Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
Thank you - The comparison with LilyPond is now up on the Denemo website: http://denemo.org/compareSibelius altogether, these examples (not selected to favor LilyPond, chosen by MuseScore and at random from IMSLP) show the benefit of not trying to typeset note-by-note as the music is entered. This method of comparison is not robust against manipulation, however: Sibelius and Finale could take extra care typesetting when importing music, but my guess is that they haven't bothered. If anyone would like to hand enter some of that music to see if the MusicXML import is doing anything fancy that would be good (but a lot of work, of course, else you wouldn't be reading here :) ) Richard On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 22:10 +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: - Original Message - From: Richard Shann richard.sh...@virgin.net To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net Cc: Mats Bengtsson mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se; lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 5:35 PM Subject: Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc Great! They are both creative commons xxx, credit-words default-x=674.687 default-y=125 font-size=8 justify=center valign=bottomCopyright © 2012 Marc Sabatella Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License/credit-words the Adon from IMSLP, so ok, but you can send them direct if you like. Here you go. These are imported from MusicXML with no tweaking, and exported to PDF, with the full version of Sibelius 7. To be honest, Sibelius isn't normally _this_ bad. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
- Original Message - From: Richard Shann richard.sh...@virgin.net To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net Cc: Mats Bengtsson mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se; lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:49 PM Subject: Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc Oh, and, of course, it would be good to see how Sibelius gets on re-importing the attached vocal piece, which was apparently generated on some version of Sibelius. (It came from searching IMSLP for sibelius and musicxml and hunting around) Richard I've done both of these. One has copyright markings and so I'm loathe to post it here. Is the other copyright free? -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
Great! They are both creative commons xxx, credit-words default-x=674.687 default-y=125 font-size=8 justify=center valign=bottomCopyright © 2012 Marc Sabatella Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License/credit-words the Adon from IMSLP, so ok, but you can send them direct if you like. Richard On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 17:05 +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: - Original Message - From: Richard Shann richard.sh...@virgin.net To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net Cc: Mats Bengtsson mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se; lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:49 PM Subject: Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc Oh, and, of course, it would be good to see how Sibelius gets on re-importing the attached vocal piece, which was apparently generated on some version of Sibelius. (It came from searching IMSLP for sibelius and musicxml and hunting around) Richard I've done both of these. One has copyright markings and so I'm loathe to post it here. Is the other copyright free? -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
I do have both Sibelius (7) and Finale (2012), if needed ... cheers Arne -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Comparing-LilyPond-with-Sibelius-Finale-Musescore-etc-tp148220p148387.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
ok and done, both pdf's are on their way. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Comparing-LilyPond-with-Sibelius-Finale-Musescore-etc-tp148220p148392.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 11:34 -0700, arnepe wrote: ok and done, both pdf's are on their way. And here (last two examples) are the resultant comparisons: http://denemo.org/compareFinale Please check that I am not misrepresenting LilyPond here. I have put a command into Denemo to fix slurs that are very steep with an accidental that gets cut through using the tweak \\once \\override Slur #'details #'edge-attraction-factor = #1 which I found on the issue ticket for this. It affects the Adon piece (bar 5 lower staff), unfortunately (and strangely it was not affected when I had the dummy lyrics before); if there is any legitimate way of not drawing attention to this bug I would like to hear about it. Only MuseScore has difficulty with this bar, and then only slightly. Richard -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Comparing-LilyPond-with-Sibelius-Finale-Musescore-etc-tp148220p148392.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 23:20 +0200, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
I have been compiling some examples of LilyPond's typesetting compared
with those of well-known alternatives:
http://denemo.org/CompareScorewriters
If anyone can provide better examples - these are just taken from
published work that I could find with a quick search - then please let
me know - especially if I am not doing LilyPond justice.
My examples have a common origin in MusicXML files, but there may be
some other way of standardizing the comparisons (short of re-typing
music examples...).
Richard
It's nice to have these comparisons, but I have a couple of comments:
- You should specify what the version number of the respective programs.
I have added the version numbers that I have information about
Several of the similar comparisons that have been discussed earlier on
the list, have been based on fairly old versions of Finale and Sibelius,
which may be unfair.
Well without considerable expense I can't really test Sibelius or
Finale, just report on what others have published in its name. They may
have hopeless skills in music typesetting. Where these comparisons are
strong is where the comparison is between two imports from MusicXML. If
anyone has access to the commercial programs and can do some MusicXML
imports then we could get an insight into the un-tweaked performance of
them.
