Re: Trills With Accidentals
P Spalding wrote: That would be excellent, Arnold. I've been inking in the accidental in past. Here you are! http://old.nabble.com/file/p33991423/pitchedArticulations.ly pitchedArticulations.ly is my include file. Created on Win7 - I hope the CR/NL will not harm on UNIX. A 'short' description is in this PDF document http://old.nabble.com/file/p33991423/pitchedArticulationsTest.pdf pitchedArticulationsTest.pdf which is created from this LY file http://old.nabble.com/file/p33991423/pitchedArticulationsTest.ly pitchedArticulationsTest.ly . In this LY file also my huge test suite is included, but at the moment it's commented out to get only this two page instruction. Allthough I compiled this example with 2.15.39, I allready tested my include file with 2.12.3 and 2.14.2. A few position differences are adjusted by querying the lilypond version in the scheme code. I hope it's a gem for you. According to the file size it should be a huge gem. Enjoy it, Arnold P.S. I want to upload it to the LSR when 2.16 is out and the LSR is migrated to 2.16. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Trills-With-Accidentals-tp33979017p33991423.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
Dear fellow-users,
I'm working on a vocal piece in which some lyrics are in parentheses, but
the opening parentheses don't appear in the output PDF file. The closing
parentheses are fine. By way of example, here's a couple of bars from the
piece:
\version 2.14.2
\relative c'
\new Voice = melody {
\time 12/8
fis2.( f |
a4.) a4 g8 g4 f8 f4. |
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto melody {
blue __ (oo -- by -- doo -- by -- doo)
}
I have looked but haven't succeeded in finding a reference to this in the
documentation or on the forum, but at this stage I don't feel confident in
reporting it as a bug. Any advice would be appreciated. Apologies, as usual,
if I've missed an existing solution or explanation.
BTW, I know that I can solve the problem with a work-around, e.g. enclosing
the syllable concerned in quotes as (oo produces the correct result, but
it's not a very elegant solution, especially for repeated instances.
Cheers,
Philip
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
- Original Message -
From: Philip Thomas philip.tho...@bluewin.ch
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 2:04 PM
Subject: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
Dear fellow-users,
I'm working on a vocal piece in which some lyrics are in parentheses, but
the opening parentheses don't appear in the output PDF file. The closing
parentheses are fine. By way of example, here's a couple of bars from the
piece:
\version 2.14.2
\relative c'
\new Voice = melody {
\time 12/8
fis2.( f |
a4.) a4 g8 g4 f8 f4. |
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto melody {
blue __ (oo -- by -- doo -- by -- doo)
}
I have looked but haven't succeeded in finding a reference to this in the
documentation or on the forum, but at this stage I don't feel confident in
reporting it as a bug. Any advice would be appreciated. Apologies, as
usual,
if I've missed an existing solution or explanation.
BTW, I know that I can solve the problem with a work-around, e.g.
enclosing
the syllable concerned in quotes as (oo produces the correct result, but
it's not a very elegant solution, especially for repeated instances.
I found I had to use the (word solution - I use a regex in my application
that creates lilypond code to do just this.
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
-Original Message-
From: Phil Holmes [mailto:m...@philholmes.net]
Sent: Monday 11 June 2012 15:13
To: Philip Thomas; lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
- Original Message -
From: Philip Thomas philip.tho...@bluewin.ch
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 2:04 PM
Subject: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
Dear fellow-users,
I'm working on a vocal piece in which some lyrics are in parentheses,
but
the opening parentheses don't appear in the output PDF file. The
closing
parentheses are fine. By way of example, here's a couple of bars from
the
piece:
\version 2.14.2
\relative c'
\new Voice = melody {
\time 12/8
fis2.( f |
a4.) a4 g8 g4 f8 f4. |
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto melody {
blue __ (oo -- by -- doo -- by -- doo)
}
I have looked but haven't succeeded in finding a reference to this in
the
documentation or on the forum, but at this stage I don't feel
confident in
reporting it as a bug. Any advice would be appreciated. Apologies, as
usual,
if I've missed an existing solution or explanation.
