how to move TextScript closer to the staff?

[Karol Majewski]

Because LilyPond does not handle fingaring notation well, I wrote markup 
command:

\version "2.17.96"

#(define-markup-command
  (fingerMod layout props arg)
  (markup-list?)
  (interpret-markup layout props
(markup
  (#:left-align
(#:override
  '(baseline-skip . 1.5)
  (#:finger
(make-center-column-markup arg)))

{
  4 ^\markup \fingerMod { 1 3 5 } c'2.
}

The drawback is that the numerals are not centered on notehead.

Now, take a look at the example. My question is: how can I improve the code to 
have this TextScript (numerals) closer to the staff?

Karol
<>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Carl Peterson  writes:

> On Dec 1, 2013 1:47 AM, "David Kastrup"  wrote:
>>
>> Noeck  writes:
>
>> > I personally don't understand why LP is not common at music
>> > universities but that's probably a chicken-or-the-egg thing and the
>> > lack of large scale marketing. But this would also need official
>> > contacts in the LP team who are responsible and can represent LP
>> > towards these institutions.
>
>> Convert three musicians you know to using LilyPond.  If you go
>> "I couldn't get _him_ or _her_ to use it", then how to pitch LilyPond to
>> someone you don't even have contact with?  Think about _why_ you could
>> not get a friend of yours to use it.  What would need to happen so that
>> you could?  Have you tried?  What did you learn when doing so?
>>
>
> Here are the problems I run into: (1) most musicians/composers/institutions
> are already using something.

So we need to catch them before they do.  Janek got a number of his
choir colleagues to enter "Stabat Mater" (don't remember whose,
Pergolesi?) into LilyPond.  If they had no previous need to music
typesetting, the first idea they'll have _when_ they do is to take a
look at LilyPond.  After all, they know its basic note entry already.

The crucial question here is whether LilyPond will survive that first
look even given their previous exposure.  But that's already better than
starting from scratch.

Then we need to get and think about feedback like "I could not for the
life of me figure out how to do x" and its followup feedback "I now know
how to do x, but that's far too complicated a trick to pull whenever
I need x".

> This means that the first hurdle is overcoming the inertia of "I
> already have x, why should I switch? Which leads to (2) even if I can
> demonstrate that LP overcomes the technical difficulties of another
> notation program, people are going to be reluctant to switch because
> of the perceived difficulty of learning LP syntax or working without
> the UI bells and whistles of Finale, etc.

Which is a reason to teach them working with Frescobaldi, "not"
LilyPond.  Teaching LilyPond is like teaching blueprints to carpenters.
In the end, they know exactly what the blueprint means and where each
cut has to be placed, but they never got to touch a saw.

When that fails, try getting them hooked on Denemo first as an
entry-level drug potentially leaving to raw LilyPond use at a later
stage.

> They will also say, "Well, it's not *that* bad of a problem."
>
> I frequently advocate the simplicity of setting SATB hymns in LP to
> the hymn writers and composers of my personal acquaintance (using the
> template I've mentioned on other threads). My standard response
> whenever they talk about a workaround for a provlem in Finale is, "Or
> you could just use Lilypond." They acknowledge that LP would probably
> make their work much easier, but too many are too invested in Finale
> at this point to make the switch.

Well, what's the investment they'll lose?  It's either an imaginary or a
real loss, and if it's the latter, how can we address this?


> LP came out in the midst of other packages that already existed. As a
> result, it is fighting for marketshare in a relatively mature
> market.

Finale output is ugly to the degree where it is distracting readability,
particularly for instrumentalists.  Sibelius' corporate parent has fired
its core developer team in the UK, including its original authors.
Steinberg does not yet have a finished product on market.  Most other
players are fringe players.

The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Urs Liska]

Am 01.12.2013 09:45, schrieb David Kastrup:

This means that the first hurdle is overcoming the inertia of "I
> already have x, why should I switch? Which leads to (2) even if I can
> demonstrate that LP overcomes the technical difficulties of another
> notation program, people are going to be reluctant to switch because
> of the perceived difficulty of learning LP syntax or working without
> the UI bells and whistles of Finale, etc.

Which is a reason to teach them working with Frescobaldi, "not"
LilyPond.  Teaching LilyPond is like teaching blueprints to carpenters.
In the end, they know exactly what the blueprint means and where each
cut has to be placed, but they never got to touch a saw.

When that fails, try getting them hooked on Denemo first as an
entry-level drug potentially leaving to raw LilyPond use at a later
stage.



Lacking spare time today I can only hook in sporadically into this 
important discussion.


I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by itself 
is a huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact.
If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's overwhelmingly 
daunting. And if you look at { c d e f g } like examples they aren't at 
all overwhelming.
Most people I tried to persuade simply said "this isn't my cup of tea, 
I'm not a programmer".


So while I can imagine it _should_ be possible to convince people on the 
professional side of the spectrum, e.g. people responsible for scholarly 
editions that LilyPond _can_ produce professional results while giving 
huge surplus for the quality of the workflow through versioning there 
should be more (tutorial and presentational) material to show that you 
can initially get usable and useful results with rather small investment.

I'm thinking of stuff like integrated sheets for educational purposes.
(OK, that's just one little drop, but:) If someone would write a 
beginner's tutorial how to create such sheets with OOolilypond that 
would be a great resource. I think this approach is particularly nice 
because (IIRC) you can achieve first _useful_ results without even 
bothering about such things as input file structure.


This isn't to say that making LilyPond easier to use wouldn't be a great 
achievement, but people first have to reach the point where they have 
the need to tweak things.


Urs

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: how to move TextScript closer to the staff?

[Federico Bruni]

2013/12/1 Karol Majewski 

> Because LilyPond does not handle fingaring notation well, I wrote markup
> command:
>
> \version "2.17.96"
>
> #(define-markup-command
>   (fingerMod layout props arg)
>   (markup-list?)
>   (interpret-markup layout props
> (markup
>   (#:left-align
> (#:override
>   '(baseline-skip . 1.5)
>   (#:finger
> (make-center-column-markup arg)))
>
> {
>   4 ^\markup \fingerMod { 1 3 5 } c'2.
> }
>
> The drawback is that the numerals are not centered on notehead.
>
> Now, take a look at the example. My question is: how can I improve the
> code to have this TextScript (numerals) closer to the staff?
>
>
What about this?

 \version "2.17.96"

#(define-markup-command
  (fingerMod layout props arg)
  (markup-list?)
  (interpret-markup layout props
(markup
  (#:left-align
(#:override
  '(baseline-skip . 1.5)
  (#:finger
(make-center-column-markup arg)))

{
  \once \override TextScript.extra-offset = #'(0 . -1)
  4 ^\markup \fingerMod { 1 3 5 } c'2.
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: how to move TextScript closer to the staff?

[Karol Majewski]

Federico, I'd like to avoid adding extra-offset. I'm looking for general solution.
 
Dnia 1-12-2013 o godz. 10:27 Federico Bruni napisał(a):



2013/12/1 Karol Majewski 
Because LilyPond does not handle fingaring notation well, I wrote markup command:  \version "2.17.96"  #(define-markup-command   (fingerMod layout props arg)   (markup-list?)   (interpret-markup layout props     (markup 
      (#:left-align         (#:override           '(baseline-skip . 1.5)           (#:finger             (make-center-column-markup arg)))  {   4 
^\markup \fingerMod { 1 3 5 } c'2. }  The drawback is that the numerals are not centered on notehead.  Now, take a look at the example. My question is: how can I improve the code to have this TextScript (numerals) closer to the staff? 
 
What about this?
 
 \version "2.17.96"
 
#(define-markup-command
  (fingerMod layout props arg)
  (markup-list?)
  (interpret-markup layout props
    (markup
      (#:left-align
        (#:override
          '(baseline-skip . 1.5)
          (#:finger
            (make-center-column-markup arg)))
 
{
  \once \override TextScript.extra-offset = #'(0 . -1)
  4 ^\markup \fingerMod { 1 3 5 } c'2.
}
 








___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Kieren MacMillan]

> I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by itself is a 
> huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact.

Amen.

> If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's overwhelmingly 
> daunting.

…even for me, and I’m one of Lily’s biggest users in terms of number and size 
and “real-ness” of scores.

Here’s my experience:
1. I've tried to convince at least a dozen people — all of whom are of high 
intelligence (though none “programmers”) — to try Lilypond.
2. Every single one has preferred (or at least claimed to prefer) Lilypond's 
output to that of the engraving software they use — most are on Sibelius; a few 
use Finale.
3. About half took the time to install Lilypond and compile a simple example 
file.
4. To my knowledge, exactly one tried a second example.

Result? Not a single successful convert to date.

> Most people I tried to persuade simply said "this isn't my cup of tea, I'm 
> not a programmer”.

THAT is the main problem right there — one we are likely never to overcome, as 
much as I hate to admit it.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David,

> The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.

Having been “in the trenches” perhaps more than most others on this list, I can 
tell you the situation *is* really all that unfavorable for Lilypond.

In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this:
1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never* have to 
see Lilypond “code”); or
2. Robust (i.e., essentially ‘transparent’) MusicXML input/output (so that 
users can input items in the tool of their choice, and use Lilypond for output 
only).

