Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
47 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Han-Wen Nienhuys-2
[flup to lily-devel]

Hans Aberg wrote:
> both simplifying authoring and the input format.  But TeX was developed
> once, too. Its author got tired, putting the  lid on further
> development, having the copyright. It could happen  with LilyPond, too,
> if one arrives the point where one has the  reached limits of the
> current setup.

I wouldn't worry about that.  I haven't been afraid of large
refactorings in the past (in fact, we have a very big one -- possibly
the biggest in the history of lily -- coming up).

The real worry is a financial thing. If not enough people sponsor
LilyPond development, I shall be forced to take up a day job again. In
this event, it is likely that development of Lily will stagnate.

--

Han-Wen Nienhuys - [hidden email] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
  -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Pedro Kröger
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[hidden email]> writes:

> I wouldn't worry about that.  I haven't been afraid of large
> refactorings in the past (in fact, we have a very big one -- possibly
> the biggest in the history of lily -- coming up).

just curious, which one is that?

> The real worry is a financial thing. If not enough people sponsor
> LilyPond development, I shall be forced to take up a day job again. In
> this event, it is likely that development of Lily will stagnate.

I've been thinking a lot about this. here are some ideas:

naturally we have to have actions in both short and long time terms.

I propose we have a short campaign among lily users to raise some
money. That would help while we are working on the next major version
and thinking and working in medium and long time frame actions for
founding. I don't know how many people are here or in lily-users, but if
we could get 100 people to contribute $20 for 6 months, that would
guarantee a monthly $2000 during 6 months (I have no idea about much one
need to live in the Netherlands, I'm using these figures just as an
example). That's sound reasonable to me. I assume that it's easier for
most people to contribute with $10-30 for a period of time like 6 months
than to donate three number figures at once (e.g. $200). At least it is
easier to me. I also assume that probably that's the reason that people
don't contribute more offen, because they think that it will not make a
difference to contribute such a small amount as $20. I believe we could
start this campaign right away.

That's one idea, where a few users will help donating a little. Another
idea is to start a somewhat bigger campaign trying to raise the money
for this 6 month period at once. That would involve universities, music
centers, and institutions like that.

Another thing more in the medium/long term side. I suppose there is a
"market" among researchers that use music coding like darms and
guido. If we could seduce they to use lilypond, maybe they would help
arranging donations (from research grants and things like that). And
maybe that would be the start of having lilypond used in the
universities labs. When I lived in US they had finale and sibelius on
mac and pc computers. If they started having lilypond we could offer
some sort of support, courses, printed documentation, and so on. I don't
know, I feel that this is a niche that we can explore more than the
"real marked". Of course doing that takes time, but to be able to get
more founding we have to work making lilypond more known.

I believe we are in the right track anyway, making lilypond easier for
non-geeks to use. Maybe we could have more marketing texts,
ready-to-print pamphlets, and a few showcase examples. We have many
examples, but I suppose that having a few bars of Stravinsky's "Le
Sacre" or Wagner's "Das Rheingold" will impress people :-)

Is SCORE still been developed? I remember it used to be *really*
expensive ($500-1000). Hum, that's may be a good niche, stealing Score
users :-) well, of course we would need to make good converters and the
like. That's mean more development time and more money for that....

What you guys think?

Pedro



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Johannes Schindelin
Hi,

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Pedro Kröger wrote:
>
> I don't know how many people are here or in lily-users, but if
> we could get 100 people to contribute $20 for 6 months, [...]

I am ready to do that.

> Is SCORE still been developed? I remember it used to be *really*
> expensive ($500-1000). Hum, that's may be a good niche, stealing Score
> users :-) well, of course we would need to make good converters and the
> like. That's mean more development time and more money for that....

AFAIK SCORE was developed by a single person, in FORTRAN, and he is sort
of retired now. Also, he was not very forthcoming with information about
internals.

If my memory serves me, there is a SCORE list. We could steal the users
directly from there... But for this to happen, we would have to reverse
engineer the SCORE format.

Ciao,
Dscho

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Pedro Kröger
Johannes Schindelin <[hidden email]> writes:

> AFAIK SCORE was developed by a single person, in FORTRAN,

ha! that's something.

> Also, he was not very forthcoming with information about internals.

yeah, I didn't think so.