BTW, I know that I can solve the problem with a work-around, e.g.
enclosing
the syllable concerned in quotes as (oo produces the correct result,
but
it's not a very elegant solution, especially for repeated instances.
I found I had to use the (word solution - I use a regex in my
application
that creates lilypond code to do just this.
--
Phil Holmes
Thanks Phil,
Especially for a reply within minutes, if not mere seconds, from when I
posed the question!
Not quite the reply I was hoping for, but at least it suggests that I'm not
barking up the wrong tree completely.
(If I were game enough, I might admit that when I first glanced at your
reference to the (word solution, I took you to mean MS Word, which can be
quite handy, using macros, in working on .ly text files to do this sort of
task. But I'm not game enough.)
If other experienced users have encountered the same problem with opening
parentheses in lyrics, this seems to me to be significant enough to be
reported as a bug, but I'm not experienced in reporting real bugs as
distinct from apparent errors in the documentation. Would that be making a
mountain of a molehill?
Cheers, Philip
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
- Original Message -
From: Philip Thomas philip.tho...@bluewin.ch
To: 'Phil Holmes' m...@philholmes.net; lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject: RE: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
-Original Message-
From: Phil Holmes [mailto:m...@philholmes.net]
Sent: Monday 11 June 2012 15:13
To: Philip Thomas; lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
- Original Message -
From: Philip Thomas philip.tho...@bluewin.ch
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 2:04 PM
Subject: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
Dear fellow-users,
I'm working on a vocal piece in which some lyrics are in parentheses,
but
the opening parentheses don't appear in the output PDF file. The
closing
parentheses are fine. By way of example, here's a couple of bars from
the
piece:
\version 2.14.2
\relative c'
\new Voice = melody {
\time 12/8
fis2.( f |
a4.) a4 g8 g4 f8 f4. |
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto melody {
blue __ (oo -- by -- doo -- by -- doo)
}
I have looked but haven't succeeded in finding a reference to this in
the
documentation or on the forum, but at this stage I don't feel
confident in
reporting it as a bug. Any advice would be appreciated. Apologies, as
usual,
if I've missed an existing solution or explanation.
BTW, I know that I can solve the problem with a work-around, e.g.
enclosing
the syllable concerned in quotes as (oo produces the correct result,
but
it's not a very elegant solution, especially for repeated instances.
I found I had to use the (word solution - I use a regex in my
application
that creates lilypond code to do just this.
--
Phil Holmes
Thanks Phil,
Especially for a reply within minutes, if not mere seconds, from when I
posed the question!
Not quite the reply I was hoping for, but at least it suggests that I'm
not
barking up the wrong tree completely.
(If I were game enough, I might admit that when I first glanced at your
reference to the (word solution, I took you to mean MS Word, which can
be
quite handy, using macros, in working on .ly text files to do this sort of
task. But I'm not game enough.)
If other experienced users have encountered the same problem with opening
parentheses in lyrics, this seems to me to be significant enough to be
reported as a bug, but I'm not experienced in reporting real bugs as
distinct from apparent errors in the documentation. Would that be making a
mountain of a molehill?
Cheers, Philip
It was mentioned in earlier emails (as in lots of years ago) as a possible
bug, since you can't have slurs in lyrics. I think I'll send a report to
the bugs group.
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
Hello Philip,
you might use markup-lists. In markups, the parens are typeset:
--snip--
\version 2.15.40
% should run in 2.14
% define a music-function, to convert a markup-list to a list of LyricEvents
lyricmarkup = #(define-music-function (parser location mup)(markup-list?)
(make-music 'SequentialMusic
'elements (map
(lambda (syl) (make-music 'LyricEvent
'text syl
'duration (ly:make-duration 2 0 1 1)))
mup)))
% a test
\new Staff \new Voice = mel \relative c'' {
c4. b8 a4 cis
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto mel
\lyricmode {
\lyricmarkup \markuplist { (oo bi doo) }
% override can't be inside markuplist!
