Hi Simon,
1. In 2013, I composed and engraved a piece with nearly 12,000 frames (57
staves x 208 measures). It contains two sections (of ~32 and ~16 measures)
which were specifically added for That Production” (and, as such, contain
“external material”). Now I want to modify the piece —
Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Pete,
So major compositional changes -- the ones we're
calling structural here -- are implemented at that
first (gen.purp.prog.lang) level, tossing LP not much
to trip over then or fail to carry through.
My point, then: Why stuff a complicated-enough
engraving
The current workaround, of course, is to use \tag around the
section(s) in question. In particular, that method [relatively]
easily solves “hide these 16 measures” types of situations (like my
Example #2) and “depending on the version/edition, use either THIS
or THIS” (like my Example #1).
Hi Urs,
I think you could vastly benefit from using openLilyLib's GridLY library.
No doubt true. (I look forward to examining GridLY, when I have a spare moment.)
Of course thst's only viable for new projects.
We should strive to create tools for which this isn’t [ever] true. =)
Someone
Am 22.04.2015 um 20:33 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
The current workaround, of course, is to use \tag around the
section(s) in question. In particular, that method [relatively]
easily solves “hide these 16 measures” types of situations (like my
Example #2) and “depending on the version/edition, use
2015-04-22 20:07 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca:
Someone spoke of python being able to translate between parallel and
non-parallel music. Wouldn’t it be great to have a tool where you could:
1. Say “Given the current Lilypond file being outputted, show me ‘in
Hello.
I think you could vastly benefit from using openLilyLib's GridLY
library. Of course thst's only viable for new projects.
That looks interesting just from a quick reading of
https://github.com/openlilylib/openlilylib/tree/master/ly/gridly
I stumbled upon that page only through a web
Am 22.04.2015 um 21:29 schrieb Gilles:
Hello.
I think you could vastly benefit from using openLilyLib's GridLY
library. Of course thst's only viable for new projects.
That looks interesting just from a quick reading of
https://github.com/openlilylib/openlilylib/tree/master/ly/gridly
I
Am 22.04.2015 um 21:26 schrieb Calixte Faure:
Or have a script/feature/tool that automatically counts measures : it
would be able to put bar numbers in comment, and with another script
we could say delete/comment/whatever measure n to m.
I think this is something that will eventually be
well you need to
1. remove the space with sed, so music % 1 becomes %1 also I added a at
the end so it wouldn't get confused ie. %1 will also remove %10 %100 etc
2. since you used it after measure one sed can only delete measures after
-- so 2 on
you could just input %1x in the files where you
Hi,
Is it possible that you always use the “LilyPond/Engrave (Publish)” option to
run LilyPond? This removes the links between the input and the pdf. If you
use “LilyPond/Engrave (Preview)” or the LilyPond icon on the toolbar, the
links are included in the pdf.
That does it!
Of course,
For God's sake don't deprecate \relative. It is far faster to input
and you can convert with Frescobaldi.
Shane
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Kieren MacMillan
kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Hi Stephen (et al.)
anyway I tried a few examples and used %1a %2a etc for measures and used
Hey Calixte
what a great idea it made me think.
what about sed?
Or have a script/feature/tool that automatically counts measures : it
would
be able to put bar numbers in comment, and with another script we could say
delete/comment/whatever measure n to m
anyway I tried a few examples and used
Yet another subject ;-)
[...]
Yet another reason to deprecate \relative, which I now avoid like the
plague. (Unfortunately, I was suckered into using it when I started
using Lilypond over a decade ago, so all my legacy code is in
\relative mode. Using Frescobaldi, I’m slowly converting all my
Hi Stephen (et al.)
anyway I tried a few examples and used %1a %2a etc for measures and used the
bar check (|) as an end
eg.
%1a
music |
I use
music | % 1
Would sed still work?
worked almost every time, only problem I had was if I had to fix the octave
Yet another reason to
Hi Gilles,
deprecate \relative, which I now avoid like the plague.
Why?