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.
>
> Having been “in the trenches” perhaps more than most others on this
> list, I can tell you the situation *is* really all that unfavorable
> for Lilypond.
>
> In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this:
> 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never*
> have to see Lilypond “code”);

According to the advertising, that's Denemo.

> or 2. Robust (i.e., essentially ‘transparent’) MusicXML input/output
> (so that users can input items in the tool of their choice, and use
> Lilypond for output only).

"LilyPond for output only" is not much of a goal: it buys us bug reports
without buying us a community interested in working with and on
LilyPond.  It's probably somewhat tantamount to those maintaining
Ghostscript, by now a probably somewhat frustrating task.

MusicXML export/import or even input/output is definitely something
needed for a variety of reasons.  If it's needed for note input on a
continuing basis, we should ask ourselves how we can encourage existing
input tools or editors to do better.  Of course, a robust input of
material that _has_ already been input previously is still independently
useful.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Kieren MacMillan writes:

>> The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.
>
> Having been “in the trenches” perhaps more than most others on this
> list, I can tell you the situation *is* really all that unfavorable
> for Lilypond.
>
> In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this:
> 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI

This is *exactly* why I've been playing/experimenting with GUI
backends/frontends since 2004.  If you haven't done so, please have
a look at Schikkers List

http://lilypond.org/schikkers

and come help me out!  If only to lure people over to LilyPond,
increase its potential user base.

> (so that users *never* have to see Lilypond “code”); or

and this is what I don't understand.

My idea is exactly the opposite: to show people the corresponding text
input also, so that they have a very easy way to learn it and may at
their convenience choose to change their primary focus of input to text
input or GUI, depending on the situation at hand.  I hear this as the
biggest complaint against GUI based text processors, many people still
long for the days of Word Perfect with it's "underwater screen".
However, show them LaTeX (or even Lyx) and they run.  As I said, I
have ideas but do not quite understand how people choose to use
computers.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen  | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar®  http://AvatarAcademy.nl  

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David,

>> 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI
> According to the advertising, that's Denemo.

Perhaps when I’ve got a little time to spare, I’ll give that a look — if it’s 
really all that, it might become part of my standard “proselytizing” package.

> "LilyPond for output only" is not much of a goal: it buys us bug reports
> without buying us a community interested in working with and on LilyPond.

Ah, but you’re ignoring the “virus” factor: if enough people depend on Lilypond 
for output, an interested community arises to support it.
Right now, “nobody” depends on Lilypond for output, so there is — as you say — 
no community interested in working with and on it.

> MusicXML export/import or even input/output is definitely something
> needed for a variety of reasons.

We should start with “perfect" export/import — even that (IMO) would turn the 
tide significantly, perhaps even decisively, in Lily's favour.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Jan,

> This is *exactly* why I've been playing/experimenting with GUI
> backends/frontends since 2004.  If you haven't done so, please have
> a look at Schikkers List
> 
>http://lilypond.org/schikkers
> 
> and come help me out!  If only to lure people over to LilyPond,
> increase its potential user base.

I looked at Schikkers List a year or so ago — it didn’t seem nearly 
feature-rich enough to convert anyone, so I didn’t look any further.
After things calm down around here (ca. Feb), I’ll give it a fresh look.

>> (so that users *never* have to see Lilypond “code”); or
> and this is what I don't understand. […]
> I have ideas but do not quite understand how people choose to use computers.

Consider the tab ruler in Microsoft Word. The world’s simplest feature to use 
in one of the world’s most idiot-proof GUI-based applications, right? And yet 
nearly 100% of the documents I get from people simply have multiple tab 
characters used to push text “over to the right”. When I’m given the task of 
formatting a document someone else inputted, my first task is almost always to 
convert those tabs to single tabs with tab stops in the ruler.

Why is this true?
Because people want to use computers to get things done with the least possible 
effort UP FRONT.
People want computers to make their lives simpler — end of story.

Except for fringe cases (e.g., automated github-y workflows on multiple 
editions, etc.), Lilypond code makes 99.9% of engraving tasks 99.9% more 
difficult (at least UP FRONT) for 99.9% of the people who use engraving 
software at all — or at least that’s the appearance, and really that’s all that 
matters.

We can be confused all day about why our favourite tool(s) don’t run the world… 
but it’s pretty clear why, if you actually take the time to put yourself in the 
mindset of the vast majority of computer users.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Urs Liska]

Kieren MacMillan  schrieb:
>Hi David,
>
>>> 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI
>> According to the advertising, that's Denemo.
>
>Perhaps when I’ve got a little time to spare, I’ll give that a look —
>if it’s really all that, it might become part of my standard
>“proselytizing” package.
>
>> "LilyPond for output only" is not much of a goal: it buys us bug
>reports
>> without buying us a community interested in working with and on
>LilyPond.
>
>Ah, but you’re ignoring the “virus” factor: if enough people depend on
>Lilypond for output, an interested community arises to support it.
>Right now, “nobody” depends on Lilypond for output, so there is — as
>you say — no community interested in working with and on it.
>
>> MusicXML export/import or even input/output is definitely something
>> needed for a variety of reasons.
>
>We should start with “perfect" export/import — even that (IMO) would
>turn the tide significantly, perhaps even decisively, in Lily's favour.
>

In case anyone hasn't noticed: we (that is mainly Peter Bjuhr) have finally 
started on giving MusicXML export a try. For now as Frescobaldi functionality.

If anybody is interested in this and has experience with Python and/or MusicXML 
please contact us :-)

Urs

>Cheers,
>Kieren.
>___
>lilypond-user mailing list
>lilypond-user@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

>> I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by
>> itself is a huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact.
>
> Amen.
>
>> If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's
>> overwhelmingly daunting.
>
> …even for me, and I’m one of Lily’s biggest users in terms of number
> and size and “real-ness” of scores.

Well, we'll probably need some open discussion of common problems and
imaginary input that would make it considerably easier for people to
overcome them.

I'm not primarily interested in syntactic sugar here (though the
\override Context.Grob.property thingy is at least a friendly gesture
towards the user), but structural things.  LilyPond's rigid voicing is
not fun for entering piano music, particularly where comparatively free
stemming and slurring and beaming and staff crossing come into play.
That's one point I feel embarrassed about and am planning to improve one
day.

> Here’s my experience:
> 1. I've tried to convince at least a dozen people — all of whom are of
> high intelligence (though none “programmers”) — to try Lilypond.
> 2. Every single one has preferred (or at least claimed to prefer)
> Lilypond's output to that of the engraving software they use — most
> are on Sibelius; a few use Finale.
> 3. About half took the time to install Lilypond and compile a simple example 
> file.
> 4. To my knowledge, exactly one tried a second example.
>
> Result? Not a single successful convert to date.

I think Frescobaldi with its templates would likely be helpful.
Possibly also Denemo.  Staring at an empty canvas without any controls
is a bit disconcerting.  Basically you need to have a printout with the
basics at hand.  How many pages is our tutorial?

>> Most people I tried to persuade simply said "this isn't my cup of
>> tea, I'm not a programmer”.
>
> THAT is the main problem right there — one we are likely never to
> overcome, as much as I hate to admit it.

That's relative, like people who don't use Emacs as an editor.  Nowadays
some newcomers start using it and don't understand the fuzz from
oldtimers who said they never managed getting along with it.

The basic problems for its workflow it have not changed all that much
over the last 20 years, so if you had thorough bad experiences with it,
you'll get reminded of them meeting it again.  But the degree to which
they hit you in the face has changed a lot.

In a similar vein, we won't change LilyPond's nature.  But there is a
lot one can do to make it appear less obnoxious, and possibly also
enable new workflows around it in connection with other tools.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Urs,

> If anybody is interested in this and has experience with Python and/or 
> MusicXML please contact us

I have no Python experience, but lots of XML/XSL(T) experience — and, of 
course, a proven willingness to financially support Lilypond.
Will those help?

Kieren.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David,

> we'll probably need some open discussion of common problems and
> imaginary input that would make it considerably easier for people to
> overcome them.

I’m right in the middle of an immense engraving project — I have lots of fodder 
and examples for such a discussion.

> LilyPond's rigid voicing is not fun for entering piano music

+1

> In a similar vein, we won't change LilyPond's nature.  But there is a
> lot one can do to make it appear less obnoxious, and possibly also
> enable new workflows around it in connection with other tools.

The second part is, I believe, Lily's best hope.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen  writes:

> Kieren MacMillan writes:
>
>> (so that users *never* have to see Lilypond “code”); or
>
> and this is what I don't understand.
>
> My idea is exactly the opposite: to show people the corresponding text
> input also,

"also"

> so that they have a very easy way to learn it and may at their
> convenience choose to change their primary focus of input to text
> input or GUI, depending on the situation at hand.  I hear this as the
> biggest complaint against GUI based text processors, many people still
> long for the days of Word Perfect with it's "underwater screen".

How many passionate snorklers and divers do you know who would want to
actually _live_ underwater, abandoning the surface altogether?

> However, show them LaTeX (or even Lyx) and they run.  As I said, I
> have ideas but do not quite understand how people choose to use
> computers.