> If my memory serves me, there is a SCORE list.

yep, here is:

http://ace.acadiau.ca/score/s-list.htm

> We could steal the users directly from there... But for this to
> happen, we would have to reverse engineer the SCORE format.

hum, it's a binary format right? I've forgotten that.

I just checked this webpage:

http://www.scoremus.com/score.html

They have it now for $200-360 (the old price was ridiculous)

Pedro


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Johannes Schindelin
Hi,

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Pedro Kröger wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > We could steal the users directly from there... But for this to
> > happen, we would have to reverse engineer the SCORE format.
>
> hum, it's a binary format right? I've forgotten that.

I once saw a program handling SCORE files which was not from the original
SCORE developer (I think it was something to output PostScript), and it
said that the whole format is made up of IEEE format binary floats. That
should help, together with examples.

Anyway, I am certain that people willing to input into SCORE will *love*
LilyPond, since it has a more intuitive syntax, and the output quality is
similar, if not better.

Ciao,
Dscho

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Trevor Bača-2
In reply to this post by Pedro Kröger
On 8/17/05, Pedro Kröger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > AFAIK SCORE was developed by a single person, in FORTRAN,
>
> ha! that's something.

It's true: SCORE is the work of Leland Smith, now professor (emeritus)
of music at Stanford. SCORE was originally FORTRAN when Leland started
developing on it the late *70s* (!) and I think that the current 4.x
version is *still* FORTRAN (running, however, only under DOS).

IMO, some of the most sophisticated engravers working today are using
SCORE and I think the results show in the fact that something like 4
or 5 of the 6 Revere awards a year have recently gone to SCORE
engravers (although I'm quoting from memory here, so doublecheck
before passing that on).

I think that stealing (or courting?) the SCORE users is an excellent
idea; they're not in the slightest bit adverse to really learning the
most detailed internals of a program and would probably bring an
excellent eye to some of the very real problems we're tackling right
now in LilyPond development: the tie problem is only the most recent
example.

>
> > Also, he was not very forthcoming with information about internals.
>
> yeah, I didn't think so.
>
> > If my memory serves me, there is a SCORE list.
>
> yep, here is:
>
> http://ace.acadiau.ca/score/s-list.htm

Just mail to [hidden email] ; the list is run by Gordon Callon in
Canada. Quite unfortunately there are no list archives :-( but, quite
happily, the list is responsive, open and professional (much like our
own, really).

> > We could steal the users directly from there... But for this to
> > happen, we would have to reverse engineer the SCORE format.
>
> hum, it's a binary format right? I've forgotten that.

No, no, not to worry: the SCORE native format .mus (not the same as
the Finale .mus) *is* binary ... but there's this magic cleartext
format ending in .pmx. From the SCORE UI you can turn *any* file into
.pmx and read, parse, tweak to your heart's content; many SCORE users
do it all the time and the documentation is complete.

Once you've parsed / tweaked your .pmx, you can read the modified file
back into SCORE directly. This .pmx format gives the ability to write
extremely sophisticated editing macros (or tweak algorithmically, if
you like).

> I just checked this webpage:
>
> http://www.scoremus.com/score.html
>
> They have it now for $200-360 (the old price was ridiculous)

No, the price is still ridiculous: it's $750 / license (you must be
quoting the price for one of the ancillary programs).

I'm by no means an expert SCORE user, but I have used the program on
and off for the last 2 years. It's an excellent program for many of
*exactly* the same reasons that Lily is an excellent program: you have
real control -- not fake, Sibelius-style control -- over anything you
want; you have a cleartext input format; you have outstanding
postscript output; you have an incredibly intelligent user community
of expert engravers, composers and instrumentalists to support you.

The primary downpoints to SCORE are all quite apparent:

1. SCORE runs *only* under DOS (though it works fine in emulation
under whatever Windows you want, and it works fine in Windows
emulation under OS X)

2. SCORE has unbelievably harsh memory- and filesize restrictions; if
you go beyond a certain number of postscript vectors per file, SCORE
blows an error; the practical upshot of this is that I never have more
than about 8 or 10 staves in a single file; if I'm working on an
orchestral SCORE, well, then, it's 3 or 4 *files* per single system
(muchless page) of music