1. It doesn’t play well with reuse: both trivial reuse (i.e., cut-and-paste)
and more advanced (i.e., referenced in variables) require extra care at the
very least, and outright extra work (e.g., octave checks,
Greetings,
The reasons for one not using relative mode are clear, but it hardly
justifies calling for its deprecation. As a composer of primarily
piano music, it is an absolute lifesaver. And all to whom I have
introduced LilyPond, primarily pianists or harpists, immediately
gravitated to
.
- Abraham
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Do-we-really-offer-the-future-tp174675p175043.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https
.
- Abraham
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Do-we-really-offer-the-future-tp174675p175036.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https
Hi Joram (et al.),
just use point-and-click in Frescobaldi which brings me
quickly to the place where I want to change something.
That feature doesn't work for me.
Is that because of the way I’ve structured my files?
Thanks,
Kieren.
Kieren MacMillan,
in unifying our efforts rather than debating them.
- Abraham
View this message in context: Re: Do we really offer the future?
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:11:34 -0400
From: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca
To: Noeck noeck.marb...@gmx.de
Subject: Re: Do we really offer the future?
Hi Joram (et al.),
just use point-and-click in Frescobaldi which brings me
quickly to the place where I
On April 22, 2015 7:43:10 PM Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote:
Although not well-publicised there is a way of entering multi-voice or
multi-staff music complete bar by complete bar. There is a restriction
that bars must be all the same length, but at least all the notes of a bar
Hi,
this is a triviality for most of you and it does not solve the original
issue of deleting a measure easily.
But I wanted to mention how jumping between staves and selecting
measures gets much easier than searching the ly file. Once the file
structure is done and the score is (partially)
2015-04-22 21:41 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org:
Am 22.04.2015 um 21:29 schrieb Gilles:
Hello.
I think you could vastly benefit from using openLilyLib's GridLY
library. Of course thst's only viable for new projects.
That looks interesting just from a quick reading of
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 03:24 +, James Harkins wrote:
It's a bit of a side topic, but the the thread has touched on
questions of usability, so I think it's related.
I think there's one command in Finale that demonstrates a major obstacle to
widespread adoption of LilyPond: Delete Measure
On April 22, 2015 12:30:18 PM Shane Brandes sh...@grayskies.net wrote:
Lilypond is not a terribly great tool for composition purposes. Not
that I don't use it for that but when I do the whole piece is already
in my head and I am not usually prone to making large changes in
structure. As noted
Hi all,
I always wondered why Lilypond was defined as a program (
http://www.lilypond.org/) for me it is more (should be) a descriptive
language, that several programs can interpret.
As Lilypond is above all an engraving program, I don’t think we should work
on composing tools. Let this kind of
2015-04-22 12:21 GMT+02:00 James Harkins jamshar...@qq.com:
Even after a few years of using LP, it's still kind of a mindf... erm,
mind-blower that notes appear close together in the score but they may be
written in widely separated locations in the LP code. I'm used to
programming and it's
2015-04-22 12:52 GMT+02:00 Calixte Faure calixte.fa...@gmail.com:
I always wondered why Lilypond was defined as a program (
http://www.lilypond.org/) for me it is more (should be) a descriptive
language, that several programs can interpret.
Only LilyPond as a program can process the lilypond
James Harkins wrote Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:21 AM
Even after a few years of using LP, it's still kind of a mindf... erm,
mind-blower that notes appear close together in the score but they may be
written in widely separated locations in the LP code.
Although not well-publicised there
James Harkins wrote Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:24 AM
I think there's one command in Finale that demonstrates a major obstacle to
widespread adoption of LilyPond: Delete Measure Stack. This is an extremely
common need when editing scores, and raw LilyPond code offers no clean,
easy way to do
Am 22.04.2015 um 13:47 schrieb Trevor Daniels:
James Harkins wrote Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:24 AM
I think there's one command in Finale that demonstrates a major obstacle to
widespread adoption of LilyPond: Delete Measure Stack. This is an extremely
common need when editing scores, and raw
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:52:10 +0200
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote:
One way is to enter your music in parallel
But one has to admit that this more or less requires you to enter your
music accordingly *beforehand*.
