlley]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, 08:08 Nathan Sprangers, 
wrote:

> I've been using lilypond for a much shorter time, but my impression is
> that lilypond excels when you know exactly what you want to input. It's
> also difficult to work on different parts of the score unless you set up
> some sort of system to break the piece into smaller chunks.
>
> So I've been doing more work at the piano than I used to, then creating my
> score in lilypond based on my hand written sketch. Honestly, working at the
> piano has been more efficient than doing similar work in musescore.
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2018 11:41 AM, "jtruc34"  wrote:
>
>> That may seem like a stupid question, but I've been using LilyPond with
>> Frescobaldi for a year and a half, but I start to ask myself if it is as
>> efficient as if I had used another tool like Musescore.
>>
>> I explain: I don't have at all a powerful computer, and I think that an
>> essential feature that I have to have to compose efficiently is to see
>> what
>> I've written in real-time. There is such a feature in Frescobaldi name
>> "continuous engraving" (or something like that, my version is not in
>> English), but on my slow computer and with a big project such as a
>> 20-pages
>> quartet or symphony, it takes at least 40 to 50 seconds to render.
>>
>> In addition, it would be great to hear the music out of the midi file by
>> clicking on the preview (like on almost every WYSIWYG music software) but
>> Frescobaldi's midi player is pretty useless for that.
>>
>> I'm not saying that LilyPond and Frescobaldi are bad, it's probably just
>> me
>> who don't know the right tools or the right way to use them. I'm asking to
>> find a way to make my workflow more convenient to compose.
>>
>> Do you have any suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
>>
>> ___
>> 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


It sounds like Denemo might suit you. But like Nathan, I try to be dealing
with as little technology as possible when I'm actually composing.
Unfortunately, even pencils need sharpening and erasers need to be
remembered :-)

Vaughan

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

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Nathan Sprangers]

I've been using lilypond for a much shorter time, but my impression is that
lilypond excels when you know exactly what you want to input. It's also
difficult to work on different parts of the score unless you set up some
sort of system to break the piece into smaller chunks.

So I've been doing more work at the piano than I used to, then creating my
score in lilypond based on my hand written sketch. Honestly, working at the
piano has been more efficient than doing similar work in musescore.


On Mar 22, 2018 11:41 AM, "jtruc34"  wrote:

> That may seem like a stupid question, but I've been using LilyPond with
> Frescobaldi for a year and a half, but I start to ask myself if it is as
> efficient as if I had used another tool like Musescore.
>
> I explain: I don't have at all a powerful computer, and I think that an
> essential feature that I have to have to compose efficiently is to see what
> I've written in real-time. There is such a feature in Frescobaldi name
> "continuous engraving" (or something like that, my version is not in
> English), but on my slow computer and with a big project such as a 20-pages
> quartet or symphony, it takes at least 40 to 50 seconds to render.
>
> In addition, it would be great to hear the music out of the midi file by
> clicking on the preview (like on almost every WYSIWYG music software) but
> Frescobaldi's midi player is pretty useless for that.
>
> I'm not saying that LilyPond and Frescobaldi are bad, it's probably just me
> who don't know the right tools or the right way to use them. I'm asking to
> find a way to make my workflow more convenient to compose.
>
> Do you have any suggestions?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
>
> ___
> 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: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

 -- Forwarded message --

> From: Jonas Daverio 
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Is lilypond suitable for big composition projects?
> That may seem like a stupid question, but I've been using LilyPond with
> Frescobaldi for a year and a half, but I start to ask myself if it is as
> efficient as if I had used another tool like Musescore.
>
> I explain: I don't have at all a powerful computer, and I think that an
> essential feature that I have to have to compose efficiently is to see what
> I've written in real-time. There is such a feature in Frescobaldi name
> "continuous engraving" (or something like that, my version is not in
> English), but on my slow computer and with a big project such as a 20-pages
> quartet or symphony, it takes at least 40 to 50 seconds to render.
>
> In addition, it would be great to hear the music out of the midi file by
> clicking on the preview (like on almost every WYSIWYG music software) but
> Frescobaldi's midi player is pretty useless for that.
>
> I'm not saying that LilyPond and Frescobaldi are bad, it's probably just
> me who don't know the right tools or the right way to use them. I'm asking
> to find a way to make my workflow more convenient to compose.
>
> Do you have any suggestions?
>
> Thanks!
>


I find that, for my scores that consist of about a dozen staves, that 32
bars or so is the largest chunk that I like to work on (for PDF, since MIDI
compilation is much faster).