3. SCORE is developed by a genius ... but that genius is 80 years old
(in fact there's been a minor birthday celebration going on for Leland
on the SCORE list) and the rate of release is absolutely glacial; I'm
not criticizing Leland ... as far as I'm concerned the work he put
into SCORE and the state of refinement the program reached justifies
absolutely anything he wants to do, developmentwise or other. However,
the fact remains that the development cycle has, imo, essentially
ended and, more severely, that the code is utterly closed; no one has
access to the sources and so there's a grave concern about what
happens to the tool in the eventual future :-(

* * *

So, the obvious point here is that LilyPond absolutely excels at all
three of SCORE's major weaknesses:

1. LilyPond runs on absolutely everything under the sun

2. LilyPond has absolutely no memory or size limitations at all,
AFAICT; I render Lily scores with several thousands glyphs per page on
tabloid paper all the time and nothing ever breaks (well ... so long
as you turn off point-and-click!); there's absolutely *no*
circumstance under which Lily users have to separate out musical
material into separate files to accomodate an extramusical technical
requirement

3. Lily is also developed by a genius ... but a genius pursuing the
exact *opposite* political approach to code access and the development
cycle: Lily's not going anywhere, the sources are all available
forever, new releases show up constantly, and the only barrier to
contribution is the learning curve

So it should be clear by now where I stand: I think it's an obvious
transition for SCORE users to start moving over the Lily. They're
reluctant to give up the tool, of course, because of its
sophistication, but I think that literally every 2 or 3 weeks the
reasons to jump to Lily increase, even for the community of
professionals currently working in SCORE.

* * *

I considered crossposting this response to the score list (again,
[hidden email], if anyone's interested) but thought it might be more
appropriate to let discussion run private to Lily for a while longer.

Another reflection: I feel certain that some type of constructive,
even semi-formal dialogue is possible with the SCORE community. The
wealth of accumulated knowledge there is almost unbelievable: if
you're looking for exact answers to questions of tie placement, slur
placement, hairpin positioning on the horizontal, accidental
tesselation before complex chords, the SCORE people are a good place
to talk. I don't have the time to moderate that discussion right now
myself, but I have to imagine that there should be some way to welcome
that knowledge into Lily and help our own growth here.

Trevor.


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Erik Sandberg
In reply to this post by Pedro Kröger
On Thursday 18 August 2005 03.18, Pedro Kröger wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <[hidden email]> writes:
> > I wouldn't worry about that.  I haven't been afraid of large
> > refactorings in the past (in fact, we have a very big one -- possibly
> > the biggest in the history of lily -- coming up).
>
> just curious, which one is that?

I think he refers to my master's thesis, which separates the input language
from the formatter, and cleans up a lot of code in the process. "coming up"
is maybe an overstatement - I have forked 2.6.0, and formally it's just a big
experiment. We don't know if it will get frontported.

--
Erik



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Erik Sandberg
In reply to this post by Trevor Bača-2
On Thursday 18 August 2005 06.41, Trevor Baca wrote:

> No, no, not to worry: the SCORE native format .mus (not the same as
> the Finale .mus) *is* binary ... but there's this magic cleartext
> format ending in .pmx. From the SCORE UI you can turn *any* file into
> .pmx and read, parse, tweak to your heart's content; many SCORE users
> do it all the time and the documentation is complete.
>
> Once you've parsed / tweaked your .pmx, you can read the modified file
> back into SCORE directly. This .pmx format gives the ability to write
> extremely sophisticated editing macros (or tweak algorithmically, if
> you like).

This makes it hard for us to steal the SCORE experts right now. I think it's
too difficult to do this kind of tweaks in lilypond right now, and the tweaks
will break after each new version. (however, I don't know enough about
internals to be absolutely certain about this.)

As you say, it could be useful to start a constructive dialogue with the SCORE
folks, to
(a) see what it would require (in terms of improved program design) to make
them join us.
(b) get inspiration from their engraving expertise.

--
Erik


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Han-Wen Nienhuys-2
In reply to this post by Trevor Bača-2
Trevor Baca wrote:
> I think that stealing (or courting?) the SCORE users is an excellent
> idea; they're not in the slightest bit adverse to really learning the
> most detailed internals of a program and would probably bring an
> excellent eye to some of the very real problems we're tackling right

> now in LilyPond development: the tie problem is only the most recent
> example.

(plug)

Yes - we only need a tiny bit more of money! please contribute!

> Just mail to [hidden email] ; the list is run by Gordon Callon in
> Canada. Quite unfortunately there are no list archives :-( but, quite
> happily, the list is responsive, open and professional (much like our
> own, really).

