Re: Content of Introduction-Our Goal
Am 02.01.2014 03:35, schrieb Carl Peterson: This allows composers, transcribers and publishers to create publication-quality music---beautiful music---without having to spend as much time fighting the software's default settings. Is that really true (that is: can one honestly write this)? Regularly reading the mailing list I think that lots of LilyPond users often _are_ fighting the software's default settings too. Urs ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Content of Introduction-Our Goal
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes: Am 02.01.2014 03:35, schrieb Carl Peterson: This allows composers, transcribers and publishers to create publication-quality music---beautiful music---without having to spend as much time fighting the software's default settings. Is that really true (that is: can one honestly write this)? Regularly reading the mailing list I think that lots of LilyPond users often _are_ fighting the software's default settings too. without having to spend as much time fighting is quite a weak statement. It's almost like there has not been any fighting of specific software default settings under this program. It's not as much questionable as it is fuzzy. I think the most important difference is that of buying a toolbox in a shop, and of being lent a toolbox by a master artisan. In the latter case, you can report back your experiences, get advice for using the toolbox to its best capabilities and sometimes get the tools improved or extended in order to deal with your problems better. With time, you may learn enough to craft some tools of your own and teach others their workings. That is: when some fight does not make sense, you are not without power to change the fighting ground. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Content of Introduction-Our Goal
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 06:03:01PM +0100, Urs Liska wrote: I see the need to modify the Our Goal box on Introduction, but I wouldn't want to do that on my own because it would feel like modifying someone else's tune instead of only adding a figured bass to it. I have no objection to any of the changes suggested by you, Phil, and Carl. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Content of Introduction-Our Goal
Zitat von Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca: On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 06:03:01PM +0100, Urs Liska wrote: I see the need to modify the Our Goal box on Introduction, but I wouldn't want to do that on my own because it would feel like modifying someone else's tune instead of only adding a figured bass to it. I have no objection to any of the changes suggested by you, Phil, and Carl. Cheers, - Graham Thanks for the feedback, all. I'll make a concrete proposal next week. Urs ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Content of Introduction-Our Goal
I see the need to modify the Our Goal box on Introduction, but I wouldn't want to do that on my own because it would feel like modifying someone else's tune instead of only adding a figured bass to it. So I'd like to get some feedback here and propose a patch only then. Here are my thoughts: Our Goal I would like to change this because this wording seems more appropriate for a first alpha release of a project. We all know and have discussed only recently that LilyPond still has quite a long way to (and might never reach) truly automated engraving. But I wouldn't say this as explicitly at such a prominent place. What about Our Mission (as actually was in my first draft that I uploaded to my private server)? I think this still leaves room for further development but has a more positivistic touch to it. LilyPond came about ... (first paragraph) This is good and I wouldn't want to touch it. The result is a system ... (second paragraph) This is confusing and seems contradictory. - which frees musicians who is freed, the musician reading a score or the person creating it? - from the details of layout freeing from the details, what does that actually mean? - allowing them to focus on making music again: who is it that can focus, the performer or the typesetter? As this person is grammatically the same as the one addressed in the first part of the sentence it can only be the performer or the composer. - LilyPond works with them This can only be the typesetting person, so it's not really clear what the whole paragraph is intending. Apart from that it isn't clear why beeing freed from the details of layout should be a result from the idea of a software that creates parts that are elegant and not soulless. From my understanding the content of this second paragraph should be something along the lines of: - The above ideal resulted in a system - that is based on the best traditions ... - lets typesetters concentrate on the music instead of fiddling with the details of layout - results in scores that let performers concentrate on playing music instead of reading it What do you think? Urs ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Content of Introduction-Our Goal
- Original Message - From: Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org To: LilyPond Development Team lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 5:03 PM Subject: Content of Introduction-Our Goal [snip] I think the sentence could be: The result is a system which frees composers from the details of layout, allowing them to focus on creating music. and would be completely clear. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Content of Introduction-Our Goal
Am 01.01.2014 18:34, schrieb Phil Holmes: - Original Message - From: Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org To: LilyPond Development Team lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 5:03 PM Subject: Content of Introduction-Our Goal [snip] I think the sentence could be: The result is a system which frees composers from the details of layout, allowing them to focus on creating music. and would be completely clear. -- Phil Holmes Completely clear, yes. But only fully appropriate if composers typesetting their music while composing were LilyPond's core target audience/use case. Urs ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Content of Introduction-Our Goal
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote: Am 01.01.2014 18:34, schrieb Phil Holmes: - Original Message - From: Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org To: LilyPond Development Team lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 5:03 PM Subject: Content of Introduction-Our Goal [snip] I think the sentence could be: The result is a system which frees composers from the details of layout, allowing them to focus on creating music. and would be completely clear. -- Phil Holmes Completely clear, yes. But only fully appropriate if composers typesetting their music while composing were LilyPond's core target audience/use case. Urs +1, speaking as a composer who composes in MuseScore for the convenience of audio feedback, then transcribes the music by hand into my LilyPond template to get the output I want. To the question about what to call it, I think Our Purpose is perhaps what you're wanting. As to what to say, The result is a program that creates printed music more closely resembling and following the best traditions of classical music engraving. This allows composers, transcribers and publishers to create publication-quality music---beautiful music---without having to spend as much time fighting the software's default settings. Carl P. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