The most-sold keyboards are some Casio or whatever with blinkenlights
and automatic rhythms and learning software and so ever, and the
majority of those never gets to see much more action than blink and let
the preprogrammed stuff run off.

There are more CD players sold than music instruments.  People don't
want to be faced with manual intervention for their music every quaver
but rather every hour or so.

Why would I use a computer if I still have to think myself?

At some point of time, you have to stop worrying about pissing off the
people who don't like this kind of manual access.  You'll not reach them
anyway.  What we do have to worry about is pissing off those who'd
actually _like_ this approach but have LilyPond keep getting in their
way.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: how to move TextScript closer to the staff?

[Eluze]

karol wrote
> Because LilyPond does not handle fingaring notation well, I wrote markup
> command:

what do you mean by that - example?

> The drawback is that the numerals are not centered on notehead.
> 
> Now, take a look at the example. My question is: how can I improve the
> code to have this TextScript (numerals) closer to the staff?

maybe you can adapt http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=637 to your needs
(see the file below)

but - imo - using LilyPond's fingering is better:

 
test5.ly   

Eluze




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/how-to-move-TextScript-closer-to-the-staff-tp154741p154765.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 30/11/13 21:40, David Kastrup wrote:

The backend is much less coherent, so expertise is harder to acquire,
people tend to work with partial knowledge, and progress is a lot more
fragile.  We need to get those four months down, and yes, a shouting
match is not going to help.  What will help is refactoring and
rearchitecturing, and that needs people with a thorough programming
background.


Is it perhaps worthwhile having a purely "backend cycle" where _all_ development 
effort is focused on turning the backend into something that's easy to work with?



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 01/12/13 09:45, David Kastrup wrote:

Finale output is ugly to the degree where it is distracting readability,
particularly for instrumentalists.  Sibelius' corporate parent has fired
its core developer team in the UK, including its original authors.
Steinberg does not yet have a finished product on market.  Most other
players are fringe players.

The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.


The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that Sibelius 
too has its problems when I recently received a score from a friend which would 
surely have looked much better done in Lilypond.


The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter.  My 
Bärenreiter scores engraved (presumably) with Finale may be less beautiful than 
the obviously hand-engraved earlier publications, but they are entirely 
satisfactory so far as reading goes.  Most practical readability problems arise 
because of publishers (or composers) who put inadequate work into copyediting 
parts, not because of the software used.


I don't say this to discourage anyone, but just to note that what matters to the 
end user is very often the facility to get the score _just as they want it_, not 
the ability of the program to automatically second-guess their desires.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: how to move TextScript closer to the staff?

[Karol Majewski]

> karol wrote
> > Because LilyPond does not handle fingaring notation well, I wrote markup
> > command:
> 
> what do you mean by that - example?

Take a lok here: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/fingering-overlap-bug-td154572.html

> maybe you can adapt http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=637 to your needs
> (see the file below)

The numerals are not centered, but that's not a big problem for me. What I want 
is to have them closer to staff in situations like:

{ 4 ^\markup \fingerMod { 1 3 5 } c'2. }





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Joseph Rushton Wakeling  writes:

> On 30/11/13 21:40, David Kastrup wrote:
>> The backend is much less coherent, so expertise is harder to acquire,
>> people tend to work with partial knowledge, and progress is a lot
>> more fragile.  We need to get those four months down, and yes, a
>> shouting match is not going to help.  What will help is refactoring
>> and rearchitecturing, and that needs people with a thorough
>> programming background.
>
> Is it perhaps worthwhile having a purely "backend cycle" where _all_
> development effort is focused on turning the backend into something
> that's easy to work with?

I don't think this sort of preplanning works out well.  Mostly it just
leads to people going away until the stuff they are not interested in is
done.  We need to figure out better ways to work on parallel and partly
conflicting goals.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: how to move TextScript closer to the staff?

[Karol Majewski]

OK, got it!

\version "2.17.96"

#(define-markup-command
  (fingerMod layout props arg)
  (markup-list?)
  (interpret-markup layout props
(markup
  (#:translate (cons 0.75 0)
(#:right-align
  (#:override
'(baseline-skip . 1.5)
(#:finger
  (make-center-column-markup arg



Dnia 1-12-2013 o godz. 12:35 Karol Majewski napisał(a):
> > karol wrote
> > > Because LilyPond does not handle fingaring notation well, I wrote markup
> > > command:
> > 
> > what do you mean by that - example?
> 
> Take a lok here: 
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/fingering-overlap-bug-td154572.html
> 
> > maybe you can adapt http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=637 to your needs
> > (see the file below)
> 
> The numerals are not centered, but that's not a big problem for me. What 
> I want is to have them closer to staff in situations like:
> 
> { 4 ^\markup \fingerMod { 1 3 5 } c'2. }
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 01/12/13 12:49, David Kastrup wrote:

I don't think this sort of preplanning works out well.  Mostly it just
leads to people going away until the stuff they are not interested in is
done.  We need to figure out better ways to work on parallel and partly
conflicting goals.


Yes, I guess that's a risk. :-(  Perhaps if you start by getting all the key 
developers to commit to trying to communicate and discuss with all the others 
exactly how their part of the backend works ... ?


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Joseph,

> The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that Sibelius 
> too has its problems when I recently received a score from a friend which 
> would surely have looked much better done in Lilypond.
> 
> The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter.

I disagree somewhat… and so do most of my Finale- and Sibelius-using friends 
and colleagues, who complain endlessly about how much time it takes to tweak 
scores and parts.

What *is* true is that beauty in engraving is less of an issue to most people 
than just getting it done.

> what matters to the end user is very often the facility to get the score 
> _just as they want it_, not the ability of the program to automatically 
> second-guess their desires.

Actually, what matters to most end user is to have something “good enough”… 
and, I’m sad to say, Finale and Sibelius do that (for them) with almost no 
tweaking at all.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 01/12/13 14:00, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

I disagree somewhat… and so do most of my Finale- and Sibelius-using friends 
and colleagues, who complain endlessly about how much time it takes to tweak 
scores and parts.


How does that compare to their reaction to Lilypond?  I would guess amazement at 
how much Lilypond gets right, but frustration with how relatively complicated it 
is to enter a score and see the results?  And probably overwhelming frustration 
when they hit the point of wanting to tweak something?



What *is* true is that beauty in engraving is less of an issue to most people 
than just getting it done.

Actually, what matters to most end user is to have something “good enough”… 
and, I’m sad to say, Finale and Sibelius do that (for them) with almost no 
tweaking at all.


Yes, and this is overwhelmingly true of most things in life.  "Easy to get it 
good enough" almost always wins over "difficult but gets it perfect".


When I compare Finale/Sibelius output with hand-copied (not hand-engraved!) 
parts from earlier years, which was the norm for a lot of new works, there is 
very rarely any contest.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Richard Shann]

On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 11:41 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> > In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this:
> > 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never*
> > have to see Lilypond “code”);
> 
> According to the advertising, that's Denemo. 

I hope nothing I write could be described as advertising, rather than
describing. I never have to see Lilypond "code" for the music typsetting
that I do with Denemo, but that is because I have installed all the
tweaks I need (you can parcel up Lilypond code as a user to be emitted
by a command that you install into Denemo, with the same status as
Denemo's other commands). 
So it depends on the user; likewise "publication quality" depends on the
publisher - I use the term in the way that I guess people will
understand it, namely better than some main-stream publishers editions
that I have.
Later in this thread someone has commented that many users want to be
able to make a score look just like they want. I think this is so -
often people want a score to look exactly like some particular thing;
one suspects that had they seen something else, they would have wanted
that instead. Such people with a specific idea of what they want the
final output to look like will usually have to tackle the LilyPond code
when using Denemo - more often they will jump to the far end and start
editing the output. (Truly, I know of people using pdf editors!).

How this compares with people's experience of commercial programs I
don't really know - the other day someone posted a Sibelius score on
IMSLP which wouldn't render correctly on my Debian Stable box. They had
posted the musicXML too, so I imported it into Denemo and re-typeset it
with LilyPond. The result was this:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Oboe_Sonata_in_C_major_(Albinoni,_Tomaso)

I didn't need to tweak it with LilyPond, and, for fun, I transposed it
up a minor third for treble recorder with absolutely no further
adjustments. This was remarkably painless, even though there were
mistakes in the musicXML (there is one bar that is actually incomplete
and one with wrong notes).

Richard


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: how to move TextScript closer to the staff?

