Re: producing archival scores
Hi List, I just read this very interesting discussion. I don't think this is a problem that will easily be solved. In fact, this is not a Lilypond- or even music notation-specific problem. Similar cases exist for all other file formats. (For example: how future proof is Microsoft's .doc format?) However, I just want to add another possible direction for a solution. I recently came across a project called XSugar (www.brics.dk/xsugar/). It's a tool that gives the possibility to transform between XML and non-XML formats in two directions. (Unlike XSLT, which can do a transformation from XML to non-XML, but not the other way around.) I think it should be possible to write a XSugar grammar for converting Lilypond format to MusicXML and back. Unfortunately I don't have the time to investigate this, but perhaps someone else has... Best regards, Bart Kummel, Hilversum, The Netherlands On 4/12/07, Valentin Villenave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/4/12, Stuart Pullinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In conclusion: SVG provide an alternative to PDF which may be more future-proof provided that you are prepared for patchy support in current browsers. ...and provided that multi-pages SVG support is not yet really available, which makes it rather unsuitable for musical purposes (as you may know it, most of scores tend to make more than one page ;-) ...though it would indeed be a very good idea to design some special music-oriented SVG-like vector graphics format. (PS. Thank you so much Cameron for the link: I didn't knew about this interview but it's been a pleasure to discover it; I perfectly agree with Jan and Han-Wen about all of it, particularly their vision of MusicXML weakness and superficiality.) Regards, Valentin Villenave. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bart Kummel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi List, I just read this very interesting discussion. I don't think this is a problem that will easily be solved. In fact, this is not a Lilypond- or even music notation-specific problem. Similar cases exist for all other file formats. (For example: how future proof is Microsoft's .doc format?) However, I just want to add another possible direction for a solution. I recently came across a project called XSugar (www.brics.dk/xsugar/ ). It's a tool that gives the possibility to transform between XML and non-XML formats in two directions. (Unlike XSLT, which can do a transformation from XML to non-XML, but not the other way around.) I think it should be possible to write a XSugar grammar for converting Lilypond format to MusicXML and back. Unfortunately I don't have the time to investigate this, but perhaps someone else has... There's lots of options like this ... Is it Erik? who has done an Antlr grammar for lilypond? Antlr's great at transforming stuff, and it's my personal opinion convert-ly should be rewritten to use Antlr to convert between pretty much any form of input. That could then convert to and from XML, .ly, Sibelius, Finale, whatever, just by adding extra grammars. I'm not volunteering, though!!! There's also the possibility the Music Streams work will make a lot of this conversion stuff easier - I think that is in part the aim of doing the music stream stuff. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Suggestion for producing archival scores
I just tried something out which may fill this requirement as discussed recently. It presently involves using additional software to Lilypond. The PDF specification allows for file attachments within PDF files from version 1.3 onwards. The original .ly file can be attached within the LP pdf output, and extracted later if required. The PDF toolkit (google PDFTK) command line utility is one way to add the .ly file to the pdf. I do this on Mac OSX in the Terminal by entering on one line.. /usr/local/bin/pdftk tchavolo_swing_chords.pdf attach_files tchavolo_swing_chords.ly output attached.pdf The attachment can then be viewed or saved from 'attached.pdf' in Acrobat Reader using View-Navigation Panels-Attachments The attachment does not appear in normal viewing or printing of the pdf score. If worthwhile, it should be possible to make a Lily option somehow to do the attaching (with a bit of development). Any suggestions for making it clear the file contains a score attachment? e.g. different file extension? Steve ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 16:40:01 -0400 Jason Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So far, the best option was suggested by Tom: a tool called PDFtoMusic Pro that converts PDF scores into MusicXML. The pros are that it is available right now, and that it presumably works. Downsides are that it is proprietary and not free, and takes what seems to me a rather indirect route towards solving my particular problem. Any other suggestions? Any comments on the likelihood of being able to compile lilypond into a music interchange format at some point in the future? One possibiltiy that has not been mentioned yet is to use lilypond's SVG output instead of PDF. SVG is an open standard developed at the w3c: http://www.w3c.org/Grapics/SVG/ The pros: since SVG is an open standard and not reliant on one company to support it, it is, in a sense, more future-proof than PDF. SVG is an xml dialect and therefore it will be possible to use XSLT to transform the SVG files into future file formats (although I accept that this could be time-consuming). The cons: SVG is not music-aware - it is merely a graphics file. The files can be edited in a graphics program such as Inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org) but this is only in a moving-blobs-and-lines-around-a-screen sense not in a notation editor. It would be possible to make lilypond's SVG output more music-aware (and this is an area that I am interested in) but, as far as I know, there is no svg-based music-aware file format that you could use. You would therefore still have to archive the .ly files or their MusicXML equivalents. SVG are supported in Firefox and Konqueror (in GNU/Linux) but I understand that support in IE is is poor. In conclusion: SVG provide an alternative to PDF which may be more future-proof provided that you are prepared for patchy support in current browsers. Stuart ___ lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 11:29:28PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: (snip) There is not now, nor ever will be, some universal music language. MusicXML is an option, but not one everybody will choose. One could ask the exact same question by replacing 'lilypond' with 'MusicXML'. The issue with archival (it seems to me) is a format whose source will always be readable and whose output will always be viewable. Seems to me Lilypond and MusicXML are the only ones that provide both of these. They also seem to me to be the only two options that are non-proprietary so others will not have purchase anything to access your work. Whether you prefer MusicXML or Lilypond is a matter of taste, methinks. Obviously the people on this list are going to have a marked bias towards Lilypond, but that is indeed another question. I could argue that Finale is also a music interchange format that is widely supported. MusicXML is just one more way of encoding music. Any format that uses plain text as source and a non-proprietary compiler I think is a perfectly decent archival option. There's an important distinction to be drawn here. MusicXML vs Lilypond is not just a matter of taste because the two clearly have different goals. MusicXML is objectively a terrible format for inputting music from a computer keyboard. However, according to Wikipedia, MusicXML is supported to varying degrees by over 75 different notation programs, including the two leading scorewriting programs, Finale and Sibelius. Because it is supported by many different programs of all types (graphical and ascii, free and non-free, etc.), and because it is open so that any project can add support for it, MusicXML is currently a viable interchange format. Lilypond is not readable by such a large array of programs, and so is currently a less viable interchange format. Now, it is possible (but seemingly not likely) that in the future all these and other programs will adopt support for lilypond, which would make it a viable interchange format. Barring that, though, and in it's current state, lilypond is something of a black hole. You can turn anything else into lilypond via MusicXML, but once you've worked on it in lilypond, there's no obvious way to get it back into a different editable format. Luckily, this problem could be entirely addressed on Lilypond's end if it could be compiled to a suitable interchange format. Figuring out if there was already a way to do this was the intent of my original question. In my opinion, being able to get a file into an interchange format as I've described here is one property (certainly not the only property) that helps make it archival. (snip) I should say that I make no claims about MusicXML being in some way ideal for interchange. It may or may not have inherent features that make it better than lilypond or other formats for interchange. The only things it has going for it that I know or care about are that it is open, and that it has done a good enough job marketing itself that it is already widely supported. The latter is, I suspect, no small task, which is why one might satisfy themselves with using MusicXML for interchange rather than trying to make their favorite format into an interchange format by convincing everyone else in the world to support it. A few years ago Chris Cannam interviewed Jan and Han-Wen about the LilyPond project, and there was some discussion about the shortcomings of MusicXML and how it differs from LilyPond. I'm not sure if it adds much to this discussion, but it might be relevant. The interview itself has disappeared, but it was Slashdotted and some kind soul posted the text of the article (and was promptly modded -1 Troll, but there you go.) If you want to have a look, go to http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100385cid=8559721 If you can get past the GNAA trolls there were a few interesting comments made, too. Have a look at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/13/2054227 -- = Cameron Horsburgh = ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 16:40:01 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: Thanks for the interesting comments so far. I want to refocus the discussion slightly. I didn't mean to get into a discussion about the relative merits of lilypond as an entry tool, exactly, so take as a temporary supposition that I want to enter music in lilypond right now, but that at some future time, someone else wants to modify that music in a program other than lilypond. How can I do something now to make that easiest? Anything software-based is (in practical terms, whatever anybody says) going to require maintenance and constant updates in order to keep it usable. It will not just be there in the future for anyone to use, unless you keep working on it in the mean time. Systems will change, standards will change, unexpected things will happen. So: either keep working on it, or print it on paper and keep it on a bookshelf. THAT's how to really save trouble. Once you ask But which software might be slightly better to have in the future?, nobody can give a good answer, because too many assumptions are required. All of the software choices carry huge risks, when you compare them to keeping a physical human-readable archive. David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
David Rogers wrote: Once you ask But which software might be slightly better to have in the future?, nobody can give a good answer, because too many assumptions are required. All of the software choices carry huge risks, when you compare them to keeping a physical human-readable archive. I agree that physical human-readable archives are the best choice, but we _can_ make reasonable assumptions about software-based solutions. Open-source software will never have any legal barriers to use (as opposed to a copy of Sibelius should that company go bankrupt). Popular projects/formats are more likely to receive the necessary tweaking to ensure that they are still usable. As much as I hate to admit it, by this point it seems that musicXML is a better long-term (10+ years) storage format than lilypond. You might need to write a special program that translates the 2006 musicXML into the popular freely-documented music format of 2020, but such programs will probably exist already or will be relatively easy to write. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
Hi, all: Long answer: we would welcome any patches and developers interested in building *and maintaining* musicXML output (and input). I'm happy to work on MusicXML stuff when I'm available... that just doesn't happen to be very often, given my commission schedule. =\ a much better solution would be for an interested user to step forward and start coding. musicXML - lilypond is currently done as a python script; python is a very nice language and is quite easy to learn. Why is it not in XSLT? Even if the performance is worse, it would seem to make more sense from an industry perspective... lilypond - musicXML is currently done in scheme; scheme isn't as easy as python, but I don't think you need to learn a lot of it in order to do this. Are music streams completely implemented in the current version of Lilypond? From the discussions I saw, I was under the impression that streams would significantly enhance the interchange-ability of Lilypond code. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kieren MacMillan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes musicXML - lilypond is currently done as a python script; python is a very nice language and is quite easy to learn. Why is it not in XSLT? Even if the performance is worse, it would seem to make more sense from an industry perspective... As I understand XSLT it is designed to convert from one valid XML representation to another valid XML representation. As such, XSLT is probably useless. Can you write a DTD for lilypond? Without it, I don't think you can use XSLT. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
On 4/10/07, Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kieren MacMillan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes musicXML - lilypond is currently done as a python script; python is a very nice language and is quite easy to learn. Why is it not in XSLT? Even if the performance is worse, it would seem to make more sense from an industry perspective... As I understand XSLT it is designed to convert from one valid XML representation to another valid XML representation. yes, that's the most common usage, it is however possible to transform into something non-xml However, developing (*and* supporting) a working xslt solution is a *major* PITA. Secondly, xslt is essentially stateless leading to more pain... So... stay clear of xslt :) regards, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
Roland asked: I wonder what the typical note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time ratio is amongst LilyPond users. For me, lilypond works quite well out of the box and my ratio is probably about 90/10. Then again, I'm mostly working on just horn parts for myself - not piano or choir or orchestral scores. Tim Reeves ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
