Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>
> On Monday, 9 November 1998, Nick Bailey writes:
> > jeff covey wrote:
> >
> > > dear mr. van der poel,
> > >
> > > not only does lilypond use an input syntax similar to that of mup
> > > (though lilypond's music definition language is easier to read and
> > > write) and create far superior output, but it's also free in both
> > > senses of the word. i can't understand why you would promote a
> > > shareware program in a gnu/linux magazine while totally ignoring a
> > > superior gpl program that's an official part of the gnu project.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, but while I agree with the other sentiments, from the output I've seen
> + mup
> > is /far better/ than lilypond. Just look at the bach 48 example, and there a
> + re
> > loads of silly collisions, slurs overwriting dynamic markings, and strange
>
> Well i'm surely not going to argue that Lily has no bugs, or even that
> Lily is lacking trivial features that most other notation programs have
> (could you put an url to your 'examples', that talks a bit easier).
>
> But hearing that someone finds another programs output //that much// better
> than Lily's made me curious!
> So today i took a look again at Mup http://www.Arkkra.com/, and converted
> one of MUPs samples (sic.) to mudela.
>
> > Looking forward to being proved wrong 8-)
>
> Judgement of what is 'fine output' will always be rather subjective;
> there's no right or wrong here, so you may best see for yourself:
>
> PostScript output of MUP and Lily:
> http://www.Arkkra.com/doc/star.ps
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/lilypond/input/test/out-www/stars-and-stripes.ps.gz
>
> The input:
>
> http://www.Arkkra.com/doc/star.html
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/lilypond/input/test/out-www/stars-and-stripes.txt
>
> Greetings,
>
> Jan.
>
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/lilypond
I hadn't realized that the Jeff's original post had been a copy of one
to the gnu-music list so that when I sent of my reply (and it might have
been a tad snotty, for which I appologize) I didn't copy it here. So,
I've done so at the bottom of this message.
However, the above links demonstrate the problems with lily...
I download the stars ps file, decompressed it and tried to view with
ghostview. I get a undefined lily.ps message. I also tried to get the
source file from above and my browser tells me it doesn't exist.
As I recall, I had different (but similar) problems when I tried out
lily about a year ago....
On another point...I didn't know this discussion group even existed. How
does one subscribe? I checked out gnu.org but this group is not listed
in their list of groups.
Here's my message to Jeff:
...................
ff covey wrote:
>
> dear mr. van der poel,
>
> i wanted to thank you for your linux gazzette review of music notation
> programs for linux (http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue28/poel.html),
> which i read when it was reprinted in linux journal magazine. the
> only thing i can't understand about it is the complete absence of
> discussion of lilypond, the gnu music project
> (http://www.cs.ruu.nl/people/hanwen/lilypond/index.html).
I realize the the article ended up reading as an overview of notation
programs. It was really intended as a review of MUP, but I decided
(perhaps incorrectly) to overview the programs I'd tried before deciding
on MUP.
I actually did try an early version of lilypond. Frankly, it just didn't
work....
> not only does lilypond use an input syntax similar to that of mup
> (though lilypond's music definition language is easier to read and
> write) and create far superior output, but it's also free in both
> senses of the word. i can't understand why you would promote a
> shareware program in a gnu/linux magazine while totally ignoring a
> superior gpl program that's an official part of the gnu project.
>
> it's nice of you to add some more sample scores to your website, but
> they're unfortunately useless to the community since you've written
> them in a proprietary format that can only be used by other people who
> have bought the same program you use. it's like distributing useful
> texts on your page in microsoft word format. they'd be so much more
> useful if they were in a format that anyone could process freely, like
> the lilypond scores i have at
The sample socres are intended to demonstrate what MUP input scores look
like so that potential users can get an idea of the language. There are
also some images of the output, again as examples.
I'm not sure why you think they are useless to the community. If you
don't like MUP or want to learn about...then don't download them. They
are, after all, clearly labeled as to what they are. Are you suggesting
that the only appropriate software to run on a Linux system is
free/opensource software?
> http://pobox.com/~jeff.covey/scores.html . choosing to use a closed
> system severely limits your possibilities for new developments, such
> as the lilypond web interface that's currently under construction at:
> http://plaything.smart.net/cgi-bin/lilypond_cgi.pl (available only
> when i'm online).
On the other hand MUP is a mature program which works very well for me.
> thanks for your time and your consideration.
>
And thank you for taking time to read the review, etc.
.................
--
__
/ ) / Bob van der Poel
/--< ____/__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/___/_(_) /_) http://www.kootenay.com/~bvdpoel