[Eluze]

karol wrote
>> what do you mean by that - example?
> 
> Take a lok here:
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/fingering-overlap-bug-td154572.html
> 
>> maybe you can adapt http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=637 to your needs
>> (see the file below)
> 
> The numerals are not centered, but that's not a big problem for me. What I
> want is to have them closer to staff in situations like:
> 
> { 4 ^\markup \fingerMod { 1 3 5 } c'2. }

here is the code for what I thought once was in this snippet:

textScriptCenterOnNote = \override TextScript #'X-offset = #(lambda (grob)
   (let* ((paper-col (ly:grob-parent grob X))
  (elts (ly:grob-object paper-col 'elements))
  (rhythmic-head
   (if (ly:grob-array? elts)
   (let loop ((array-idx 0))
 (call/cc
  (lambda (return)
(let ((array-len (ly:grob-array-length elts)))
  (if (< array-idx (1- array-len))
  (let ((elt (ly:grob-array-ref elts array-idx)))
(if (grob::has-interface elt

'rhythmic-head-interface)
(return elt)
(loop (1+ array-idx)
  grob
   grob)))

 (+
  (ly:self-alignment-interface::x-aligned-on-self grob)
  (interval-center
   (ly:grob-robust-relative-extent rhythmic-head rhythmic-head X)


for the most common cases this should work:

{ 
 \textScriptCenterOnNote
  \override TextScript.self-alignment-X=#1
  4 ^\markup
  \fingerMod { 1 3 5 } c'2. 
}  

if there are shifted notes and accidentals, you can augment the X-offset for
Fingering or TextScript:

{
  \textScriptCenterOnNote
  \once \override TextScript.self-alignment-X=#1
  \stemUp 4 ^\markup {
\override #'(baseline-skip . 1.5) \bold \finger \center-column { 5 3 1 }
  }
  r2.
  \once {
\override Fingering.self-alignment-X=#9.8
\override Fingering.color=#cyan
  }
  1 ^1^2^5 
  \once \override TextScript.self-alignment-X=#8
  1 ^\markup {
\override #'(baseline-skip . 1.5) \bold \finger \center-column { 5 4 1 }
  }
}

- or wait till the issue(s) is fixed

hth
Eluze



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/how-to-move-TextScript-closer-to-the-staff-tp154741p154783.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[immanuel litzroth]

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote:

> On 01/12/13 09:45, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Finale output is ugly to the degree where it is distracting readability,
>> particularly for instrumentalists.  Sibelius' corporate parent has fired
>> its core developer team in the UK, including its original authors.
>> Steinberg does not yet have a finished product on market.  Most other
>> players are fringe players.
>>
>>
>> The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.
>>
>
> The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that
> Sibelius too has its problems when I recently received a score from a
> friend which would surely have looked much better done in Lilypond.
>
> The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter.  My
> Bärenreiter scores engraved (presumably) with Finale may be less beautiful
> than the obviously hand-engraved earlier publications, but they are
> entirely satisfactory so far as reading goes.  Most practical readability
> problems arise because of publishers (or composers) who put inadequate work
> into copyediting parts, not because of the software used.
>
> I don't say this to discourage anyone, but just to note that what matters
> to the end user is very often the facility to get the score _just as they
> want it_, not the ability of the program to automatically second-guess
> their desires.


I follow a music education program that requires me to play in a combo 1
hour a week. The scores there are prepared
by paid professionals, usually in Sibelius. They are invariably late, and
usually unreadable when they arrive.
Chords on top of each other, confusing spacing and layout, although they
are normally just a melody (if even that) without
any articulation marks and some chords.
If anyone is interested I can post some nice examples of the stuff I'm
being given under the motto "Sightread That!".
It normally takes me 30 mins to redo them in lilypond and get something
infinitely better.

The other bands I play in also usually have scores in lily written by me,
the other guys mainly distribute some copies of handwritten
stuff and are working on their Sibelius/Finale scores. I see no evidence of
Sibelius/Finale being better in any sense than lily to actually
produce scores.
Immanuel
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

> Hi Joseph,
>
>> The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that
>> Sibelius too has its problems when I recently received a score from
>> a friend which would surely have looked much better done in
>> Lilypond.
>> 
>> The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter.
>
> I disagree somewhat… and so do most of my Finale- and Sibelius-using
> friends and colleagues, who complain endlessly about how much time it
> takes to tweak scores and parts.
>
> What *is* true is that beauty in engraving is less of an issue to most
> people than just getting it done.
>
>> what matters to the end user is very often the facility to get the
>> score _just as they want it_, not the ability of the program to
>> automatically second-guess their desires.
>
> Actually, what matters to most end user is to have something “good
> enough”… and, I’m sad to say, Finale and Sibelius do that (for them)
> with almost no tweaking at all.

If people are not interested in the output, the selling point are the
input methods.

I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like

http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648>
Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for
unpitched notes

or the followup

http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3682>
Issue 3682: Patch: Implement \beamExceptions function fishing exceptions
from beamed music.

which feel to me like non-trivial steps in usability.  But most of the
time I'm left alone with figuring out what might work best for people.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 01/12/13 14:13, immanuel litzroth wrote:

I follow a music education program that requires me to play in a combo 1 hour a
week. The scores there are prepared
by paid professionals, usually in Sibelius. They are invariably late, and
usually unreadable when they arrive.
Chords on top of each other, confusing spacing and layout, although they are
normally just a melody (if even that) without
any articulation marks and some chords.


Sounds to me like, regardless of the software involved, you are paying the wrong 
professionals.


Out of curiosity, what form do the scores arrive in -- paper, PDF, ... ?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 01/12/13 14:56, immanuel litzroth wrote:

Here's a nice example.


That's almost certainly someone writing to full score (which has particular 
spacing properties) and auto-exporting to parts without ever actually looking at 
them.  Surprise to surprise, the horizontal spacing issues are different in an 
individual part than in a full score, particularly if (as in this case) the part 
is _all_ chords with no notes to space things out.


(Although why they don't in that case put in a cue melody line, I can't imagine. 
 Makes no sense to me.)


I would imagine these pieces are meant to be performed by ad-hoc ensembles which 
are not necessarily consistent in instrumentation.  So probably what happens is, 
Random Engraver takes all the possible instrument choices, throws them into one 
giant full score, gets it looking sort of all right there, and then exports the 
parts without a second thought.  It's a recipe for disaster.


This is not really a fault of Sibelius -- similar problems can happen with 
Lilypond if you proofread full score but not individual parts.  (For example, 
imagine a hairpin that's spread over quite a wide horizontal space in the score, 
but a fairly narrow space in the individual part: it may need a custom tweak to 
look right in the second case.)



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

Am 2013-12-01 um 15:26 schrieb Urs Liska :

> I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by itself is a 
> huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact.
> If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's overwhelmingly 
> daunting. And if you look at { c d e f g } like examples they aren't at all 
> overwhelming.
> Most people I tried to persuade simply said "this isn't my cup of tea, I'm 
> not a programmer“.

Hm, my ex-girlfriend was a fiddler in an Irish Folk band. She was used to note 
her tunes like „c d e f“ anyway and had no big hurdles with the LilyPond 
template I made for her. Don’t know if she still uses LilyPond, though ;-)

But most other people I know (that write notes at all), are content with the 
default quality of Finale (price is not a problem if you don’t care about 
legality) or even (I forgot the name of that crappy Windows-only program).

Myself I used to use Myriad Harmony Assistant until 2006 (a first try with 
LilyPond some years before failed, because I couldn’t get it to compile on 
Linux PPC; the same with MusiXTeX’s preprocessors); „Harmony“ has great MIDI 
output (I still miss it), a convoluted interface and rather poor notation - but 
still better that the competition in its price range; AFAIR I chose it since it 
could output PS/PDF, others had only bitmaps.

I guess „we“ have a chance in combination with TeX, i.e. at universities etc. 
where TeX is in broad use, since the approach and needed expertise is similar.



Greetlings, Hraban
---
fiëé visuëlle
Henning Hraban Ramm
http://www.fiee.net
http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/
https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer)





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[immanuel litzroth]

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote:

> On 01/12/13 14:56, immanuel litzroth wrote:
>
>> Here's a nice example.
>>
>
> That's almost certainly someone writing to full score (which has
> particular spacing properties) and auto-exporting to parts without ever
> actually looking at them.  Surprise to surprise, the horizontal spacing
> issues are different in an individual part than in a full score,
> particularly if (as in this case) the part is _all_ chords with no notes to
> space things out.
>
> (Although why they don't in that case put in a cue melody line, I can't
> imagine.  Makes no sense to me.)
>
> I would imagine these pieces are meant to be performed by ad-hoc ensembles
> which are not necessarily consistent in instrumentation.  So probably what
> happens is, Random Engraver takes all the possible instrument choices,
> throws them into one giant full score, gets it looking sort of all right
> there, and then exports the parts without a second thought.  It's a recipe
> for disaster.
>
> This is not really a fault of Sibelius -- similar problems can happen with
> Lilypond if you proofread full score but not individual parts.  (For
> example, imagine a hairpin that's spread over quite a wide horizontal space
> in the score, but a fairly narrow space in the individual part: it may need
> a custom tweak to look right in the second case.)
>
> Well,
1) I don't seem to run into many of these problems with lilypond and I do
transcriptions of small ensembles *and* export all
the voices separately (that's including drums) -- I almost never have to
clean up for readability issues, and don't have the
time to do it for aesthetic issues.
2) The contention was that this stuff would be easier in Sibelius. Not that
you can get it right there too.
Immanuel
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David,

> I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like
> 
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648>
> Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for
> unpitched notes

It’s a nice feature… but applicable, I would imagine, to a spectacularly small 
percentage of users. I, for one, can think of exactly three staves (and then 
only a fraction of the measures in those staves) in I would have used this 
feature, out of the last several thousand that I’ve engraved.