Hello list, hello Tom, You wrote: . . . if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a score, so that's not so bad). [ ... ] I spend 80 to 90% of my time on fixing the layout. So for me, preservation of layout is the prime requirement as regards archiving. I wonder what the typical note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time ratio is amongst LilyPond users. 10% / 90% Though I've made lots of own definitions in an extra file, for me tweaking is taking most of the time ... Best Regards Roland ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
stk at alcor.concordia.ca writes: I wonder what the typical note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time ratio is amongst LilyPond users. I'm probably not average (who is?), but I guess I spend about 40% of the time spent on a score on initial note entry, 30% on layout tweaking, 20% on proofreading and 10% on other stuff. But that's just a wild guess; I haven't timed much of it. Of course, I spend another bunch of time on improving my template and include files, checking or posting to the mailing lists, narrowing down and reporting bugs that I've stumbled upon, playing around with guile to make LilyPond produce e.g. covers and once even improving functionality. To return to the subject: I think .ly is a good format for archival purposes, combined with the PDF. You can probably find even quite old versions of Lilypond -- and of an old enough OS environment if you need that -- many years ahead, but if you really need the exact output you got from a version you used, use the PDF. When I re-use a lilypond file, it's usually either because I want to correct a typo or ten, or because I want to take advantage of the improved typesetting in a newer version. Or both. convert-ly does most of the conversion work, and most of what it doesn't convert is either straightforward to retype in a newer version or redundant because of improvements in the newer version. Also, .ly files work brilliantly with revision control systems; I use CVS on all my typesetting work, and while I could do that with an XML-based or a binary format, a text format like .ly lets me view changes etc much more easily. (Plus, it takes up significantly less disk space.) On another note, it looks to me like the base .ly format itself has stabilized a lot recently, to the extent that I don't expect a 3.0 version under the current version numbering regime /ever/. But that's just my impression. B-) Cheers, -- Arvid ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
On 4/5/07, Valentin Villenave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everybody, hello Jason, I would like to add my 2 cents here: though LilyPond syntax evolves indeed very quickly, you'll always be able to find the version of LilyPond which was in use when you first typed your score, on http://lilypond.org/web/install/older-versions or http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/sources/ This is why open-Source gives some guarantees (well, relatively at least) you won't be able to find with any other proprietary software: Just to clarify one small thing: I think that it would be nearly impossible -- or at least extraordinarily difficult -- to compile on a modern distribution of Linux a sufficiently old version of Lilypond so that ancient .ly files can be used directly. The nice thing about the old ly files is that the syntax is usually similar enough that if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a score, so that's not so bad). --Josiah ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
Josiah Boothby wrote: On 4/5/07, Valentin Villenave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everybody, hello Jason, I would like to add my 2 cents here: though LilyPond syntax evolves indeed very quickly, you'll always be able to find the version of LilyPond which was in use when you first typed your score, on http://lilypond.org/web/install/older-versions or http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/sources/ This is why open-Source gives some guarantees (well, relatively at least) you won't be able to find with any other proprietary software: Just to clarify one small thing: I think that it would be nearly impossible -- or at least extraordinarily difficult -- to compile on a modern distribution of Linux a sufficiently old version of Lilypond so that ancient .ly files can be used directly. The nice thing about the old ly files is that the syntax is usually similar enough that if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a score, so that's not so bad). Don't the new distributions *include* all the dependencies? The FreeBSD and Windows packages seem to. I don't have an extra box to experiment with though. In any case, I agree that the note entry syntax doesn't change and that represents (for me anyway) 90% of the work. I will still rely on Lilypond for archival scores. Proprietary software won't cut it (as explained earlier) and MusicXML seems insanely verbose to me. The snippet at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicXML is way too long just to get a clef, time signature, and middle C. Cheers! -- Aaron Dalton | Super Duper Games [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://superdupergames.org ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
