On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:49:50 +0200 Grammostola Rosea <rosea.grammost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote: > > On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 18:53:37 +0100 > > Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 12:23:28PM +0200, Grammostola Rosea wrote: > >> > >>> @ Valentin, yeah would be nice if we could improve the midi output by > >>> default. I can remember I mentioned this before, but one comment (not > >>> from you) was that Lilypond was mainly a notation typesetter... And > >>> while been busy with the lilywrap script, I was thinking, ok maybe > >>> that's right, but what is wrong with having both, e.g. good lay-out and > >>> good midi output? > >>> > >> Of course there's nothing wrong with having both! However, nobody > >> else wants to work on midi output. > >> > > > > Again, why not get in touch with the developer(s) of midge? The > > syntax is completely different, but it is *text-based* and GNU. > > It is dedicated to midi, not notation. Why not find a way to > > use their work, at worst by means of a translation script? > > Regards, daveA > > > > > > > Could an improved articulate script no be enough? What can Midge add to > Lilypond midi? > > \r Everything lilypond doesn't have. daveA _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