On the other hand, something really useful — and helpful in getting users “out 
of the code” — would be the ability to say:

lastCymbalCrash = {
  \atMoment (256 . 1) b4\accent\sff
}

and then output a 256-measure part (complete with rests, time signatures, etc.) 
for the poor cymbal player with

\score {
  \new RhythmicStaff << \theGlobalStuff \lastCymbalCrash >>
}

Or how about

\score {
  \new Staff \with { \lineBreaksAt (5 10 17 21 26) \pageBreaksAt (17) 
\autoBreaksOnAt (26) }  \theMusic
}

Or any of a dozen other functions I could dream up in a few minutes which would 
make life easier here in the trenches.

> most of the time I'm left alone with figuring out what might work best for 
> people.

This, I think, is the key problem with "front-end” Lilypond development right 
now: there are spectacular things going on in the "back-end" — prerequisites, 
of course, for real advance(s) to the “front-end” — but there are few real 
quantum leaps on the user side that mean anything to people who are cranking 
out real-world scores on a daily basis. And those are the ones that reduce the 
well-documented inertia that keep many users from switching to Lilypond.

When 2.18 is out, perhaps the ‘Pond would benefit from a discussion of what 
real-world functions might bring us closer to some of those “huddled masses 
yearning to be free”.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

Am 2013-12-01 um 19:15 schrieb David Kastrup :

> I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like
> 
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648>
> Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for
> unpitched notes

I hear you - as a magazine layouter I seldom get feedback at all, and then 
mostly some nitpicking of the authors.

Hey, isolated durations are GREAT! I can remember some pieces where they would 
have been very handy. 

Can’t say anything about other improvements - most of my songs are too simple 
for them, and I use LilyPond far too seldom.
But I’m looking forward to better accidentals in chord names.


Greetlings, Hraban
---
fiëé visuëlle
Henning Hraban Ramm
http://www.fiee.net
http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/
https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer)





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Kieren MacMillan]

> How does that compare to their reaction to Lilypond?  I would guess amazement 
> at how much Lilypond gets right, but frustration with how relatively 
> complicated it is to enter a score and see the results?  And probably 
> overwhelming frustration when they hit the point of wanting to tweak 
> something?

Exactly.
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: RehearsalMark and MetronomeMark together…again…

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hello all,This is *killing* my productivity on my current [extremely-high-pressure, past-due] project…For one example (hardly the worst), here’s Lilypond’s default output from one section of my bass part:Can someone please whip me up a helper function which does the following:   1. automatically offsets MetronomeMarks to the right enough to slide down next to a concurrent RehearsalMark; and   2. automatically stretches a MultiMeasureRest under a MetronomeMark such that it is sufficiently wide to incorporate the entire MetronomeMark.I am, of course, willing to pay a small bounty — bigger, if it’s a fix that can easily be incorporated into the main codebase.Thanks,Kieren.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Richard,

> They had posted the musicXML too, so I imported it into Denemo
> and re-typeset it with LilyPond. The result was this:
> 
> http://imslp.org/wiki/Oboe_Sonata_in_C_major_(Albinoni,_Tomaso)
> 
> I didn't need to tweak it with LilyPond, and, for fun, I transposed it
> up a minor third for treble recorder with absolutely no further
> adjustments. This was remarkably painless, even though there were
> mistakes in the musicXML (there is one bar that is actually incomplete
> and one with wrong notes).

A rather spectacular example!

Nice,
Kieren.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Richard Shann]

On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 09:19 -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, something really useful — and helpful in getting
> users “out of the code” — would be the ability to say:
> 
> lastCymbalCrash = {
>   \atMoment (256 . 1) b4\accent\sff
> }
> 
> and then output a 256-measure part (complete with rests, time
> signatures, etc.) for the poor cymbal player with 

Ha! It's funny you should mention this, but I just added a command to
Denemo to create a staff complete with time signature changes and empty
measures for a score (for a completely different reason). Front-end
stuff is so easy to do with a pre-processor like Denemo.

Richard Shann



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: formatting a text before the score

[olicha]

Thanks a lot for the tips which work perfectly.
I would like to understand how the \hspace #0 can impact the height of a
line or the way it is wrapped. Is that explained anywhere in the
documentation?



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/formatting-a-text-before-the-score-tp154399p154800.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Richard,

> Ha! It's funny you should mention this, but I just added a command to
> Denemo to create a staff complete with time signature changes and empty
> measures for a score (for a completely different reason).

Synchronicity!

> Front-end stuff is so easy to do with a pre-processor like Denemo.

Fair enough… but to accomplish such “obvious” things,
1. Lilypond shouldn’t require a pre-processor (the very mention of which makes 
most potential users eyes cross); and
2. Users shouldn’t be required to learn a new tool.

I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project load 
diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: RehearsalMark and MetronomeMark together…again…

[Kieren MacMillan]

Follow-up…
Cancel the bounty call for now: I’ve hacked my way through the problem manually.
I’ll post a feature request (and new bounty offer) some time next month.

Thanks,
Kieren.

On 2013-Dec-1, at 09:46, Kieren MacMillan  wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> This is *killing* my productivity on my current [extremely-high-pressure, 
> past-due] project…
> 
> For one example (hardly the worst), here’s Lilypond’s default output from one 
> section of my bass part:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone please whip me up a helper function which does the following:
>1. automatically offsets MetronomeMarks to the right enough to slide down 
> next to a concurrent RehearsalMark; and
>2. automatically stretches a MultiMeasureRest under a MetronomeMark such 
> that it is sufficiently wide to incorporate the entire MetronomeMark.
> 
> I am, of course, willing to pay a small bounty — bigger, if it’s a fix that 
> can easily be incorporated into the main codebase.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kieren.
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Urs Liska]

Am 01.12.2013 12:04, schrieb Kieren MacMillan:

Hi Urs,


If anybody is interested in this and has experience with Python and/or MusicXML 
please contact us

I have no Python experience, but lots of XML/XSL(T) experience — and, of 
course, a proven willingness to financially support Lilypond.
Will those help?


Both will surely help, although it's probably too early for talking 
about concrete sponsorship.

I see three possible approaches for you:

1)
Write to Peter privately, and you'll probably get into an exchange of 
ideas what could be useful.


2)
Goto https://github.com/openlilylib/ly2xml/wiki/_pages and have a look 
if anything rings a bell with you.

But be warned: The hyperlinks may lead you far away ;-)

3)
Have a look at http://music-encoding.org
It's not about MusicXML export but something for a later step. But it's 
a major academic initiative that _seems_ to be partially complementary 
to us, and it may be a good thing to think about converters for 
MEI->ly<-MEI.
I'm telling this you because MEI is an XML DTD and so it should be 
possible to convert between both with XSLT. And probably this is already 
done or started, so some research in this regard would be useful.


Best
Urs


Kieren.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Martin Tarenskeen]

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013, Kieren MacMillan wrote:


I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project load 
diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality.


Denemo is mentioned several times in this thread.

I have installed and tried Denemo several times recently and in the past, 
but never managed to make it make life with LilyPond easier for me.


I guess that if you are used to writing Lilypond Code by hand, using 
Frescobaldi, or another editor, there is not much benefit in using Denemo.


If you are used to using Finale, Sibelius - from a Sibelius/Finale-users 
point of view - there is not much benefit in using Denemo either.


Which leads to my question: Denemo seems to be a powerful and feature-rich 
tool, which is continuously improved, but how many people do actually use 
it for real-life music engraving projects?


--

MT___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Richard Shann]

On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 17:27 +0100, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2013, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> 
> > I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project load 
> > diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality.
> 
> Denemo is mentioned several times in this thread.
> 
> I have installed and tried Denemo several times recently and in the past, 
> but never managed to make it make life with LilyPond easier for me.
> 
> I guess that if you are used to writing Lilypond Code by hand, using 
> Frescobaldi, or another editor, there is not much benefit in using Denemo.

It would depend on what sort of activity you were doing - composing and
transcribing being the two main ones. I have heard it said that most
composers still use pencil, rubber and paper until they are ready to
publish. For transcribing I gain both in speed and enjoyment by using
Denemo for transcribing. That's because while typing in note names and
durations I get no sense of the music, I tend to lose my place. By
contrast, by playing rhythms and then the piece on a MIDI controller I
am leveraging my ability to read music - I know where I am in the score
as I know where I am when reading a book.
> 
> If you are used to using Finale, Sibelius - from a Sibelius/Finale-users 
> point of view - there is not much benefit in using Denemo either.

AFAIK they don't offer such a method of entering the music, so are
slower and less pleasant. And then you have to adjust the positions of
things by dragging them around...

> 
> Which leads to my question: Denemo seems to be a powerful and feature-rich 
> tool, which is continuously improved, but how many people do actually use 
> it for real-life music engraving projects?

Not many I think. I would like to know why, but I guess that devoting a
lot of screen space (you want ideally to see your original to transcribe
from, your input and the typeset at once) and desk space (for a MIDI
keyboard) could be factors. But mostly I suspect, it is because it is an
unusual program - people expect to work steadily away entering their
notes using Sibelius, Finale or MuseScore, and for some (e.g. those
doodling about composing things) the raw speed of music entry is not an
issue. And people expect to spend time tidying up the engraving just to
remove collisions.

