On Fri, 25 May 2012 17:28:02 +0000 (UTC) Klaus Föhl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > I like the lilypond notation using \relative being concise and readable. > Entering on a computer keyboard is fairly quick, but still it feels > that playing a melody line would be so much quicker. In particular > if one does not have a typing c4 d e f g1 style but c4 d4. e8 f8. g16 c,1 > > What "better" methods exist? > > For example I have looked into rosegarden output. > Minor issue:the output is not in relative notation. > More cumbersome are slightly non-aligned notes to the beat > (me being an imperfect human) and in particular varying > note lengths introducing rests where the music and the audible sound > both have none. > > I have seen techniques where the pitch is via piano keyboard > and rhythm is via computer keyboard. I am not fully convinced. > > I have seen a custom-designed computer keyboard that combines > pitch and duration. It might work well after a learning curve. > > What I am tempted is to take midi file information (i.e. gunzip a.rg), > or the rosegarden ly output and reverse-engineer it into event lists. > Whatever the detail: only piano-keyboard input and get both pitch and length. > > Then to apply some smart quantisation. For one thing notes like c1 > are much more likely than c2... or alignment with bars is probable, > aspects that require some adaptive rules, possibly some parameter training. > Also the routine should pick up and follow the meter as played, > as opposed to techniques providing the rigid mentronome frame. > > Well, before I reinvent the wheel myself: are such things already out there? > > Cheers > Klaus > There are some GUIs that make it easier to use actual notes to create Lilypond files. How well they perform.. I'll leave this discussion to other people. Nils _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
