On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 13:01 -0400, Carl Peterson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Richard Shann > <richard.sh...@virgin.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 17:23 +0200, pls wrote: > > > (both MusicXML and their corresponding PDF/PNG files) as > reference files: > http://www.musicxml.com/music-in-musicxml/example-set/. They > cover quite a broad spectrum of music notation. I would > simply open these files with different applications and save > the rendered scores each time as PDF files without changing / > tweaking anything. Then we can compare the resulting PDF > files. > > > > Of course this doesn't necessarily tell anything about the > quality of music engraving of the compared applications. It > rather shows the quality of the file format conversion of > these programs. > > Yes, for this reason I suggest we do *not* do this, as it will > distract > attention from the main point that people do not understand, > namely that > just by inputting the music they want to play into LilyPond > they can get > a nicely playable score; whereas if they input the music into > a > drawing-based program they will have to position things by > eye, using > the mouse. > (There is a secondary point, that if they alter the music in a > LilyPond > score the re-positioning of everything else takes place > automatically, > which often it will not with a drawing program). > > We will not help people by replacing this insight with > observations > about how bad musicxml2ly or, worse still Denemo's musicxml > import is. > Well, in fact they are not so bad, inasmuch as it would be > self-defeating to import all manner of typesetting information > into > Denemo or LilyPond, these importers are there to save typing > in reams of > notes and durations basically. But, we will not communicate > the main > message this way. > > So what we need is some musicXML files which just contain some > basic > information, e.g. > > notes durations and markings > > the sort of thing someone might expect to type/click in to a > program to > tell it about the music they want. > > This would take some donkey work, though (potentially > stripping out > information about beaming, slur positioning ...), and it *may* > not be > needed. A first stab might be simply exporting scores from the > commercial programs in musicXML and then reading them back. I > did this > with MuseScore http://denemo.org/compare#Example_2 and the > gives a good > insight into how much hand-tweaking is needed in MuseScore. > This would > not illustrate the point if Musescore exported more > information to > musicXML and imported more back and it may not work for other > programs > which may do this, but it *may* work just fine. > > > > This may be what you're getting at with the musicXML idea, but what > about doing what we usually do to demonstrate lilypond...take a > reference score, and set it up with no manual edits? So, for example, > in Finale you would be able to connect slurs from notehead to > notehead, but not adjust the curve in any way. In LP, you would add > the parentheses and nothing else. This eliminates any issue of > musicXML translation and trying to get the musicXML figured out may > end up being like the post a few weeks ago where the poster decided it > was easier to re-input the score than to deal with converting > software.
We have just crossed in the post on this issue. We would need willing owners of proprietary programs to do signifcant work ... Richard _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
