Hi,

i was cc'ed, so despite my "official" absence i'll reply :-)

2014-03-01 12:01 GMT+01:00 Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org>:

> Hello LilyPond users,
>
> LilyPond's declared claim is "automated engraving", and we're often
> talking about how exceptionally good its default results are. But we're
> also often talking about stuff that isn't good enough by default (see for
> example Janek's blog post about how many slurs and ties he had to fix for
> our big Fried edition).
> [...]
> These benchmarks would automatically be built for any new version of the
> website and give us a clear picture of what has to be done to achieve
> perfection.
>
> Today I'd like to ask for suggestions: a) to assemble a set of score
> _types_ to be used in that benchmark series, b) possibly for concrete
> suggestions.
>


A choral piece:
https://github.com/janek-warchol/eja-mater-demonstration
In the first commit (566213f) you can see the "raw" (no manual adjustments)
version, and the following commits add adjustments one-by-one, often with
rationale in the commit message.  I think this is a very good resource for
benchmarking.

Another two examples are here (too big for an attachment, so they'll be
availabe in my Dropbox for a couple weeks)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6v9z7tapu5n48k6/htaH4MQlcQ
There's one solo violin fragment with many problems marked, and another
choral piece with a lot of markings (i know that the pdf is compiled with
an old lily version, but >90% of the problems marked there remain in
2.19.3). Unfortunately the sources for the choral piece are partly broken -
lyrics don't align with appropriate notes (but it's easy to fix that).  The
meaning of the colored markings is explained in another pdf.

I hope it'll be useful.

best,
Janek
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Reply via email to