Is this a conscious decision? It's easy to have a list archived
(including spam-protecting addresses) through mail-archive.com or gmane.org.

>>>We could steal the users directly from there... But for this to
>>>happen, we would have to reverse engineer the SCORE format.
>>
>>hum, it's a binary format right? I've forgotten that.

The point of SCORE is that everything can be very easily tweaked
heavily, which is excellent for professional engravers. All those tweaks
get lost if the .pmx is imported. Since the majority of time in SCORE is
spent tweaking, I don't think importers matter much.

> So, the obvious point here is that LilyPond absolutely excels at all
> three of SCORE's major weaknesses:
>
> 1. LilyPond runs on absolutely everything under the sun
>
> 2. LilyPond has absolutely no memory or size limitations at all,
> AFAICT; I render Lily scores with several thousands glyphs per page on
> tabloid paper all the time and nothing ever breaks (well ... so long
> as you turn off point-and-click!); there's absolutely *no*
> circumstance under which Lily users have to separate out musical
> material into separate files to accomodate an extramusical technical
> requirement

(as long as you have obscene amounts of memory, that is)

>
> 3. Lily is also developed by a genius ...

::-))))

> but a genius pursuing the
> exact *opposite* political approach to code access and the development
> cycle: Lily's not going anywhere, the sources are all available
> forever, new releases show up constantly, and the only barrier to
> contribution is the learning curve
>
> So it should be clear by now where I stand: I think it's an obvious
> transition for SCORE users to start moving over the Lily. They're
> reluctant to give up the tool, of course, because of its
> sophistication, but I think that literally every 2 or 3 weeks the
> reasons to jump to Lily increase, even for the community of
> professionals currently working in SCORE.

I think there is a one big problem with going to LilyPond for the
majority of SCORE users. Adding a tweak is clumsy, and you have to rerun
the program to see the result. Also the result of a tweak is less
predictable, as anything besides extra-offset might impact spacing, line
breaking, etc.  Also, working with multi-page documents is a nightmare,
since page breaks are hard to get right.

Practically speaking, I think Lily can only practically replace SCORE
for single staff pieces. And then the placement of hairpins should
definitely be fixed.

> I considered crossposting this response to the score list (again,
> [hidden email], if anyone's interested) but thought it might be more
> appropriate to let discussion run private to Lily for a while longer.
>
> Another reflection: I feel certain that some type of constructive,
> even semi-formal dialogue is possible with the SCORE community. The
> wealth of accumulated knowledge there is almost unbelievable: if
> you're looking for exact answers to questions of tie placement, slur

You're welcome to point the SCORE people to the LilyPond website and
perhaps this discussion. So far, of them I've only met Matanya Ophee in
cyberspace a couple of times, and (almost needless to say), I can't say
that I found the encounter constructive. I  recently subscribed to the
SCORE list, but for political reasons, it would be better if someone
else would point them to the discussion.

> placement, hairpin positioning on the horizontal, accidental
> tesselation before complex chords, the SCORE people are a good place
> to talk. I don't have the time to moderate that discussion right now
> myself, but I have to imagine that there should be some way to welcome
> that knowledge into Lily and help our own growth here.

--

Han-Wen Nienhuys - [hidden email] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
  -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Han-Wen Nienhuys-2
In reply to this post by Erik Sandberg
Erik Sandberg wrote:
> This makes it hard for us to steal the SCORE experts right now. I think it's
> too difficult to do this kind of tweaks in lilypond right now, and the tweaks
> will break after each new version. (however, I don't know enough about

That's not true. However, I don't guarantee that they won't break -
which is something different. If you need to be sure of keeping your
tweaks, you have to keep around the version of lily that you used to
make the piece.

> As you say, it could be useful to start a constructive dialogue with the SCORE
> folks, to
> (a) see what it would require (in terms of improved program design) to make
> them join us.
> (b) get inspiration from their engraving expertise.

I think it should be the other way around. We need some samples that
work flawlessly in Lily, but require a huge amount of effort in SCORE.
That will persuade them to try Lily. Then, they can sponsor me for
adding what's still missing :-)

Of course, I might have a different perspective from you :-)

--

Han-Wen Nienhuys - [hidden email] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
  -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Hans Aberg
In reply to this post by Trevor Bača-2

On 18 Aug 2005, at 06:41, Trevor Baca wrote:

> I think that stealing (or courting?) the SCORE users is an excellent
> idea; they're not in the slightest bit adverse to really learning the
> most detailed internals of a program and would probably bring an
> excellent eye to some of the very real problems we're tackling right
> now in LilyPond development: the tie problem is only the most recent
> example.