But the feedback I get about Denemo is almost entirely positive - those
who find it unusable just quietly switch to something else, out of
politeness I guess. Most unhelpful!

Richard Shann








___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Richard Shann  writes:

> On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 11:41 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this:
>> > 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never*
>> > have to see Lilypond “code”);
>> 
>> According to the advertising, that's Denemo. 
>
> I hope nothing I write could be described as advertising, rather than
> describing.

I did not want to imply that I considered the description inaccurate.
I could have said "according to how it is marketed", but that's probably
not much better.

It's a sad thing that "businessmen talking about their product" nowadays
is tantamount to "politicians talking about their government
activities".

Actually, that would be ok.  The sad thing is that both have become
equivalent to "con men talking about their get rich schemes" nowadays.

So strike "advertising" or "marketing", and replace it with
"description".  Until that term is corrupted as well.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Henning Hraban Ramm  writes:

> Am 2013-12-01 um 19:15 schrieb David Kastrup :
>
>> I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like
>> 
>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648>
>> Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for
>> unpitched notes
>
> I hear you - as a magazine layouter I seldom get feedback at all, and
> then mostly some nitpicking of the authors.
>
> Hey, isolated durations are GREAT! I can remember some pieces where
> they would have been very handy.

Well, the main reason I'm surprised is that a few years ago there were
proposals about it and I said "this will have to wait until some other
parser parts are where they need to be" and there was wailing and
gnashing of teeth.  Actually, that was the second iteration.  The first
was rather heated, Han-Wen violently opposed the idea, I agreed with
him, there was bitter disappointment, and then q was designed instead.

Fixing the broken and hotly loved q eventually fell to my lot, and
issue 2240, required for that, introduced the largest Scheme
incompatibility for 2.16.  We still have fallout from that.

So now the stars are right, I mean, the parser parts are where I needed
them to be for the original issue, I implement the stuff, and people
have moved on.  And implementing the stuff comes at a cost: it was
moderate for me once I had the parser where I needed it to be, but of
course there is a followup cost for all tools that try understanding
LilyPond input: editors, converters, and so on.

We have not really found a good answer to that problem.  Good MusicXML
support would help as it is not affected by how user-friendly the
LilyPond input is.

> Can’t say anything about other improvements - most of my songs are too
> simple for them, and I use LilyPond far too seldom.
> But I’m looking forward to better accidentals in chord names.

Chord names look generally awful by default.  It's not just the
accidentals.  That's really an area where we could need a good
typesetting and font person (someone with a lot of experience rather
than someone just interested in doing it) to pound them into shape.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like
>> 
>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648>
>> Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for
>> unpitched notes
>
> It’s a nice feature… but applicable, I would imagine, to a
> spectacularly small percentage of users. I, for one, can think of
> exactly three staves (and then only a fraction of the measures in
> those staves) in I would have used this feature, out of the last
> several thousand that I’ve engraved.
>
> On the other hand, something really useful — and helpful in getting
> users “out of the code” — would be the ability to say:
>
> lastCymbalCrash = {
>   \atMoment (256 . 1) b4\accent\sff
> }
>
> and then output a 256-measure part (complete with rests, time
> signatures, etc.) for the poor cymbal player with
>
> \score {
>   \new RhythmicStaff << \theGlobalStuff \lastCymbalCrash >>
> }

What makes this hard is that lengths are precomputed, this may lead to
weird side effects.  Now to be honest, \lyricsto has the same problem.
I'm not sure this isn't related to some obscure bugs...

> Or how about
>
> \score {
>   \new Staff \with { \lineBreaksAt (5 10 17 21 26) \pageBreaksAt (17)
> \autoBreaksOnAt (26) } \theMusic
> }
>
> Or any of a dozen other functions I could dream up in a few minutes
> which would make life easier here in the trenches.

So dream them up, one by one, and either let them first be discussed
here, one by one, before preparing an issue report.  Yes, some may end
up as "invalid" or as not compatible with how LilyPond does things, and
some may sit years in the tracker.  When preparing a careful proposal
fitting with the rest of LilyPond, this may be somewhat deflating.

>> most of the time I'm left alone with figuring out what might work
>> best for people.
>
> This, I think, is the key problem with "front-end” Lilypond
> development right now: there are spectacular things going on in the
> "back-end" — prerequisites, of course, for real advance(s) to the
> “front-end”

No, that's rather independent.  The frontend is about how much it sucks
to tell LilyPond what one wants, and the backend is about how much it
sucks what LilyPond does once it has understood what is wanted.
Dependencies come into play only when LilyPond has no useful concept
representing the idea to be presented to the frontend.

> — but there are few real quantum leaps on the user side that mean
> anything to people who are cranking out real-world scores on a daily
> basis. And those are the ones that reduce the well-documented inertia
> that keep many users from switching to Lilypond.

Well, we have by now a slowly growing number of power uses that crank
out ad-hoc solutions.  At some point of time we need to integrate a few
of them back into LilyPond when they are often asked for, being
reasonably careful that this makes sense as a whole.

> When 2.18 is out, perhaps the ‘Pond would benefit from a discussion of
> what real-world functions might bring us closer to some of those
> “huddled masses yearning to be free”.

We'll certainly need to get a better idea how to grow better without
getting different tasks in the way of each other.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Martin Tarenskeen  writes:

> On Sun, 1 Dec 2013, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>
>> I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project
>> load diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality.
>
> Denemo is mentioned several times in this thread.
>
> I have installed and tried Denemo several times recently and in the
> past, but never managed to make it make life with LilyPond easier for
> me.

I think the idea was to make life _without_ LilyPond prettier by
outsourcing the real work to LilyPond behind your back.

> I guess that if you are used to writing Lilypond Code by hand, using
> Frescobaldi, or another editor, there is not much benefit in using
> Denemo.

It's a different workflow.  There is LyX which people use in order to
avoid touching LaTeX.  It works for casual users, but LyX powerusers at
some point of time need more knowledge to get LyX to do what they need
than if they just used LaTeX directly.  Some move on then.

The involved principles seem related with Denemo/LilyPond, but I have no
idea how much LilyPond knowledge can be employed from within Denemo, and
where the sweet spots are beyond which people get annoyed enough to move
to direct LilyPond input.

For some, the mixture might be just what they want.

> Which leads to my question: Denemo seems to be a powerful and
> feature-rich tool, which is continuously improved, but how many people
> do actually use it for real-life music engraving projects?

No idea about that.

http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=denemo>
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=lilypond>

Looks like a quarter of LilyPond users has Denemo installed.  Or
something.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[SoundsFromSound]

Kieren MacMillan wrote
>> How does that compare to their reaction to Lilypond?  I would guess
>> amazement at how much Lilypond gets right, but frustration with how
>> relatively complicated it is to enter a score and see the results?  And
>> probably overwhelming frustration when they hit the point of wanting to
>> tweak something?
> 
> Exactly.
> Kieren.
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list

> lilypond-user@

> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

For what it's worth, I was a user of Sibelius since 2000, and Finale since
2001. I recently switched completely to LilyPond for all of my
archival-quality engravings [master copies] and I am very happy with my
decision. Personally, I was a bit overwhelmed at first with this whole "text
input" concept, but I stuck with it and now I can't believe how much of a
boost my workflow has seen because of LilyPond. Not to mention how my
compositions look now on the page. Who knows if they sound good, but at
least they look good. :)

I hope you guys don't "abandon" the idea of text input because it may be
daunting to some who are making the switch as I have, for engraving. At the
risk of sounding uber-cliché, I really am in awe of the power of LilyPond
and how beautiful my scores look once they are printed. It has that nice
old-school hand-engraved vibe that I dig. :) And text input allows for some
crazy-powerful tweaking and the OCD in me is beyond happy with the
possibilities.

I do still find myself having to use Finale every now and then for projects
that require it [paid clients, school gigs, etc.], but I would say the
biggest selling point for me was "seeing" the score as a finished product.
What a feeling. It makes the learning curve worth it, imho.

The biggest complaint I've heard from many of my peers (when it comes to
possibly switching from Finale/Sibelius) is that "LilyPond looks like way
too much work" and "Text input?? That makes absolutely no sense for music.
You're not writing a book! It's a score!".

Sorry for the long post. I just wanted to share my thoughts as a working
composer and "power-user" of Finale and Sibelius who has since switched to
LilyPond for his personal portfolio. I'm always happy to help grow the
LilyPond community.

Have a nice weekend!

Ben



-
composer | sound designer 
LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) --> http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond
--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Supporting-my-work-on-LilyPond-financially-tp154644p154813.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

SoundsFromSound  writes:

> The biggest complaint I've heard from many of my peers (when it comes
> to possibly switching from Finale/Sibelius) is that "LilyPond looks
> like way too much work" and "Text input?? That makes absolutely no
> sense for music.  You're not writing a book! It's a score!".

Well, I'd argue that a mouse makes absolutely no sense for music input.
A practised typist can write several hundred words per minute and keep
this up for quite a long time.