\once \override LyricText #'self-alignment-X = #LEFT
didididididididididi
}
--snip--
But you can't use lyric-overrides inside the markup-list - so if you use
a lot them, this will not be helpful :-(
... and using \lyricmarkup \markuplist {} is a lot to type ...
But still, you might try it ;-)
Cheers, Jan-Peter
On 11.06.2012 15:04, Philip Thomas wrote:
Dear fellow-users,
I'm working on a vocal piece in which some lyrics are in parentheses, but
the opening parentheses don't appear in the output PDF file. The closing
parentheses are fine. By way of example, here's a couple of bars from the
piece:
\version 2.14.2
\relative c'
\new Voice = melody {
\time 12/8
fis2.( f |
a4.) a4 g8 g4 f8 f4. |
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto melody {
blue __ (oo -- by -- doo -- by -- doo)
}
I have looked but haven't succeeded in finding a reference to this in the
documentation or on the forum, but at this stage I don't feel confident in
reporting it as a bug. Any advice would be appreciated. Apologies, as usual,
if I've missed an existing solution or explanation.
BTW, I know that I can solve the problem with a work-around, e.g. enclosing
the syllable concerned in quotes as (oo produces the correct result, but
it's not a very elegant solution, especially for repeated instances.
Cheers,
Philip
___
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: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
Philip Thomas-2 wrote:
Dear fellow-users,
I'm working on a vocal piece in which some lyrics are in parentheses, but
the opening parentheses don't appear in the output PDF file. The closing
parentheses are fine. By way of example, here's a couple of bars from the
piece:
you can use text-replacements, see NR 3.3.3 Special characters. ASCII
aliases
it's described there how to add your own characters, e.g.
\paper {
#(add-text-replacements!
'(
(lparen; . ()))
}
I don't know if its really elegant!?
hth
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Opening-parentheses-in-lyrics-don%27t-appear-tp33993033p33993296.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Possible multiple bugs, any way around?
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:50:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Sami sami.ami...@gmail.com To: lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject: Re: Possible multiple bugs, any way around? Message-ID: 33983806.p...@talk.nabble.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Only if there is unrepeated music played before the repeated sections. Otherwise putting in any more elements than are necessary can cause unnecessary visual clutter. Ask me how I know. ;-) Look at most jazz lead sheets, there is usually no equivalent of \bar |: at the start or \bar :| at the end. A prime exception is some lead sheets where the form is truncated with repeats so that it stays on a single page (e.g., Waltz For Debby in the old illegal Real Books, which has nested repeats to negotiate). But most standards start with no repeat glyph and end with the equivalent of \bar |. yet everyone knows to repeat the forms as needed. Tim I got this habit working with big bands. They don't use them there often, but I wish they did. I have a small of markers at hand to highlight repeats, key changes, tempo changes, the most notable dynamics, segnos, codas etc, and I always wanted to highlight the beginning and ending of a repeated section, to avoid on the job mistakes, esp. if I had to sightread hard material on stage. So, I grew to like them. It forms an nice little entity there for my eyes, start here, finish there... Hi Sami, I'm in the camp, with you, that prefers this particular bit of clutter. An end repeat barline makes my poor underworked neurons look feverishly for the begin repeat barline, and if it doesn't leap out at me, I'm in trouble. But I mostly sing more classical stuff. Jazz players live lives replete with repeats, and will have more acute reflexes than mine. To insert a repeat barline at the very beginning, however, there is a snippet on exactly this point in the Notation Reference in section 1.4.1 Long repeats under the heading Manual repeat marks (see page 130 in the PDF version of the Notation reference, or see the web version at: http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/long-repeats#manual -repeat-marks The snippet is headed Printing a repeat sign at the beginning of a piece and can be found under that heading in the web version or at page 132 in the PDF version. HTH. Adjustment of the ordering of these symbols is possible, but as I discovered recently it's not one for beginners to do anything fancy with. It will get you into the wonderful world of so-called break