A SCORE user, a professional engraver, expressed the wish for a  
program that translates old SCORE files to whatever new program they  
intend to shift to.

   Hans Aberg




_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Han-Wen Nienhuys-2
Hans Aberg wrote:
>
> A SCORE user, a professional engraver, expressed the wish for a  program
> that translates old SCORE files to whatever new program they  intend to
> shift to.
>

Who? Where? When?

--

Han-Wen Nienhuys - [hidden email] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
  -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Johannes Schindelin
In reply to this post by Erik Sandberg
Hi,

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Erik Sandberg wrote:

> On Thursday 18 August 2005 06.41, Trevor Baca wrote:
>
> As you say, it could be useful to start a constructive dialogue with the
> SCORE folks, to
>
> (a) see what it would require (in terms of improved program design) to
> make them join us.
>
> (b) get inspiration from their engraving expertise.

I agree. I worked with SCORE long time ago (1993 it was), and found the
interface cumbersome. I always wanted something like Lily, and when I went
back to setting scores (as a hobbyist) a few years ago, I was so happy
Lily exists!

The most important point to make before a SCORE user is probably the
staling of SCORE development. I never understood how a professor wanted to
make money, _instead of_ passing his knowledge to others. Strange culture.

Contrary to Han-Wen, I don´t believe that the tweaking in Lily is too
cumbersome (i.e. not direct enough). I believe that many SCORE users would
be glad to have less to tweak in a single piece, but have the option to
set up global tweakings. Much like LaTeX style files.

The biggest obstacle to SCORE users probably is the fast changing syntax.
They _need_ a reliable format.

Ciao,
Dscho

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Han-Wen Nienhuys-2
In reply to this post by Erik Sandberg
Erik Sandberg wrote:
>>Once you've parsed / tweaked your .pmx, you can read the modified file
>>back into SCORE directly. This .pmx format gives the ability to write
>>extremely sophisticated editing macros (or tweak algorithmically, if
>>you like).
>
>
> This makes it hard for us to steal the SCORE experts right now. I think it's

Can we watch the language? This is an open forum, with publicly
accessible archives, probably with SCORE users reading along. There's
nothing to be "stolen".

--

Han-Wen Nienhuys - [hidden email] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
  -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Han-Wen Nienhuys-2
In reply to this post by Johannes Schindelin
Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> The biggest obstacle to SCORE users probably is the fast changing syntax.
> They _need_ a reliable format.

I'm almost certain they don't. SCORE for publication material. Once
music is published, there is little need to run the .lys again.

--

Han-Wen Nienhuys - [hidden email] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
  -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Heikki Junes
In reply to this post by Erik Sandberg
Erik Sandberg wrote:

>As you say, it could be useful to start a constructive dialogue with the SCORE
>folks, to
>(a) see what it would require (in terms of improved program design) to make
>them join us.
>(b) get inspiration from their engraving expertise.
>
I found a nice EPS-file advertising what SCORE can do, take a look at
  http://www.scoremus.com/color.eps
The example contains many things what lilypond is able to do.

In my opinion, LilyPond should excel in the basic music notation, in music
notation for everyone. This is the base where most users are.

Therefore, the biggest news for an ordinary user may be the "\verse"
-markup,
currently mentioned only in the comment of the score-text.ly -source, see:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.7/input/regression/out-www/collated-files.html#score-text.ly
This "\verse" could, for example, just simplify the following:

    \markup {
% \fill-line {
            \line {
                "3. "
                \column {
                    \line { My last Li-ly text }
                    \line { See what will be next! }
                }
            }
% }
    }

to something as simple as

  \verse {
    "3. "
    "My last Li-ly text"
    "See what will be next!"
  }

I am also happy to see that LilyPond meets the needs of contemporary
composers, experts, etc. through the spurred development via sponsoring.

If LilyPond will continue meet the needs of most modern composers, its
manuals will become the primary source for studying _hand-written_
notation practises -- I would like to see this happen. I still prefer
first to write scores by
hand, and only then to transcribe them using LilyPond.

