On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Best, I suppose, would be to have a calculated default with a manual override > option. =)
Hi Kieren, I’m a bit late but: I did use LilyPond for long and complex scores (operas tend to be a LOT less complex than chamber music or solo piano music, at least in my experience). - I don’t care much for lilypond-book. Never have used it nor required it. - I never needed to use anything other than plain vanilla LilyPond. (Which didn’t keep me from trying, just ’cause I can.) - In this regard, I also favor staying as close to the default layout as possible. Every tweak you make is an additional risk of trouble to come with future versions. - Much like everybody (I guess?) I did use several Scheme macros, but that was mostly for convenience (for example not having to type the full syntax every time I want a frigging tuplet, or not having to add staccato dots after each and every note). My coding habits and tastes have evolved quite a bit over time, so that’s hardly relevant to your own needs. - Contemporary notation is quite achievable in LilyPond, especially compared to, well, anything else. Complex rhythms, multiple simultaneous meters, weird instrument-specific graphical gizmos, microtones, you name it. You have to trust the program. Just take a deep breath and dive in. - I have _absolute_ trust in the program. But also in its evolution: every time I thought something couldn’t be done, someone went and fixed it: -> I was fortunate enough to publish my first opera at the exact time when Nicolas Sceaux added the \bookpart thingy, which was _immensely_ helpful (and part of the reason why lilypond-book isn’t required IMO). -> Most of the stuff I really, really wanted to do but couldn’t is now quite easily achievable thanks to David’s work over the past couple of years. -> The only missing feature that made me pull my head off, was the need for a neo-modern accidental style; I offered Rune Zedeler to add it for a fee, which he very competently did. -> Even when what you’re looking at seems depressingly buggy, that doesn’t mean it will be forever. Years later when I tried and recompile my code (minus a few syntax updates, albeit quite minor), the layout and spacing had greatly improved. - Trust not only the program but the community. I can’t count the hundreds of times where I got stuck, angstily asked a crucial question and got my life-defining answer WITHIN MINUTES. Every roadblock I encountered evidently wasn’t _that_ much of a big deal, but you tend to lack objectivity when it comes to your own work and everything seems desperately adverse. The point is: stop hesitating and go. LilyPond will take you *anywhere* you need; what it will not do is write the score on its own nor make you decide what you want to write. But as long as you can overcome your own uncertainties and tell LilyPond what you envision with sufficient clarity, it *will* take you anywhere. - Needless to say, you know where to find me if you have any doubts, questions, regrets or jokes you want to share :-) Hope this helps -- And a happy new year to you! Cheers, Valentin. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
