Hi, 2013/12/2 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > At any rate, we need to pitch LilyPond to _ourselves_ and listen what > annoys us. Particularly when explaining LilyPond to others and/or > pitching it to them.
I can do this at any moment. But how to make sure that it won't end up as another long rant that everybody reads but noone acts upon? The last thing i want is to waste time on talking instead of doing something. I honestly don't know how to proceed here! >> The approach i used there (i mean "crowd-engraving") proved to be a >> good one, but we'd have to make a lot things simpler to make this >> really effective. I mean, i was the only one who could combine the >> parts into the full score - creating \score blocks (real-life \score >> blocks, with all nuances and settings) is too difficult for beginners. > > Good, then we have to make a lot of things simpler to make this really > effective. For starters, we could take https://github.com/openlilylib/snippets/tree/master/templates/predefined-instruments and expand it, and add such predefined "instruments" to official LilyPond. I think it would make "structural" work much easier (esp. for beginners). Just take a look at the simplicity this could give us: this https://github.com/openlilylib/snippets/blob/master/templates/predefined-instruments/simple-example.ly can produce the attached output. Defining this stuff manually would take 2-3 times more code and a lot of doc study. Last time i got stuck on something in this template, but if you (or someone else experienced with scheme functions) would offer to help, i'd like to get back to this. > I would imagine that the "combining parts into the full > score" thing is something that a live template engine for Frescobaldi > should help with. Where a "live" template is not just some code copied > for a starting point, but more something like a folding editor of a > predetermined structure where you tie parts in that are stored in > separate files. Then you can hand out that template, and regularly > update those files that people are _not_ currently working on (for > example, git merges fine when everybody edits different files). Indeed, such separation of content and structure is a very good thing, and i try to design my templates that way. But my point was that currently i'm the only one in my choir who can get hold of "structural stuff", because it's complicated. 2013/12/3 Carl Peterson <carlopeter...@gmail.com>: > 2. Floating lyric spacing. Right now, lyrics are by default centered > underneath the note they are attached to. This is fine in many > circumstances, but when there are multiple stanzas with syllables of varying > length, this can create some irregular spacing and general ugliness. This is bugging me for *years*. See http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2456 I tried solving it in summer 2012, but I failed... I expect that by 2015 i should have enough skill to fix it. 2013/12/3 flup2 <phili...@philmassart.net>: > Regarding the feeling of people about the quality of their tool, it's > simple: most people don't think that their Word layout is crappy. The same > can occur with musical scores, except that even less people know musical > typography. So, a lot of people won't think or feel "my score is bad" if > they don't know which way they could loot better. Some situation will show > LilyPond better, other will show Finale or Sibelius. That's why i'm talking with every musician i meet and show him/her some engraving comparisons that demonstrate real, serious problems (not just "this doesn't look nice" stuff that is mostly mentioned in the Essay). I'm quite surprised that noone (did i overlook someone?) expressed interest in getting these comparisons and translating them, despite my offer. best, Janek
<<attachment: example.png>>
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