- I really like that you point out that you are not fully certain how
much tweaking was used in the original typesettings, but it would of
course be even better to have example where you have this knowledge. If
you search the mailing list archives,
this is something I know I am not good at (searching) I just tried
starting from the lilypond.org site and failed to find a link there to
this mailing list from which I hopefully could launch a search, which is
either a bug or the measure of my incompetence. (I looked under
community)
you should find several examples
of similar comparisons and at least one or two of these included a
fairly detailed comparison of the amount of tweaking that was needed for
the different programs.
Searching my local copy of this mailing list for comparison sibelius
and finale didn't get me there...
- In the Sibelius comparison, it's really a pity that you didn't include
the correct lyrics. The alignment and layout of lyrics is clearly an
important issue in music typesetting, so I don't agree with the comment
that these are not important. In particular, it's a pity that they dummy
lyrics you have inserted for the Denemo/LilyPond version doesn't use
correct hyphens, i.e.
Lo -- rem ip -- sum
instead of
Lo- rem ip- sum
for example. The current example gives the false impression that
Denemo/LilyPond isn't able to handle hyphens correctly.
Thank you for the guidance here - I don't understand lyrics conventions
- I have pasted in the correct lyrics now and hope this is ok. I didn't
really understand what was intended where slurs are used but two
syllables appeared. I used a double underscore ipse__lorem to achieve
something like that effect, but perhaps this would constitute a tweak
(although whether the effect is anyway sound music notation I rather
doubt)
The downside is that this new version has thrown up a bug (slur crashes
accidental) which I am sure you all know about
\version 2.16.0
\score {
{ e'4( bes') }
}
why this didn't appear with the dummy lyrics version I can't imagine.
Thank you for the feedback.
Richard
Regards
/Mats
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
- Original Message - From: Richard Shann richard.sh...@virgin.net To: Mats Bengtsson mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:06 PM Subject: Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc Well without considerable expense I can't really test Sibelius or Finale, just report on what others have published in its name. They may have hopeless skills in music typesetting. Where these comparisons are strong is where the comparison is between two imports from MusicXML. If anyone has access to the commercial programs and can do some MusicXML imports then we could get an insight into the un-tweaked performance of them. I can import musicXML into the latest version of Sibelius (7) and report on its output if you want. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
Am 23.07.2013 15:09, schrieb Richard Shann: On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 14:03 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Am 20.07.2013 17:57, schrieb Richard Shann: I have been compiling some examples of LilyPond's typesetting compared with those of well-known alternatives: http://denemo.org/CompareScorewriters If anyone can provide better examples - these are just taken from published work that I could find with a quick search - then please let me know - especially if I am not doing LilyPond justice. My examples have a common origin in MusicXML files, but there may be some other way of standardizing the comparisons (short of re-typing music examples...). Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user What about the LilyPond and Finale renderings on that page: http://lilypond.ursliska.de/notensatz/lilypond-tutorials/tackle-complex-tasks/part-2-improving-the-output.html? Reading this page I see you refer to the model but it is not so clear what this is In this case the printed score from which I typeset the example with LilyPond and someone else with Finale 2008. : a musicXML file could provide a fixed point of reference, though its rag-bag specification does not help. And worse, the musicXML format is capable of holding descriptions of where to break lines etc; we really want to compare the ability to generate this sort of thing. Could we arrive at a definition of what a minimal specification of a piece of music notation that described some conventional Western music but not how it is to be typeset? I'm not sure. Even having added conventional Western to that sentence. Richard Unfortunately TYPO3 scrambled the links to the full-size images, but it already gives you an idea. I like this example because it displays a task LilyPond does _not_ manage - but then shows that Finale behaves much worse with it. (But to be honest: it's Finale 2008 and should maybe rerendered with a current version). Urs ___ 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: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 14:03 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Am 20.07.2013 17:57, schrieb Richard Shann: I have been compiling some examples of LilyPond's typesetting compared with those of well-known alternatives: http://denemo.org/CompareScorewriters If anyone can provide better examples - these are just taken from published work that I could find with a quick search - then please let me know - especially if I am not doing LilyPond justice. My examples have a common origin in MusicXML files, but there may be some other way of standardizing the comparisons (short of re-typing music examples...). Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user What about the LilyPond and Finale renderings on that page: http://lilypond.ursliska.de/notensatz/lilypond-tutorials/tackle-complex-tasks/part-2-improving-the-output.html? Reading this page I see you refer to the model but it is not so clear what this is: a musicXML file could provide a fixed point of reference, though its rag-bag specification does not help. And worse, the musicXML format is capable of holding descriptions of where to break lines etc; we really want to compare the ability to generate this sort of thing. Could we arrive at a definition of what a minimal specification of a piece of music notation that described some conventional Western music but not how it is to be typeset? I'm not sure. Even having added conventional Western to that sentence. Richard Unfortunately TYPO3 scrambled the links to the full-size images, but it already gives you an idea. I like this example because it displays a task LilyPond does _not_ manage - but then shows that Finale behaves much worse with it. (But to be honest: it's Finale 2008 and should maybe rerendered with a current version). Urs ___ 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: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