I use a tag structure to switch on which segments of the piece I want to
see.  It requires a bit of setup, so it is not fun to impose on something
already in existence.

For previewing MIDI, I import the MIDI file into Logic.  Not an automatic
process, but  not too bad.


\version "2.19.15"

melodyChorusOne = \relative { \mark "Chorus 1" c''1 1 1 1 \bar "||" }
melodyChorusTwo = \relative { \mark "Chorus 2" d''1 1 1 1 \bar "|." }

melody = {
\tag #'ChorusOne { \melodyChorusOne }
\tag #'ChorusTwo { \melodyChorusTwo }
}

harmonyChorusOne = \relative { e'1 1 1 1 }
harmonyChorusTwo = \relative { b'1 1 1 1 }

harmony = {
\tag #'ChorusOne { \harmonyChorusOne }
\tag #'ChorusTwo { \harmonyChorusTwo }
}


%  Full Score
\score {

\keepWithTag #'(

%  Formatting one tag per line allows you to easily comment-in/out
a segment
ChorusOne
ChorusTwo
%ChorusThree

%  In case you do have differing content between PDF and MIDI,
%  like fermatas, tempo changes and repeats
%  you can add a tag pair PDF/MIDI to distinguish between them
PDF

) <<
\melody
\harmony
>>
\layout {}


%  The MIDI version can contain a different set of segments than the PDF
\keepWithTag #'(
MIDI
ChorusOne
ChorusTwo
ChorusThree
) <<
\melody
\harmony
>>
   \midi {}
}


%  Just 2nd Chorus
\score {
\keepWithTag #'(
PDF
%ChorusOne
ChorusTwo
%ChorusThree
) <<
 \melody
 \harmony
>>
\layout {}
}




HTH,


David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Richard Shann]

On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 08:08 -0700, jtruc34 wrote:
> That may seem like a stupid question, but I've been using LilyPond
> with
> Frescobaldi for a year and a half, but I start to ask myself if it is
> as
> efficient as if I had used another tool like Musescore.
> 
> I explain: I don't have at all a powerful computer, and I think that
> an
> essential feature that I have to have to compose efficiently is to
> see what
> I've written in real-time. There is such a feature in Frescobaldi
> name
> "continuous engraving" (or something like that, my version is not in
> English), but on my slow computer and with a big project such as a
> 20-pages
> quartet or symphony, it takes at least 40 to 50 seconds to render.

Denemo allows you to set a range of bars/staffs around the current
cursor which it will typeset continuously for you, though as Denemo
provides you with an instant (simple) typeset to see you wouldn't need
it for just understanding what you have entered. The advantage over
drafting with Musescore et al is that you can export the LilyPond
instantly.

Richard


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

Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[jtruc34]

That may seem like a stupid question, but I've been using LilyPond with
Frescobaldi for a year and a half, but I start to ask myself if it is as
efficient as if I had used another tool like Musescore.

I explain: I don't have at all a powerful computer, and I think that an
essential feature that I have to have to compose efficiently is to see what
I've written in real-time. There is such a feature in Frescobaldi name
"continuous engraving" (or something like that, my version is not in
English), but on my slow computer and with a big project such as a 20-pages
quartet or symphony, it takes at least 40 to 50 seconds to render.

In addition, it would be great to hear the music out of the midi file by
clicking on the preview (like on almost every WYSIWYG music software) but
Frescobaldi's midi player is pretty useless for that.

I'm not saying that LilyPond and Frescobaldi are bad, it's probably just me
who don't know the right tools or the right way to use them. I'm asking to
find a way to make my workflow more convenient to compose.

Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks!



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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