alignment, meaning the ordering of various musical symbols (clefs, time signatures, etc., as well as barlines) before and after line breaks. In fact, however, the topic covers the ordering of those elements in the middle of lines as well (i.e. where there is no break). If you want to pursue some of the possibilities, see the Internals Reference at section 3.1.22 BreakAlignment and other areas cross-referred to from there. It is not a totally impenetrable topic, but as a not-much-more-advanced beginner than you, I personally found it rather a jigsaw puzzle. I never did find out what a vector is, or how to understand, successfully manipulate, or vary the number 3 following make-vector in the snippet. However, I did eventually manage to put together some perfectly sound (I hope) code which had the effect of ending a line with a new time signature _following_ a _double_ barline, followed immediately on the next line with the time signature _preceding_ a _begin repeat_ barline (as it should under what I understand to be the accepted musical convention, although unfortunately not in Lily's default). This involved the elapse of many hours, the consumption of certain beverages in some quantity, and the uttering of some very colorful language. I felt good at the end of it, though. :) Cheers, Philip ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Appreciation / Financial support
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified dramatically; a lot of the code users have to write is pretty ugly and is going to scare off potential users). I don't understand how this could be possible. Does anyone talk about the need to simplify the syntax of Latex? Of Perl? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Ivan Kuznetsov ivan.k.kuznet...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified
dramatically; a lot of the code users have to write is pretty ugly
and is going to scare off potential users).
I don't understand how this could be possible. Does anyone talk
about the need to simplify the syntax of Latex?
Sure. URL:http://www.latex-project.org/latex3.html
Of Perl?
Perl is a programming language, not an application and large-scale
programming project. Nobody here talks about the need to simplify the
syntax of Scheme. It's take it or leave it (with some people suggesting
leaving it). The question of simplify is rather how to tie concepts
of LilyPond together with Scheme, and how to improve the LilyPond
language itself, either in its connections with the lower language
layers, or viewed on its own.
As one example, once you could write
\midi { \tempo 4 = 60 }
Then you had to do something like
\midi { \context { \Score
tempoWholePerMinutes = #(ly:make-moment 240 4) } }
(don't quote me on the details) because otherwise you would be
confusing music syntax with context definitions, and nowadays you can
write
\midi { \tempo 4 = 60 }
which actually _is_ music _converted_ to a context definition and does
the same thing as it did a long time ago, only totally differently.
What do you want to read in a score? The first version was a strange
exception, the second version was pretty much straightforward, and the
third version requires a whole complex conversion mechanism.
If you try debugging this, the first versions are similarly complex
(rather straightforward) and the third version is really contorted.
Version 1 could be seen in the parser, but is a one-shot exception.
Version 2 can be followed from its own logic and is pretty
straightforward. Version 3 is a consequence of rather strange rules and
commands, and it is not easy to see how the music ends up becoming a
context modification after all.
So what? It expresses intent in a natural way. Probably in a way
appearing obscene to a programmer, but unremarkable to a musician.
Is it a simplification of syntax? Yes and no.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Opening parentheses in lyrics don't appear
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote (11 Jun 2012 14:46:31):
It was mentioned in earlier emails (as in lots of years ago) as a possible
bug, since you can't have slurs in lyrics.
--
Aha. Not a solution, but I now have a better feel for the problem.
--
I think I'll send a report to
the bugs group.
I think it would be good to have a simple solution for something which must
arise reasonably often, but I'm most certainly no developer.
Jan-Peter Voigt jp.vo...@gmx.de wrote (Jun 2012 15:48:45):
you might use markup-lists. In markups, the parens are typeset:
--snip--
\version 2.15.40
% should run in 2.14
% define a music-function, to convert a markup-list to a list of
LyricEvents
lyricmarkup = #(define-music-function (parser location mup)(markup-list?)