And I think with this you'd deprive yourself of significant
Hi Gilles,
As the question was asked on this forum, I felt I could provide
my opinion that some effort might be misplaced if its sole purpose
was towards improving the publishing business.
My opinion is that the future should not be that.
Hopefully, this thread will get wide input, so we can
Hi Gilles (et al.),
Whether or not funds will be obtained is a question that comes only
after people at various levels are made aware that LilyPond exists.
I totally agree. We should be pushing for Lilypond to be taken up by as many
educational and commercial [!!] institutions as possible,
On 20/04/15 15:54, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Some say that Microsoft obtained its original OS dominance (which at one
point was approaching 95%) specifically by giving the priority to non-users:
it wilfully allowed (or even secretly supported) the proliferation of pirated
copies of early
It's a bit of a side topic, but the the thread has touched on
questions of usability, so I think it's related.
I think there's one command in Finale that demonstrates a major obstacle to
widespread adoption of LilyPond: Delete Measure Stack. This is an extremely
common need when editing scores,
Lilypond is not a terribly great tool for composition purposes. Not
that I don't use it for that but when I do the whole piece is already
in my head and I am not usually prone to making large changes in
structure. As noted previously that tends to be a cumbersome process.
Also somewhat cumbersome
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:19:37 -0700, Jim Long wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:45:20PM +0200, Gilles wrote:
If and when big publishers use LilyPond, the result will be more
restricted access (through cost) to culture (because they won't
release
their proprietary contents).
Forgive me if
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:50:24 +0200, Federico Bruni wrote:
2015-04-17 16:45 GMT+02:00 Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org:
A FLOSS like LilyPond is a great opportunity to share (musical)
culture, at the lowest possible cost.
A project like Mutopia is a promising future: digital scores (of
Hi.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:18:19 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Gilles,
On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org
wrote:
When people put convenience above all, they start giving up their
freedom.
My experience — this thread being no different so far — is that such
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:45:20PM +0200, Gilles wrote:
If and when big publishers use LilyPond, the result will be more
restricted access (through cost) to culture (because they won't release
their proprietary contents).
Forgive me if I've missed important bits of this conversation, but
I'm
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 08:19:37PM -0700, Jim Long wrote:
...
I'm not I understand
...
I'm not *sure that* I understand
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Hi Peter (et al.),
As someone who has made the journey from (one of) the two established
notation programs to LilyPond, I'm convinced it was the right decision for me
but it would honestly be hard for me to recommend it for anyone else -
composer or editor - at this point.
Unfortunately,
Hi Johan,
Why should serious businesses use Unix?
Outcome: they didn’t.
Actually, they do, on quite a large scale: UNIX and UNIX-like servers have a
~68% market share for public servers. And the share of internal (corporate)
servers is not insignificant (though not nearly 2/3, of course).
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:03:19 +0200
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote:
The questions came in various variants of why should a publishing house
use LilyPond? And despite all the reasoning and writing I have produced
over the last years I didn't always find the striking key features
that
2015-04-17 16:45 GMT+02:00 Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org:
A FLOSS like LilyPond is a great opportunity to share (musical)
culture, at the lowest possible cost.
A project like Mutopia is a promising future: digital scores (of public
domain music) that are free of publishers' rights.
If
On 2015-04-17 15:03, Urs Liska wrote:
- most people in the business have moved away from taken the status quo
with Finale and Sibelius for granted.
- they know that they *have* to find new answers.
- many (except a few die-hard reactionists) see that LilyPond and
friends *can* offer answers
Am 20.04.2015 um 12:00 schrieb Federico Bruni:
2015-04-20 4:33 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard andrew.bern...@gmail.com
mailto:andrew.bern...@gmail.com:
So I don’t quite understand the need to help out these companies.
What exactly is the motivation? What would they put back to the
2015-04-20 4:33 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard andrew.bern...@gmail.com:
So I don’t quite understand the need to help out these companies. What
exactly is the motivation? What would they put back to the lilypond
development effort?
Maybe nothing, but never say never...
