On 2019-10-03 8:53 am, Andrew Bernard wrote:
Lilypond is
heavily biased to Common Era music, and that's well and good and where
it
excels, but I think with the amount of contemporary modernist music
being
written people could be a bit more open to more contemporary
techniques.
How standardized is this so-called "modernist" music? I have to confess
inexperience with the genre, but it sounds like composers are tackling
the challenges of such complex music in potentially very different ways.
And that would make it very difficult for LilyPond to support in an
official and authoritative manner. At the very least, I can see why
there would be a bias toward Common Era music that is more-or-less fixed
in stone by this point in time.
One solution would seem to involve increasing the modularity of
LilyPond, to enable folks to author their own versions of the underlying
systems. In this way, an alternative layout/spacing engine would be
able to provide truly strict proportional alignment of grobs given
whatever constraints are useful to modern composers. But such added
modularity greatly increases the complexities of managing compatibility
with other systems. Imagine all of the snippets we have so far and how
they might be making assumptions on internal mechanisms.
It might make sense to fork LilyPond and work on replacing components
specifically for modern music. In this way, there is no risk to
breaking anything in the main distribution. And once the new branch
succeeds in meeting the goals of modern composers, then one could
consider how best to merge the results into a unified, but more
flexible, LilyPond.
-- Aaron Hill
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