(make-music 'SequentialMusic
'elements (map
(lambda (syl) (make-music 'LyricEvent
'text syl
'duration (ly:make-duration 2 0 1 1)))
mup)))
% a test
\new Staff \new Voice = mel \relative c'' {
c4. b8 a4 cis
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto mel
\lyricmode {
\lyricmarkup \markuplist { (oo bi doo) }
% override can't be inside markuplist!
\once \override LyricText #'self-alignment-X = #LEFT
didididididididididi
}
--snip--
But you can't use lyric-overrides inside the markup-list - so if you use
a lot them, this will not be helpful :-(
... and using \lyricmarkup \markuplist {} is a lot to type ...
But still, you might try it ;-)
Eluze elu...@gmail.com wrote (Jun 2012 06:57:36):
you can use text-replacements, see NR 3.3.3 Special characters. ASCII
aliases
it's described there how to add your own characters, e.g.
\paper {
#(add-text-replacements!
'(
(lparen; . ()))
}
I don't know if its really elegant!?
Many thanks Jan-Peter and Eluze. I think on balance that, unless and until a
more simple solution appears, I might as well stick to (word for the time
being.
Cheers, Phil
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: magic coloring of contexts
eluze elu...@gmail.com writes:
I was quite amazed seeing the result of coloring a few parts of code.
in the first 2 files I just changed the location of the \colorContext
command. the 1st gives the expected result,
colorContext = #(define-music-function (parser location color) (string?)
#{ \applyContext #(override-color-for-all-grobs (x11-color color))
#})
mus = { a b c d e f g a }
\markup first
\relative {
\mus
}
\markup second
\relative {
\colorContext LimeGreen
\mus
}
while I don't understand why in the 2nd both get colored.
(basically swap both \relative sections).
\relative does not get the opportunity to start an implied context
before \colorContext runs. As a result, \colorContext modifies the
Global context, and all grobs of the compilation are interpreted in the
same Global context sequentially.
far more amazing is the result of the 3rd file where I added one more
score - namely that also the first score gets colored!
Well, \autochange works by running through the music on its own first.
You use a command override-color-for-all-grobs that I don't actually
know. I have no idea what it will do, and LilyPond does not appear to
know it.
\autochange uses its own global context for doing this, but depending on
what override-color-for-all-grobs does, this might or might not be good
enough.
now - is this all expected behavior?
It would be good if you mentioned what override-color-for-all-grobs
actually is.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Possible multiple bugs, any way around?
I'm in the camp, with you, that prefers this particular bit of clutter. An end repeat barline makes my poor underworked neurons look feverishly for the begin repeat barline, and if it doesn't leap out at me, I'm in trouble. But I mostly sing more classical stuff. Jazz players live lives replete with repeats, and will have more acute reflexes than mine. I couldn't agree more. It just makes it more complete for me. But I suppose it is just a matter of getting used to... I read everthing else and got a pretty big handful of information, thank you so much! And of course, when colorful language comes into play, I am a master painter when I use lilypond! I feel pity for the neighbours... But when you get that pdf in the end, it was all worth it... -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Possible-multiple-bugs%2C-any-way-around--tp33975473p33996072.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Scheme syntax vs. other languages [was: Re: Appreciation / Financial support]
Can anyone recommend a book or website for learning Scheme as it currently exists in Lilypond? So that I won’t start using deprecated features or whatever. I’m fluent in Lua (which I like a lot). I found Kent Dybvig's book to be useful and readable: http://scheme.com/tspl4/. Scheme as it currently exists in Lilypond is Guile, but I believe Guile agrees with Scheme R6RS (except for the short list documented here http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/guile.html#R6RS-Incompatibilities). Lilypond's particular usage of Guile also may have its own traditions and quirks with which I'm not very familiar at the moment. Nevertheless, I believe becoming familiar with the basics of Scheme is immensely (intellectually, plus in this case practically) rewarding and well worth the effort, and I don't think it's a large effort. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: magic coloring of contexts
Am 11.06.2012 18:32, schrieb David Kastrup: It would be good if you mentioned what override-color-for-all-grobs actually is. I found it here: http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=443 #(define (override-color-for-all-grobs color) (lambda (context) (let loop ((x all-grob-descriptions)) (if (not (null? x)) (let ((grob-name (caar x))) (ly:context-pushpop-property context grob-name 'color color) (loop (cdr x))) Eluze ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: magic coloring of contexts