I am not worried about that will the number of LilyPond users increase.
It will, as long as the LilyPond project continues.

Heikki


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Pedro Kröger
In reply to this post by Johannes Schindelin
Johannes Schindelin <[hidden email]> writes:

> Contrary to Han-Wen, I don´t believe that the tweaking in Lily is too
> cumbersome (i.e. not direct enough). I believe that many SCORE users would
> be glad to have less to tweak in a single piece, but have the option to
> set up global tweakings. Much like LaTeX style files.

I agree with you. I've never used SCORE, but one big advantage of
lilypond is that you don't really need to tweak all the time because it
does the right thing. but the gnome backend seems to be the most sane
idea to deal with tweaks, you enter the notes typing and tweak the music
graphically.

> The biggest obstacle to SCORE users probably is the fast changing syntax.
> They _need_ a reliable format.

I know sometimes it's a PITA to have the format changing all the time,
but to me that was a good decision, you know, change the format while
there is not lots of users (I mean millions) depending on it and ending
up with a very good and *tested* format. I mean, compare the format we
have now with the format of 1.6 or so. To me the format used by lilypond
is the best text format available now (comparing with darms, guido, and
friends) and one of the reasons is that the developers were willing to
change it mercilessly. So instead of having a format designed by a commit
(sp.?) we have a format dictated by testing and use. That's pretty cool,
IMHO. Anyway, it is maturing and changing less and less in each version.

Pedro


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Pedro Kröger
In reply to this post by Han-Wen Nienhuys-2
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[hidden email]> writes:

> Can we watch the language? This is an open forum, with publicly
> accessible archives, probably with SCORE users reading along. There's
> nothing to be "stolen".

you are right. I'm the one who should apologize since I started this
"stealing" thing. of course I was half-joking and what I mean was
something like "show the benefits of lilypond for the unhappy users of
other programs".

Pedro


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Erik Sandberg
In reply to this post by Han-Wen Nienhuys-2
On Thursday 18 August 2005 11.56, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Erik Sandberg wrote:
> > This makes it hard for us to steal the SCORE experts right now. I think
> > it's too difficult to do this kind of tweaks in lilypond right now, and
> > the tweaks will break after each new version. (however, I don't know
> > enough about
>
> That's not true. However, I don't guarantee that they won't break -
> which is something different.

I was thinking about minor extra-offset tweaks, which make up for mistakes
done by lily. You are almost guaranteed that they will break between
versions, since layout bugs regularly are fixed in lily.

> > As you say, it could be useful to start a constructive dialogue with the
> > SCORE folks, to
> > (a) see what it would require (in terms of improved program design) to
> > make them join us.
> > (b) get inspiration from their engraving expertise.
>
> I think it should be the other way around. We need some samples that
> work flawlessly in Lily, but require a huge amount of effort in SCORE.
> That will persuade them to try Lily. Then, they can sponsor me for
> adding what's still missing :-)
>
> Of course, I might have a different perspective from you :-)

I think we're talking about different things: you're talking about how to
convince them, I just suggested what we could try to learn by talking to
them.

I was assuming that the deepest SCORE gurus probably will need a way of
tweaking which is as powerful as SCORE's. (disclaimer: I don't know the
details of either SCORE's or lily's tweaking mechanisms). Perhaps this would
be the equivalent of music streams for grobs, or a way to redefine engraver
behaviour in Scheme. I don't know. In any case, they will probably be
uninterested in switching unless they know that something sufficiently
powerful can be implemented.

A fairly unrelated question is: Why are so many preferring PMX/MusiXTeX to
Lily? I often have better chances finding good MusiXTeX scores on Werner
Icking archive, than finding them on mutopia.

--
Erik


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

Han-Wen Nienhuys-2
In reply to this post by Han-Wen Nienhuys-2
[flup to lily-devel]

Peter Teeson wrote:

> I've been lurking here so I may have missed it. But anyway here is my
> question.
> WRT fast changing syntax - do we have, or is it feasible/possible to
> have, a formal grammar for the lily language?
> I.E. formal in the mathematical sense?
> Or are things still mutating so rapidly that we need some more Darwin
> time to allow stabilisation?
> The reason I ask is that it might help in the propsed re-factorisation
> aspect of it.
>

BNF grammars have been posted here. Please search the archives.

--

Han-Wen Nienhuys - [hidden email] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
  -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
123