Input the same amount of information with a mouse, and you'll have
Repetitive Strain Injury in no time at all.

MIDI input would be a good compromise if you are an actual keyboard
player: LilyPond's input tool shed is not too impressive here.  But MIDI
only carries the performance part of the musical information, not the
notational part.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[Urs Liska]

David Kastrup  schrieb:
>SoundsFromSound  writes:
>
>> The biggest complaint I've heard from many of my peers (when it comes
>> to possibly switching from Finale/Sibelius) is that "LilyPond looks
>> like way too much work" and "Text input?? That makes absolutely no
>> sense for music.  You're not writing a book! It's a score!".

>Well, I'd argue that a mouse makes absolutely no sense for music input.

And I'd add that what you input as text is much closer to the content you 
input. If you want an 'a' you write 'a'.
Sounds completely convincing to me, but doesn't seem to be very effective 
usually ...

Urs

>A practised typist can write several hundred words per minute and keep
>this up for quite a long time.
>
>Input the same amount of information with a mouse, and you'll have
>Repetitive Strain Injury in no time at all.
>
>MIDI input would be a good compromise if you are an actual keyboard
>player: LilyPond's input tool shed is not too impressive here.  But
>MIDI
>only carries the performance part of the musical information, not the
>notational part.
>
>-- 
>David Kastrup
>
>___
>lilypond-user mailing list
>lilypond-user@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: text accidentals [was Re: film score example]

[Janek Warchoł]

2013/11/30 Joseph Rushton Wakeling :
> On 30/11/13 12:30, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>>
>> We'll see how to split the amount between sponsors when i'm finished -
>> i originally intended to do just flat, natural and sharp, so doing all
>> microtonal accidentals may take me extra time.
>
>
> Why don't we split the task?  Regular accidentals first as a
> proof-of-concept, all current accidentals second as an extension of the
> work.  Two separately sponsored pieces of work.

I'll see, but i'm not sure if it would make sense to tackle these
issues separately.
I hope to get a "beta" tomorrow.

best,
Janek

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Problems with LilyJAZZ.ily

[Thomas Morley]

2013/11/26 Federico Bruni :

> If Marc or Harm are reading this message, I've just compiled bendtest.ly
> with 2.17.96 and there's a problem in measure 10: a beam appears and I get
> this warning:
>
> Drawing systems...
>
> bendtest.ly: warning: no viable initial configuration found: may not find
> good beam slope
>
> \bendGrace {
>
> \preBendRelease c8( d)( } c2) r2
>
> Layout output to `bendtest.ps'...
>
> Converting to `./bendtest.pdf'...

Hi Federico,

it's because grace-notes are beamed per default with 2.17.96.
Change the example to
\bendGrace { \preBendRelease c8( \noBeam d)( } c2) r2

or better the definition of 'preBendRelease' to

preBendRelease =
#(define-music-function (parser location note) (ly:music?)
   #{
 \once \override TabVoice.Slur #'stencil = #slur::draw-pre-bend-hold
 \once \override TabStaff.ParenthesesItem #'transparent = ##t
 \once \override Voice.Slur #'direction = #DOWN
 \autoBeamOff \parenthesize $note \autoBeamOn
   #})


Sorry for the late reply
  Harm

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Problems with LilyJAZZ.ily

[Janek Warchoł]

Hi,

2013/12/2 Thomas Morley :
> 2013/11/26 Federico Bruni :
>
>> If Marc or Harm are reading this message, I've just compiled bendtest.ly
>> with 2.17.96 and there's a problem in measure 10: a beam appears and I get
>> this warning:
>>
>> Drawing systems...
>>
>> bendtest.ly: warning: no viable initial configuration found: may not find
>> good beam slope
>>
>> \bendGrace {
>>
>> \preBendRelease c8( d)( } c2) r2
>>
>> Layout output to `bendtest.ps'...
>>
>> Converting to `./bendtest.pdf'...
>
> Hi Federico,
>
> it's because grace-notes are beamed per default with 2.17.96.
> Change the example to
> \bendGrace { \preBendRelease c8( \noBeam d)( } c2) r2
>
> or better the definition of 'preBendRelease' to
>
> preBendRelease =
> #(define-music-function (parser location note) (ly:music?)
>#{
>  \once \override TabVoice.Slur #'stencil = #slur::draw-pre-bend-hold
>  \once \override TabStaff.ParenthesesItem #'transparent = ##t
>  \once \override Voice.Slur #'direction = #DOWN
>  \autoBeamOff \parenthesize $note \autoBeamOn
>#})

Yeah, we already fixed that in the bend-update branch of the
repository, currently being pull-requested.  Review it here:
https://github.com/openlilylib/snippets/pull/16

I like the way in which putting this on github fosters collaboration
and development of that snippet (at least i am personally more
inclined to work on code that lives in some repository ;P).

best,
Janek

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Problems with LilyJAZZ.ily

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley  writes:

> 2013/11/26 Federico Bruni :
>
>> If Marc or Harm are reading this message, I've just compiled bendtest.ly
>> with 2.17.96 and there's a problem in measure 10: a beam appears and I get
>> this warning:
>>
>> Drawing systems...
>>
>> bendtest.ly: warning: no viable initial configuration found: may not find
>> good beam slope
>>
>> \bendGrace {
>>
>> \preBendRelease c8( d)( } c2) r2
>>
>> Layout output to `bendtest.ps'...
>>
>> Converting to `./bendtest.pdf'...
>
> Hi Federico,
>
> it's because grace-notes are beamed per default with 2.17.96.
> Change the example to
> \bendGrace { \preBendRelease c8( \noBeam d)( } c2) r2
>
> or better the definition of 'preBendRelease' to

Wouldn't it make sense to integrate the bend stuff into LilyPond?  That
would make it easier to match versions and behavior.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Gittip (was: Frescobaldi Project Support)

[Paul Morris]

SoundsFromSound wrote
> I wonder how the [Gittip] system works and how effective it could be for
> FLOSS development.

I have been keeping my eye on Gittip.  It's basically a tool that lets
individuals make ongoing weekly payments to other individuals (or
organizations) to support whatever work they do.  It happens that more often
than not this is volunteer work on free/open-source software.

What really makes it compelling is that Gittip does not make any money off
of the transactions that go through it.  They only charge a minimal fee to
cover their own transaction costs (credit card fees).  Gittip is itself
funded by voluntary donations made through Gittip.  The code that runs
Gittip is in the public domain and hosted on Github.

I'm not affiliated with Gittip, I'm just really interested and intrigued by
its potential.  I've often thought that it would make sense for projects
like LilyPond/Frescobaldi/etc.

More info:
https://www.gittip.com/about/
https://www.gittip.com/about/faq.html

Here's a blog post on how it was used to support a Drupal developer: 
http://blog.gittip.com/post/61497419514/drupal-co-maintainer-funded-at-475-wk

-Paul



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Frescobaldi-Project-Support-tp154005p154827.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

beginner problem

[Siena]

Hi all - I just downloaded LilyPond, ran the test which worked fine, and now
I'm trying to follow the tutorial, and ran into a problem right off at the
command line section.  When I open LilyPond, a command prompt box opens,
which is I assume where I'm supposed to type the command "lilypond test.ly"
to compile.

Here's the problem: I can't type in the command prompt box.  No matter what
I do, nothing shows up when I type.  Am I making a really dumb mistake, or
has something gone wrong with installation?  I'm on Windows 7, if that
helps, and searching the archives of this list makes me think I should maybe
have something called cygwin installed, and I don't seem to, so maybe that's
the problem, but those messages were also from a long time ago.

Any ideas would be very appreciated...

Siena


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: beginner problem

[SoundsFromSound]

Siena wrote
> Hi all - I just downloaded LilyPond, ran the test which worked fine, and
> now
> I'm trying to follow the tutorial, and ran into a problem right off at the
> command line section.  When I open LilyPond, a command prompt box opens,
> which is I assume where I'm supposed to type the command "lilypond
> test.ly"
> to compile.
> 
> Here's the problem: I can't type in the command prompt box.  No matter
> what
> I do, nothing shows up when I type.  Am I making a really dumb mistake, or
> has something gone wrong with installation?  I'm on Windows 7, if that
> helps, and searching the archives of this list makes me think I should
> maybe
> have something called cygwin installed, and I don't seem to, so maybe
> that's
> the problem, but those messages were also from a long time ago.
> 
> Any ideas would be very appreciated...
> 
> Siena
> 
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list

> lilypond-user@

> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Hi Siena,

Welcome to the LilyPond community!

Hmm...sorry you're having a problem with Windows 7 and LP. 

You don't "need" to type into that CMD window at all, you can use LilyPad
(the window/example file that loads on startup). Do you see that? 

You can open a non-LilyPond Windows7 CMD [start menu --> cmd] window and use
LilyPond commands there if you'd like; did you add or change anything in
Environment Variables yet?