Am 11.06.2012 18:32, schrieb David Kastrup: \relative does not get the opportunity to start an implied context before \colorContext runs. As a result, \colorContext modifies the Global context, and all grobs of the compilation are interpreted in the same Global context sequentially. I just added before\colorContext LimeGreen and now it works as expected. thanks for the explanation! Eluze ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Appreciation / Financial support
On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote: On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified dramatically; a lot of the code users have to write is pretty ugly and is going to scare off potential users). I don't understand how this could be possible. Does anyone talk about the need to simplify the syntax of Latex? Of Perl? Let me respond as a musician rather than as a programmer, because I am the first and I am not the second. A lot of the syntax of Lilypond makes little sense except perhaps to people used to coding. If you're a musician, the first months of trying to use Lilypond can be little more than an exercise in frustration. There are several reasons for this, including: 1. Inconsistency between what is needed for coding things that need to be on the page. I can put in a barline with \bar and a very descriptive set of options (|: || :| |. etc.). There is a simple visual logic to this that is excellent. The use of pitch and duration is likewise very simple and understandable such as c1, d2, e4 f8, g16, etc. It takes seconds to grasp the syntax; ditto how chords are written out with something like c e g b1 which is easily grasped. OTOH, if I want to put in rehearsal marks like section marks, codas, segnos, etc., the syntax is obtuse. It seems like I should be able to just use \coda, \segno, etc. But that's not the syntax Lilypond uses, the syntax is much more verbose and therefore easy to screw up- and one screw up kills the whole compilation. There is another issue there with needing simple and comprehensible error reporting to help users find the thing they screwed up. 2. Then there is the whole dealing with repeats and voltas and getting all the parentheses right. How a score is structured is not intuitive in Lilypond. It is not all that easy to make Lilypond to do things like setting four bars to the line (something jazz musicians tend to like). Things like glyphs and such are located by time rather than by structure, which is often backwards to how composers work on a manuscript- when I start with pen and paper, I usually start with sketching out the structure of the song before the melody ever gets written down; in Lilypond one cannot really do this. One result of this is that some things end up in funny, unexpected places. Codas placed at the end of a line used to go to the start of the next line if there was a \break; I don't recall offhand if that still happens. Surely someone thought there was a good reason for this but it frustrated me to no end when the damn coda didn't stay where I put it and ended up in the wrong place- because I use \break in every score in order to force four bars to the line- which rendered the chart incorrect for the musicians (there is a workaround for this, but IMHO it shouldn't be necessary). 3. There are too many valid ways of structuring a .ly file. A flexible syntax can be a good thing, but there are too many ways in which a .ly file can be organized and still have it compile correctly. This makes it hard to learn. There should be a logical flow to the syntax and how it is structured; good syntax should be enforced. Of course, we'd probably all have different ways defining good syntax. I am amazed at the variety of what I see when people post files, and most of them compile just fine! I may be seeing a problem where where there really isn't one, but it seems to me that in the long run a standardized .ly file structure will be easier to learn. 4. There are hundreds of pages of documentation and it can be very hard to find the information one needs in order to accomplish the task at hand. And searching either the web version or the PDF version does not always yield the needed information. Why is it like this? Because the focus of Lilypond has been, to a great degree, to create something that enables users to produce beautiful sheet music. That is the raison d'être of Lilypond. The main focus has not been on user friendliness and easy useability. As a result, a total of zero of the dozen or so musicians/composers I have tried to turn on to Lilypond have taken it up. They downloaded it, saw it is impossibly difficult, and went to something else. BTW, most of these are people with doctorates, medical degrees, MBAs, etc. They are computer savvy and they are not dumb. The user interface (like it or not, the *syntax* is the user interface- the text editor chosen by the user is not the user interface for Lilypond) is too beginner-unfriendly. Now, maybe that's OK- it may not be necessary to reach millions of users; maybe it's OK to focus on the users who will persevere through the steep learning curve and obscure commands and sometimes difficult syntax. Maybe it's OK to focus first and
Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Music notation is complex. Any ASCII representation of music notation likewise has to be complex. Any simplification of lilypond syntax must mean a removal of features. The only other alternative is to use a WYSIWYG editor where you draw the musical notation you want, and good luck waiting for an flexible open-source version of such a program with quality output. Or maybe Frescobaldi will someday evolve to something like this, I have yet to investigate the interface. P.S. Perl was a bad example, but the latex comparison was valid. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Hi TIm, I agree with much of what you said. However It is not all that easy to make Lilypond to do things like setting four bars to the line (something jazz musicians tend to like). That's pretty darned simple now — check the archives for more details. =) Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net writes: Why is it like this? Because the focus of Lilypond has been, to a great degree, to create something that enables users to produce beautiful sheet music. That is the raison d'être of Lilypond. The main focus has not been on user friendliness and easy useability. As a result, a total of zero of the dozen or so musicians/composers I have tried to turn on to Lilypond have taken it up. They downloaded it, saw it is impossibly difficult, and went to something else. BTW, most of these are people with doctorates, medical degrees, MBAs, etc. They are computer savvy and they are not dumb. The user interface (like it or not, the *syntax* is the user interface- the text editor chosen by the user is not the user interface for Lilypond) is too beginner-unfriendly. Now, maybe that's OK- it may not be necessary to reach millions of users; maybe it's OK to focus on the users who will persevere through the steep learning curve and obscure commands and sometimes difficult syntax. Maybe it's OK to focus first and foremost on great output. But it might be OK to focus on making Lilypond easier to learn and use for non-programmers. Indeed, I think that this is part of what David is talking about working towards. That's the impression I get as well. I think a part of the difficulty is that in this situation it is absolutely necessary for those creating the core code of Lilypond to program it backwards - to write their code according to what users want to *type*, and _not_ according to the end result that those users want to *accomplish*. Coding according to what your users want to type must be a ridiculously inefficient and irritating way for a programmer to have to work. It's unfortunately also the only way Lilypond can suffice for more than a few people. David Kastrup gave a good example of this earlier, showing how the midi block has been changed over time. To a programmer, the current easy-to-use Lilypond syntax for obtaining midi output is (apparently) an illogical kludge. Needless to say, it doesn't look that way to a non-programmer. -- David R ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Appreciation / Financial support
On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote: Music notation is complex. Any ASCII representation of music notation likewise has to be complex. Hmm, it would be more accurate to say music notation *can* be complex. It can also be very simple. I use Lilypond for creating jazz lead sheets; simplicity of presentation is very important. Music notation does two essential and necessary things. It specifies pitch information and time information: what note is played and how long it is held. Lilypond's syntax makes that pretty easy to express in text: c1 d2 e4 f8 g16, etc. Indeed, it is as simple a way to express musical notation as possible in a text format. Brilliant! This is not the problem. IMHO at least part of the problem is how the structure of scores is specified in Lilypond's syntax. The placement of every structural item (bar lines, repeats, alternate endings, sections, etc.) is specified by being tied to time values rather than the structure being a set of values that can be described independently of the notes. Instead of a 32 bar form being specified as a 32 bar form, it is specified as being 128 beats and the barlines are placed by Lilypond counting beats. Now, because computer programs do not operate like human brains there may be no practical alternative. I think I'd like to see the structure of the score (number of bars in the form, bars per line, placement of repeats, section marks, etc.) be specified in its own block, which would then allow the block(s) for musical information to be devoted only to that information (pitch, duration and expression such as accents, falls, doits, bends, slurs, crescendo/decrescendo, etc.). I think that this could simplify the syntax by creating a standard skeleton for .ly files going from most global to most specific: \version information \paper information \form information (number of bars, repeat locations, bars-per-line, rehearsal mark locations, number of staves, instruments/voices, \clef, \key, \time, etc.) \music information (could be \notes (including percussion), \chordnames or \lyrics) I think that the \score block could possibly be eliminated if the required information was specified in the other blocks; much of that information would be under \form (e.g., how many staves and what information is assigned to those staves). There could be one method for engraving chord names and lyrics instead of multiple methods. But it may be that there would be no practical way to separate form information into its own block separate from note/chord information. Any simplification of lilypond syntax must mean a removal of features. With all due respect, that is IMHO incorrect. Lilypond's syntax could be simplified through pursuing elegance while retaining power. In short, harder to use != more power. I can see no reason to be opposed to making Lilypond's input as attractive as its output- that is in many ways a more difficult task, however, because it's squishier than coding the processes that take the text and produce the score. Squishy stuff is difficult for a lot of reasons. One goal would be to remove redundant features, which reduces the complexity of the application code and improves its maintainability, and to make input streamlined. For example, do we need multiple ways to put in lyrics? (Maybe we do for reasons I don't understand). IMHO an economical syntax is easier to learn, is easier to type without errors, and probably easier to compile although I wouldn't know about that part. It seems self-defeating to say that we can't simplify and make the input method more elegant and even intuitive. It seems silly to me that we need hundreds of pages of documentation plus an online snippet repository. In terms of power, BTW, there would be no reason to remove Lilypond's Scheme interpreter which would allow for extending Lilypond as needed. Of course, I could be all wet. The only other alternative is to use a WYSIWYG editor where you draw the musical notation you want, and good luck waiting for an flexible open-source version of such a program with quality output. The closest is Musescore. http://musescore.org/ It has drawbacks in the quality of the output, to my eye, although it is generally better than many Finale things I have suffered through. I've tried Musescore, it's easy to use and it may be possible that the output can be tweaked to look really nice. I haven't felt like messing around with it because I've got so much time invested in learning Lilypond. Or maybe Frescobaldi will someday evolve to something like this, I have yet to investigate the interface. P.S. Perl was a bad example, but the latex comparison was valid. The LaTeX comparison is apt, given that it has the same goal as Lilypond: the rendering of a page of well-formatted and fluently shaped information. I've never bothered with it, a word processor is a much more practical
Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Message: 7 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 21:21:08 -0500 From: Ivan Kuznetsov ivan.k.kuznet...@gmail.com To: Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net Cc: lilypond-user Users lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support Message-ID: caasqlbw+e4rk81trxcvdbxoe9i4_brzz7+gwk1miarsuhvg...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Music notation is complex. Any ASCII representation of music notation likewise has to be complex. Any simplification of lilypond syntax must mean a removal of features. The only other alternative is to use a WYSIWYG editor where you draw the musical notation you want, and good luck waiting for an flexible open-source version of such a program with quality output. See Musescore. It uses Lilypond's Feta Font and has the look and feel of Sibelius. Or maybe Frescobaldi will someday evolve to something like this, I have yet to investigate the interface. I think if Lilypondtool or Frescobaldi would allow you to click-drag some of the grobs like dynamics and markup in the preview pdf and automatically insert code to make the tweak, that would be huge. (Plus maybe some way to click-drag an entire system to tweak vertical spacing, though after looking at the notation manual I have no idea how that could be achieved.) -Jonathan P.S. Perl was a bad example, but the latex comparison was valid. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Appreciation / Financial support
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:22:55AM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote: On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote: Any simplification of lilypond syntax must mean a removal of features. With all due respect, that is IMHO incorrect. Lilypond's syntax could be simplified through pursuing elegance while retaining power. Agreed. That's what's planned for GLISS, which has been on the books for ages but is currently expected to start in July. - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
