In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bart
Kummel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Hi List,
I just read this very interesting discussion. I don't think this is a
problem that will easily be solved. In fact, this is not a Lilypond- or
even music notation-specific problem. Similar cases exist for all other
Hi List,
I just read this very interesting discussion. I don't think this is a
problem that will easily be solved. In fact, this is not a Lilypond- or even
music notation-specific problem. Similar cases exist for all other file
formats. (For example: how future proof is Microsoft's .doc format?)
2007/4/12, Stuart Pullinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
In conclusion: SVG provide an alternative to PDF which may be more
future-proof provided that you are prepared for patchy support in
current browsers.
...and provided that multi-pages SVG support is not yet really
available, which makes it rathe
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 16:40:01 -0400
"Jason Merrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far, the best option was suggested by Tom: a tool called PDFtoMusic
> Pro that converts PDF scores into MusicXML. The pros are that it is
> available right now, and that it presumably works. Downsides are that
> it
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 11:29:28PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
(snip)
> >There is not now, nor ever will be, some universal music language.
> >MusicXML is an option, but not one everybody will choose. One could ask
> >the exact same question by replacing 'lilypond' with 'MusicXML'. The
> >issue
On 4/10/07, Anthony W. Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kieren
MacMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> musicXML -> lilypond is currently done as a python script; python
>>is a very nice language and is quite easy to learn.
>
>Why is it not in XSLT?
>Even if t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kieren
MacMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
musicXML -> lilypond is currently done as a python script; python
is a very nice language and is quite easy to learn.
Why is it not in XSLT?
Even if the performance is worse, it would seem to make more sense from
an
Hi, all:
Long answer: we would welcome any patches and developers interested
in building *and maintaining* musicXML output (and input).
I'm happy to work on MusicXML stuff when I'm available... that just
doesn't happen to be very often, given my commission schedule. =\
a much better solu
David Rogers wrote:
Once you ask "But which software might be slightly better to have in
the future?", nobody can give a good answer, because too many
assumptions are required. All of the software choices carry huge
risks, when you compare them to keeping a physical human-readable
archive.
I ag
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 16:40:01 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Thanks for the interesting comments so far. I want to refocus the
> discussion slightly. I didn't mean to get into a discussion about the
> relative merits of lilypond as an entry tool, exactly, so take as a
> temporary supposition that I
Jason Merrill wrote:
You can turn anything else
into lilypond via MusicXML, but once you've worked on it in lilypond,
there's no obvious way to get it back into a different editable
format.
See "to-xml.ly" and "song-*.ly" in the regression tests.
Luckily, this problem could be entirely addre
Jason Merrill wrote:
>> There is not now, nor ever will be, some universal music language.
>> MusicXML is an option, but not one everybody will choose. One could ask
>> the exact same question by replacing 'lilypond' with 'MusicXML'. The
>> issue with archival (it seems to me) is a format whose s
There is not now, nor ever will be, some universal music language.
MusicXML is an option, but not one everybody will choose. One could ask
the exact same question by replacing 'lilypond' with 'MusicXML'. The
issue with archival (it seems to me) is a format whose source will
"always" be readable
Hello list, hello Tim,
You wrote:
> Roland asked: I wonder what the typical note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time
> ratio is amongst LilyPond users.
It was Tom, not Roland. :-)
Best Regards Roland
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user
Roland asked: I wonder what the typical note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time
ratio is amongst LilyPond users.
For me, lilypond works quite well "out of the box" and my ratio is
probably about 90/10.
Then again, I'm mostly working on just horn parts for myself - not piano
or choir or orchestral sc
alcor.concordia.ca> writes:
> I wonder what the typical note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time ratio is
> amongst LilyPond users.
I'm probably not average (who is?), but I guess I spend about 40% of the time
spent on a score on initial note entry, 30% on layout tweaking, 20% on
proofreading and
Hello list, hello Tom,
You wrote:
> > . . . if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be
> > straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done
> > (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a
> > score, so that's not so bad).
>
> [ ... ]
>
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 01:12:11AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > . . . if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be
> > straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done
> > (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a
> > score, so
> . . . if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be
> straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done
> (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a
> score, so that's not so bad).
I use LilyPond for cases that have intractable layout p
Jason Merrill wrote:
> Thanks for the interesting comments so far. I want to refocus the
> discussion slightly. I didn't mean to get into a discussion about the
> relative merits of lilypond as an entry tool, exactly, so take as a
> temporary supposition that I want to enter music in lilypond rig
Thanks for the interesting comments so far. I want to refocus the
discussion slightly. I didn't mean to get into a discussion about the
relative merits of lilypond as an entry tool, exactly, so take as a
temporary supposition that I want to enter music in lilypond right
now, but that at some fut
Josiah Boothby wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Valentin Villenave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello everybody, hello Jason,
>>
>> I would like to add my 2 cents here: though LilyPond syntax evolves
>> indeed very quickly, you'll always be able to find the version of
>> LilyPond which was in use when you firs
On 4/5/07, Valentin Villenave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello everybody, hello Jason,
I would like to add my 2 cents here: though LilyPond syntax evolves
indeed very quickly, you'll always be able to find the version of
LilyPond which was in use when you first typed your score, on
http://lilypo
Hello everybody, hello Jason,
I would like to add my 2 cents here: though LilyPond syntax evolves
indeed very quickly, you'll always be able to find the version of
LilyPond which was in use when you first typed your score, on
http://lilypond.org/web/install/older-versions or
http://download.linux
Hi --
I think you're right that LilyPond (.ly) files aren't good for long-term
archival, since LilyPond syntax changes so rapidly.
Myriad (in France) has released a program called PDFtoMusic Pro that
purportedly will convert a PDF file to MusicXML or to MIDI. Presumably the
PDF file cannot b
I love lilypond, and would like to encourage others to use it also, and
the answer to Jason's question would help me as well. I hope someone can
answer it well.
Night before last, I was playing off a part that someone had generated
using Finale Print Music (?), and it wasn't very good (way too
26 matches
Mail list logo