Thanks for the interesting comments so far. I want to refocus the discussion slightly. I didn't mean to get into a discussion about the relative merits of lilypond as an entry tool, exactly, so take as a temporary supposition that I want to enter music in lilypond right now, but that at some future time, someone else wants to modify that music in a program other than lilypond. How can I do something now to make that easiest? Josiah makes the point that MusicXML is too verbose. I agree; however, it succeeds at it's stated goal of being a music interchange format in that it is widely supported. Is there another, better music interchange format either available or in development? So far, the best option was suggested by Tom: a tool called PDFtoMusic Pro that converts PDF scores into MusicXML. The pros are that it is available right now, and that it presumably works. Downsides are that it is proprietary and not free, and takes what seems to me a rather indirect route towards solving my particular problem. Any other suggestions? Any comments on the likelihood of being able to compile lilypond into a music interchange format at some point in the future? Regards, Jason Merrill ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
Jason Merrill wrote: Thanks for the interesting comments so far. I want to refocus the discussion slightly. I didn't mean to get into a discussion about the relative merits of lilypond as an entry tool, exactly, so take as a temporary supposition that I want to enter music in lilypond right now, but that at some future time, someone else wants to modify that music in a program other than lilypond. How can I do something now to make that easiest? There is not now, nor ever will be, some universal music language. MusicXML is an option, but not one everybody will choose. One could ask the exact same question by replacing 'lilypond' with 'MusicXML'. The issue with archival (it seems to me) is a format whose source will always be readable and whose output will always be viewable. Seems to me Lilypond and MusicXML are the only ones that provide both of these. They also seem to me to be the only two options that are non-proprietary so others will not have purchase anything to access your work. Whether you prefer MusicXML or Lilypond is a matter of taste, methinks. Obviously the people on this list are going to have a marked bias towards Lilypond, but that is indeed another question. Josiah makes the point that MusicXML is too verbose. I agree; however, it succeeds at it's stated goal of being a music interchange format in that it is widely supported. Is there another, better music interchange format either available or in development? I could argue that Finale is also a music interchange format that is widely supported. MusicXML is just one more way of encoding music. Any format that uses plain text as source and a non-proprietary compiler I think is a perfectly decent archival option. So far, the best option was suggested by Tom: a tool called PDFtoMusic Pro that converts PDF scores into MusicXML. The pros are that it is available right now, and that it presumably works. Downsides are that it is proprietary and not free, and takes what seems to me a rather indirect route towards solving my particular problem. 1) I have strong reservations about the claims made by this product. I would be very interested in hearing what people's results have been. I cannot imagine that they can do what they say with the accuracy they imply. 2) The fact that it's proprietary to me is more than a downside, but actually kills the option as one for long-term archival. I guess it depends on your goals. It sounds like you're more interested in exchange rather than archival. Any other suggestions? Any comments on the likelihood of being able to compile lilypond into a music interchange format at some point in the future? I see no reason why a ly2musicxml utility could not be done, but I don't know enough about the guts of Lilypond personally. It's an interesting question to be sure. -- Aaron Dalton | Super Duper Games [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://superdupergames.org ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
. . . if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a score, so that's not so bad). I use LilyPond for cases that have intractable layout problems, either because of complicated text requirements or because of the the necessity of squeezing a score into 3 pages. Note entry goes extremely fast, and I spend 80 to 90% of my time on fixing the layout. So for me, preservation of layout is the prime requirement as regards archiving. I wonder what the typical note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time ratio is amongst LilyPond users. -- Tom ** Josiah Boothby wrote: Just to clarify one small thing: I think that it would be nearly impossible -- or at least extraordinarily difficult -- to compile on a modern distribution of Linux a sufficiently old version of Lilypond so that ancient .ly files can be used directly. The nice thing about the old ly files is that the syntax is usually similar enough that if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a score, so that's not so bad). --Josiah ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