We'll make sure you get up and running soon, stick with it! :)

Ben



-
composer | sound designer 
LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) --> http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond
--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/beginner-problem-tp154828p154829.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: beginner problem

[Siena]

SoundsFromSound  gmail.com> writes:

> 
> Siena wrote
> > Hi all - I just downloaded LilyPond, ran the test which worked fine, and
> > now
> > I'm trying to follow the tutorial, and ran into a problem right off at the
> > command line section.  When I open LilyPond, a command prompt box opens,
> > which is I assume where I'm supposed to type the command "lilypond
> > test.ly"
> > to compile.
> > 
> > Here's the problem: I can't type in the command prompt box.  No matter
> > what
> > I do, nothing shows up when I type.  Am I making a really dumb mistake, or
> > has something gone wrong with installation?  I'm on Windows 7, if that
> > helps, and searching the archives of this list makes me think I should
> > maybe
> > have something called cygwin installed, and I don't seem to, so maybe
> > that's
> > the problem, but those messages were also from a long time ago.
> > 
> > Any ideas would be very appreciated...
> > 
> > Siena
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > lilypond-user mailing list
> 
> > lilypond-user  
> 
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 
> Hi Siena,
> 
> Welcome to the LilyPond community!
> 
> Hmm...sorry you're having a problem with Windows 7 and LP. 
> 
> You don't "need" to type into that CMD window at all, you can use LilyPad
> (the window/example file that loads on startup). Do you see that? 
> 
> You can open a non-LilyPond Windows7 CMD [start menu --> cmd] window and use
> LilyPond commands there if you'd like; did you add or change anything in
> Environment Variables yet?
> 
> We'll make sure you get up and running soon, stick with it! :)
> 
> Ben
> 
> -
> composer | sound designer 
> LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) --> http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond
> --
> View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/beginner-problem-tp154828p154829.html
> Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 

Thanks so much for the quick reply!  I did figure out that it works just
fine if I drag the file onto the LilyPad icon, so maybe it doesn't matter. 
I was just trying to follow the directions in the tutorial, which said to
compile by typing at the command prompt (here's the instructions:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/learning/command_002dline)

But maybe I can just skip that step, as long as it won't matter later on.

I tried fooling around with the Windows command prompt, which I can type in
just fine, but I don't know enough about DOS commands to get it to work.  I
haven't heard of Environment Variables, so hopefully I haven't changed
anything about them yet!

Thanks,
Siena



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: beginner problem

[SoundsFromSound]

Siena wrote
> SoundsFromSound 
> 
>  gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> 
>> Siena wrote
>> > Hi all - I just downloaded LilyPond, ran the test which worked fine,
>> and
>> > now
>> > I'm trying to follow the tutorial, and ran into a problem right off at
>> the
>> > command line section.  When I open LilyPond, a command prompt box
>> opens,
>> > which is I assume where I'm supposed to type the command "lilypond
>> > test.ly"
>> > to compile.
>> > 
>> > Here's the problem: I can't type in the command prompt box.  No matter
>> > what
>> > I do, nothing shows up when I type.  Am I making a really dumb mistake,
>> or
>> > has something gone wrong with installation?  I'm on Windows 7, if that
>> > helps, and searching the archives of this list makes me think I should
>> > maybe
>> > have something called cygwin installed, and I don't seem to, so maybe
>> > that's
>> > the problem, but those messages were also from a long time ago.
>> > 
>> > Any ideas would be very appreciated...
>> > 
>> > Siena
>> > 
>> > 
>> > ___
>> > lilypond-user mailing list
>> 
>> > lilypond-user 
> 
>  
>> 
>> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>> 
>> Hi Siena,
>> 
>> Welcome to the LilyPond community!
>> 
>> Hmm...sorry you're having a problem with Windows 7 and LP. 
>> 
>> You don't "need" to type into that CMD window at all, you can use LilyPad
>> (the window/example file that loads on startup). Do you see that? 
>> 
>> You can open a non-LilyPond Windows7 CMD [start menu --> cmd] window and
>> use
>> LilyPond commands there if you'd like; did you add or change anything in
>> Environment Variables yet?
>> 
>> We'll make sure you get up and running soon, stick with it! :)
>> 
>> Ben
>> 
>> -
>> composer | sound designer 
>> LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) --> http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond
>> --
>> View this message in context:
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/beginner-problem-tp154828p154829.html
>> Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> 
> 
> Thanks so much for the quick reply!  I did figure out that it works just
> fine if I drag the file onto the LilyPad icon, so maybe it doesn't matter. 
> I was just trying to follow the directions in the tutorial, which said to
> compile by typing at the command prompt (here's the instructions:
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/learning/command_002dline)
> 
> But maybe I can just skip that step, as long as it won't matter later on.
> 
> I tried fooling around with the Windows command prompt, which I can type
> in
> just fine, but I don't know enough about DOS commands to get it to work. 
> I
> haven't heard of Environment Variables, so hopefully I haven't changed
> anything about them yet!
> 
> Thanks,
> Siena
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list

> lilypond-user@

> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


Ah, I see what you mean. When I used LilyPond in the terminal I always just
opened a fresh, clean one and ran lilypond-commands; rather than trying to
do anything with that one which pops up when you run the program. Sorry if I
confused you!

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate...

Ben



-
composer | sound designer 
LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) --> http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond
--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/beginner-problem-tp154828p154831.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: beginner problem

[Colin Campbell]

On 12/01/2013 06:51 PM, Siena wrote:

Hi all - I just downloaded LilyPond, ran the test which worked fine, and now
I'm trying to follow the tutorial, and ran into a problem right off at the
command line section.  When I open LilyPond, a command prompt box opens,
which is I assume where I'm supposed to type the command "lilypond test.ly"
to compile.

Here's the problem: I can't type in the command prompt box.  No matter what
I do, nothing shows up when I type.  Am I making a really dumb mistake, or
has something gone wrong with installation?  I'm on Windows 7, if that
helps, and searching the archives of this list makes me think I should maybe
have something called cygwin installed, and I don't seem to, so maybe that's
the problem, but those messages were also from a long time ago.

Any ideas would be very appreciated...

Siena




Hello, Siena
Since test.ly compiles under drag and drop, your installation should be 
good to go, so you might be well served by adding a special purpose 
lilypond editor.
Even though I was playing with computers and command lines since the 
60's, I *strongly* recommend newcomers to have a look at programs such 
as Frescobaldi, which makes text-mode entry of LilyPond really simple, 
then generates the graphic layout, or Denemo, which uses a more graphic 
mode of entry by placing notes on a staff and showing the resulting 
lilypond code. My personal favourite is Frescobaldi, but either one will 
take you off the command line and into the reason you are exploring 
LilyPond: engraving beautiful music, and the developers of each are 
frequent readers and posters on the lilypond lists.


As Ben has said: welcome to the community!  You're doing The Right Thing 
working through the Learning Manual (always my second recommendation!), 
and the lilypond-user list is a great resource as well.


Cheers,

--
The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are 
permitted to remain children all our lives.

 - Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate (1879-1955)

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: beginner problem

[Nick Payne]

On 02/12/13 13:18, Siena wrote:

SoundsFromSound  gmail.com> writes:


Siena wrote

Hi all - I just downloaded LilyPond, ran the test which worked fine, and
now
I'm trying to follow the tutorial, and ran into a problem right off at the
command line section.  When I open LilyPond, a command prompt box opens,
which is I assume where I'm supposed to type the command "lilypond
test.ly"
to compile.

Here's the problem: I can't type in the command prompt box.  No matter
what
I do, nothing shows up when I type.  Am I making a really dumb mistake, or
has something gone wrong with installation?  I'm on Windows 7, if that
helps, and searching the archives of this list makes me think I should
maybe
have something called cygwin installed, and I don't seem to, so maybe
that's
the problem, but those messages were also from a long time ago.

Any ideas would be very appreciated...

Siena


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user 
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Hi Siena,

Welcome to the LilyPond community!

Hmm...sorry you're having a problem with Windows 7 and LP.

You don't "need" to type into that CMD window at all, you can use LilyPad
(the window/example file that loads on startup). Do you see that?

You can open a non-LilyPond Windows7 CMD [start menu --> cmd] window and use
LilyPond commands there if you'd like; did you add or change anything in
Environment Variables yet?

We'll make sure you get up and running soon, stick with it! :)

Ben

-
composer | sound designer
LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) --> http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond
--
View this message in context:

http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/beginner-problem-tp154828p154829.html

Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Thanks so much for the quick reply!  I did figure out that it works just
fine if I drag the file onto the LilyPad icon, so maybe it doesn't matter.
I was just trying to follow the directions in the tutorial, which said to
compile by typing at the command prompt (here's the instructions:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/learning/command_002dline)

But maybe I can just skip that step, as long as it won't matter later on.

I tried fooling around with the Windows command prompt, which I can type in
just fine, but I don't know enough about DOS commands to get it to work.  I
haven't heard of Environment Variables, so hopefully I haven't changed
anything about them yet!
Installing one of the editors with Lilypond-specific support will make 
life a lot easier when it comes to entering lilypond code and then 
building the PDF and viewing the output. Frescobaldi is the one I 
normally use. For Windows, the current release is 
https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/releases/download/v2.0.11/Frescobaldi.Setup.2.0.11.exe.


The available editors are listed at http://lilypond.org/easier-editing.html.

Nick

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user