I recommend that you start reading the LilyPond Tutorial while you are waiting for your new hard disk. Of course, we can try to discuss and answer these questions but I'm afraid it will get very theoretical. When you have tried the program yourself, we can resume the discussion.
The basic ideas of entering music in LilyPond are very intuitive, just write the note names and durations: c4 | c4 e4 g4 | g2. | (which can be abbreviated to c4 | c e g | g2. )
/Mats
Michael Edwards wrote:
I mentioned about a week ago that I was considering whether I might start using LilyPond. I will need to get a new hard disk before I have enough room to use LilyPond, so perhaps there is not much point in asking any detailed questions yet about how the program works. (I'm sure I will need to do that one day if I start using it.) But I would like a few opinions on the following quasi-philosophical issue, please.
From responses to my previous posts (7 and 8 April), I got the impression that using LilyPond is a lot more like computer programming than is entering music notation visually as you would do in Finale or Sibelius or Igor. That's probably okay in itself, from my point of view. I learned Turbo Pascal about 15 years ago, and I probably have an aptitude for computer programming, as I tend to have a logical sort of mind that does well at this kind of thing. However, it occurs to me that you use very different mental processes in computer programming than you do when composing music. In fact, I can scarcely think of two mental activities that are more different from each other - they seem to be at very opposite ends of a spectrum: programming is totally logical and structured, with everything in its place, and everything totally analyzable; composing music is subtle and elusive, and (apart from the basics of music theory) quite unanalyzable, as far as I can see. The people who promote Sibelius make a lot of the graphical style of Sibelius, and point out how intuitive it is, so that it is almost an extension of your own creative processes, and doesn't get in the way; it is claimed that Sibelius really understands the way composers think and work, and it's almost like writing directly onto music paper, but with all the advantages of computer notation. I'm not sure if anyone makes similar claims for Finale - but it is at least roughly in a similar graphic style.
LilyPond is (I've learned in the last week or so) based on text input, and seems rather similar to computer programming (unless I've read people's comments wrongly). What I'm wondering is this: if using it requires one to think more like a computer programmer, is it suitable for using while composing music, working out ideas, and so on? Might having to think in this analytical way actually get in the way of one's creative processes, and prove a stumbling block? In using it, do you have to think about what codes and parameters to enter, instead of what notes, harmonies, and rhythms you want to write? Does this make LilyPond unsuitable for composing with, or for working out ideas, varying them, experimenting with them, and the like? I have always found the sheer laboriousness of writing onto paper a real obstacle to composing music: I find it painful and tiring, and it's especially difficult if I want to change something (which seems to happen all the time). Avoiding this cumbersome manuscript-writing process is one of my main reasons for wishing to use a notation program; so, for this reason, if I use a music program, I want to use it for actually composing with - not merely for entering music that's already completely written on paper. There do seem to be advantages to the graphic style found in Sibelius or Igor or Finale - what I was objecting to before was not this in itself, but the need to use the mouse all the time instead of the keyboard. But, if I could do almost everything from the keyboard (which, as a touch-typist, I can use fast and efficiently), this graphical style does seem to make sense for music notation - and this does seem to be at odds with the way LilyPond works. I was taken aback a bit when I learned how LilyPond works. I shouldn't rule it out, just because it was rather different from what I expected. But I do wonder about this question of compatibility with the creative processes of composing music. I'd be interested to hear any opinions on this. Thank you.
Regards, Michael Edwards.
_______________________________________________ Lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
-- ============================================= Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing Signals, Sensors and Systems Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe =============================================
_______________________________________________ Lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