I love lilypond, and would like to encourage others to use it also, and the answer to Jason's question would help me as well. I hope someone can answer it well. Night before last, I was playing off a part that someone had generated using Finale Print Music (?), and it wasn't very good (way too much white space on the page, tempo marks on top of chord symbols, etc.), and a copy of another part (from a music publisher!) had such thin staff lines and bar lines that I could hardly read the thing. Lilypond rules, others drool, as my seven year old son might say. Tim Reeves ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
Hi -- I think you're right that LilyPond (.ly) files aren't good for long-term archival, since LilyPond syntax changes so rapidly. Myriad (in France) has released a program called PDFtoMusic Pro that purportedly will convert a PDF file to MusicXML or to MIDI. Presumably the PDF file cannot be a scanned image; I think it has to be laid out in a music font. You can read about it at http://www.myriadonline.com/en/products/pdftomusicpro.htm Caveats: -- It's very expensive (U.S. $199). -- Does it really work? -- It is probable that in extracting the musical information, it might not extract the note-spacing information, in which case you would not really be extracting the *layout*, which I am sure is what you want to do. So this program is probably not what you want, but I mention it because you may not have heard of it and you still might want to look at all available options. Probably there are other LilyPond users that will have better suggestions. -- Tom ** Jason Merrill wrote: I'm wondering to what extent lilypond files can be considered archival, and if there is a good workflow for producing archival documents using lilypond. By this, I mean that now that I've taken the effort of copying a score into the computer, I'd like to save everyone in the future from making the same effort, and also allow them easiest access to a form of the score that provides them the greatest possible utility. PDF files are certainly good for looking at and printing, and practically everyone is set up to use them. However, you can't really edit them directly. Providing access to the .ly file also seems pretty good. It's easy to edit, and open source so there's no vendor lock in and all that. The problem is that I'm not sure I could convince some of my less technically oriented friends to use lilypond. Even after I tell them how much faster it is for me to type stuff in than it is to mess around with a mouse and finale, and how it's free and how I love it, I have a feeling the first time they see a compiler error because of a misplaced comma they are going to give up. This isn't a criticism of lilypond exactly--lilypond is aimed at a particular group of users and I think it serves them extremely well. Nonetheless, its steep learning curve makes me wary of considering it archival. So what other choices are there? Proprietary formats are out of the question because they're, well, proprietary. That pretty much leaves MusicXML, as far as I know, which benefits from being readable by any program my less technically oriented friends are likely to use. As far as I can tell, however, there's no way to get lilypond files into MusicXML format. Say in a few years some program that is vastly superior to lilypond comes along, and it's so good that no one wants to use lilypond anymore. Unless I can get my lilypond files into that new program, they're not so useful anymore. It seems more likely that this hypothetical new system will allow me to import MusicXML than to import .ly files. Is there any work being done on a system that allows lilypond to compile to MusicXML (or some other good technology I don't know about) instead of PDF ? From what I understand, the makers of Lilypond don't think very highly of MusicXML. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this problem. Am I wrong in thinking that lilypond files aren't really archival? Is there some solution I haven't thought of? Regards, Jason Merrill ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: producing archival scores
Hello everybody, hello Jason, I would like to add my 2 cents here: though LilyPond syntax evolves indeed very quickly, you'll always be able to find the version of LilyPond which was in use when you first typed your score, on http://lilypond.org/web/install/older-versions or http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/sources/ This is why open-Source gives some guarantees (well, relatively at least) you won't be able to find with any other proprietary software: even if, say, Han-Wen, Jan and a few other couldn't take it anymore someday, or if the LilyPond.org site was taken down and not recoverable, or the worst situation you could imagine, you'll probably be able to find some repository somewhere with the version you need, since anybody is (and will always be) granted to redistribute it. Just try to find Encore v2.0 by Passport Design, for