Possible advantages:
-
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:00:19 +0200
Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com wrote:
- you, as a typesetter, may be allowed to submit lilypond projects to
them. I don't know this market but I guess that a publishing company
wants to own the source files (they can understand and edit) and not just
the
Hi Andrew (et al.),
I would have thought that, like the invention of desktop publishing in the
1980’s, which allowed small scale companies and individuals to produce
professional publications, lilypond frees composers, musicians, and engravers
from the tyranny - and rejections - of the
Hello.
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:39:29 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Gilles (et al.),
To whom LilyPond should strive to offer the future”?
To everyone it possibly can. ;)
Yes, but we are all aware of the limited resources, and I doubt that
focusing on how to please established editing
Hi Gilles (et al.),
we are all aware of the limited resources, and I doubt that
focusing on how to please established editing houses will lead us
closer to the principles and goals of free software.
Now *that* I totally agree with. And perhaps this discussion will always split
along the line
Hi Federico (et al.),
Possible advantages:
- you, as a typesetter, may be allowed to submit lilypond projects to them. I
don't know this market but I guess that a publishing company wants to own the
source files (they can understand and edit) and not just the PDF.
The smaller and/or
Hi.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:52:54 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Federico (et al.),
I've thought for a long time that the right way to go is to seek
public funds for engraving public domain contents
Me too.
I think it’s telling that most of the non-publishing music world is
going in
Hi Federico (et al.),
I've thought for a long time that the right way to go is to seek
public funds for engraving public domain contents
Me too.
I think it’s telling that most of the non-publishing music world is going in
exactly the opposite direction: schools are adding “musical
Hi Gilles,
On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
When people put convenience above all, they start giving up their freedom.
My experience — this thread being no different so far — is that such
discussions always end up in absolutist terms (moral and
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:22:23 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Andrew (et al.),
I would have thought that, like the invention of desktop publishing
in the 1980’s, which allowed small scale companies and individuals to
produce professional publications, lilypond frees composers,
musicians,
Hi Gilles,
This cannot be the overall guiding rule, if progress has any value at all.
Is the sole expectation, of students attending music schools, to be
hired by a publishing company?
Of course not — I neither said nor even implied that.
However, right now schools have the choice between
Hi Urs,
this seems a good idea, but not for my original question.
Fair point.
If you could find the time to put together a list of arguments (or maybe a
nice blog post) why a *composer* should use LilyPond this would also be very
helpful.
I would *love* to do that — a blog post sounds
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:39:29 -0400
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Do you not remember the tipping point when OpenOffice was
embraced over Microsoft Office as the official office application suite
by certain governments?
That's a totally different case: OO and MSO are
Am 17.04.2015 um 16:05 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
Hi Urs,
First off, thank you so much for your continuing efforts on behalf of Lilypond.
They are really important, and no doubt time- and energy-consuming for you,
with little promise of immediate benefit to you personally. The ‘Pond
Hi Gilles (et al.),
To whom LilyPond should strive to offer the future”?
To everyone it possibly can. ;)
IMHO, certainly not to the [...] big house[s] with traditions,
regulations and limitations”.
Why not? What’s to say that Lilypond can’t initially fit within those
traditions,
Hi Urs,
Can you tell me why we should be interested in helping music publishers exactly?
If they are such corporate dinosaurs that do not recognise the benefits of
advanced lilypond technology, open source and open systems, of what concern is
it to the community of lilypond engravers?
I would
Just one more of the fundamental questions I took home from the
Musikmesse ...
The question can be asked somewhat less pretentious then in this
message's subject line, but I think it actually boils down to no less
than that.
You know that I have again been at the Frankfurt Musikmesse this
Hi.
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:03:19 +0200, Urs Liska wrote:
Just one more of the fundamental questions I took home from the
Musikmesse ...
The question can be asked somewhat less pretentious then in this
message's subject line, but I think it actually boils down to no less
than that.
To whom
Hi Urs,
First off, thank you so much for your continuing efforts on behalf of Lilypond.
They are really important, and no doubt time- and energy-consuming for you,
with little promise of immediate benefit to you personally. The ‘Pond
appreciates you!
why should a publishing house use
101 - 169 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