example: I would be surprised if you managed to find it (by legal ways, that is ;-) --and I'm not sure Myriad will live longer than Passport, by the way... though I hope it will, of course. Even Adobe modifies its PDF standard, so there are probably more risks to use PDF for archival purposes than LilyPond (try to find Acrobat Reader 2.0 nowadays, and then try to imagine how easy it will be to find Adobe Reader 8.0 in 10 years...) The truth is: Companies _die_; Libre Software doesn't. And when a company dies, its entire Intellectual Property dies with it, or is sold to some other Corporation which is probably going to let it die anyway (look at BeOS). Now, the learning curve question. Well, though LilyPond may not seem that user-friendly to someone who's already used to Finale or Sibelius, I can tell you, as a teacher, that for somebody who hasn't used any notation software before, LilyPond is always a tremendous discovery. It is not _that_ hard to use, and I can't agree with you when you say that it is aimed at a particular group of users (even my grandmother, which had never used a computer before last year, now uses LilyPond under Linux!) I would say, on the contrary, that there is a particular group of users that LilyPond is NOT aimed at; that is the Finale and Sibelius addicts --and I used to be one of those myself. But do not take their reluctance for a feeling everyone tends to share. One last thing: you were talking about archival scores. The fact is, an archival score _does_ need to be read, but does not necessary need to be modified by anyone. To read a LilyPond file : that is, for the standard Windows user, to double-click on the right .ly file, and to open the given PDF. Where is the learning curve? On the other hand, if some corrections are needed, the right person, e.g. you or anybody qualified enough, will be able to handle it effortless. This is why, to give you a short answer: yes, LilyPond files can, and should be considered archival. And by the way, this is why the rather ambitious Mutopia Project (http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ ) doesn't accept anything else than LilyPond scores. This is why so many talented --and patient-- persons such as http://nicolas.sceaux.free.fr/index.php/ , http://vigna.dsi.unimi.it/music.php , http://sankey.ws/scarlatti/index.html , http://jeffcovey.net/music/scores/ or http://www.laymusic.org/music/sp/html/bycomposer.html (by L.Conrad) have chosen to use our favorite software for their archival resources. I hope this might convince you to share my --and their-- faith in LilyPond :) Regards, Valentin Villenave. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
producing archival scores
I'm wondering to what extent lilypond files can be considered archival, and if there is a good workflow for producing archival documents using lilypond. By this, I mean that now that I've taken the effort of copying a score into the computer, I'd like to save everyone in the future from making the same effort, and also allow them easiest access to a form of the score that provides them the greatest possible utility. PDF files are certainly good for looking at and printing, and practically everyone is set up to use them. However, you can't really edit them directly. Providing access to the .ly file also seems pretty good. It's easy to edit, and open source so there's no vendor lock in and all that. The problem is that I'm not sure I could convince some of my less technically oriented friends to use lilypond. Even after I tell them how much faster it is for me to type stuff in than it is to mess around with a mouse and finale, and how it's free and how I love it, I have a feeling the first time they see a compiler error because of a misplaced comma they are going to give up. This isn't a criticism of lilypond exactly--lilypond is aimed at a particular group of users and I think it serves them extremely well. Nonetheless, its steep learning curve makes me wary of considering it archival. So what other choices are there? Proprietary formats are out of the question because they're, well, proprietary. That pretty much leaves MusicXML, as far as I know, which benefits from being readable by any program my less technically oriented friends are likely to use. As far as I can tell, however, there's no way to get lilypond files into MusicXML format. Say in a few years some program that is vastly superior to lilypond comes along, and it's so good that no one wants to use lilypond anymore. Unless I can get my lilypond files into that new program, they're not so useful anymore. It seems more likely that this hypothetical new system will allow me to import MusicXML than to import .ly files. Is there any work being done on a system that allows lilypond to compile to MusicXML (or some other good technology I don't know about) instead of PDF ? From what I understand, the makers of Lilypond don't think very highly of MusicXML. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this problem. Am I wrong in thinking that lilypond files aren't really archival? Is there some solution I haven't thought of? Regards, Jason Merrill ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