On 23.07.2013, at 15:03, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Richard Shann richard.sh...@virgin.net To: Mats Bengtsson mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:06 PM Subject: Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc Well without considerable expense I can't really test Sibelius or Finale, just report on what others have published in its name. They may have hopeless skills in music typesetting. Where these comparisons are strong is where the comparison is between two imports from MusicXML. If anyone has access to the commercial programs and can do some MusicXML imports then we could get an insight into the un-tweaked performance of them. What a coincidence: I was actually planning a blog entry comparing the MusicXML-Import of various programs. I can import musicXML into the latest version of Sibelius (7) and report on its output if you want. It would be great to collaborate! I'd recommend to standardize the comparison by using these sample files (both MusicXML and their corresponding PDF/PNG files) as reference files: http://www.musicxml.com/music-in-musicxml/example-set/. They cover quite a broad spectrum of music notation. I would simply open these files with different applications and save the rendered scores each time as PDF files without changing / tweaking anything. Then we can compare the resulting PDF files. Of course this doesn't necessarily tell anything about the quality of music engraving of the compared applications. It rather shows the quality of the file format conversion of these programs. musicxml2ly will not score very well here, I'm afraid. I have already tested quite a few of these files... In the same vein I'd like to do a comparison of various OMR applications with these sample files... -- Phil Holmes ___ 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: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 17:23 +0200, pls wrote: On 23.07.2013, at 15:03, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Richard Shann richard.sh...@virgin.net To: Mats Bengtsson mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:06 PM Subject: Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc Well without considerable expense I can't really test Sibelius or Finale, just report on what others have published in its name. They may have hopeless skills in music typesetting. Where these comparisons are strong is where the comparison is between two imports from MusicXML. If anyone has access to the commercial programs and can do some MusicXML imports then we could get an insight into the un-tweaked performance of them. What a coincidence: I was actually planning a blog entry comparing the MusicXML-Import of various programs. I can import musicXML into the latest version of Sibelius (7) and report on its output if you want. It would be great to collaborate! I'd recommend to standardize the comparison by using these sample files I thought about this too: it has the advantage of being completely objective, which in a world full of advertising hype is a good thing; people would not have to take your word for it, they could try it themselves. HOWEVER ... (both MusicXML and their corresponding PDF/PNG files) as reference files: http://www.musicxml.com/music-in-musicxml/example-set/. They cover quite a broad spectrum of music notation. I would simply open these files with different applications and save the rendered scores each time as PDF files without changing / tweaking anything. Then we can compare the resulting PDF files. Of course this doesn't necessarily tell anything about the quality of music engraving of the compared applications. It rather shows the quality of the file format conversion of these programs. Yes, for this reason I suggest we do *not* do this, as it will distract attention from the main point that people do not understand, namely that just by inputting the music they want to play into LilyPond they can get a nicely playable score; whereas if they input the music into a drawing-based program they will have to position things by eye, using the mouse. (There is a secondary point, that if they alter the music in a LilyPond score the re-positioning of everything else takes place automatically, which often it will not with a drawing program). We will not help people by replacing this insight with observations about how bad musicxml2ly or, worse still Denemo's musicxml import is. Well, in fact they are not so bad, inasmuch as it would be self-defeating to import all manner of typesetting information into Denemo or LilyPond, these importers are there to save typing in reams of notes and durations basically. But, we will not communicate the main message this way. So what we need is some musicXML files which just contain some basic information, e.g. notes durations and markings the sort of thing someone might expect to type/click in to a program to tell it about the music they want. This would take some donkey work, though (potentially stripping out information about beaming, slur positioning ...), and it *may* not be needed. A first stab might be simply exporting scores from the commercial programs in musicXML and then reading them back. I did this with MuseScore http://denemo.org/compare#Example_2 and the gives a good insight into how much hand-tweaking is needed in MuseScore. This would not illustrate the point if Musescore exported more information to musicXML and imported more back and it may not work for other programs which may do this, but it *may* work just fine. Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Richard Shann richard.sh...@virgin.netwrote: On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 17:23 +0200, pls wrote: (both MusicXML and their corresponding PDF/PNG files) as reference files: http://www.musicxml.com/music-in-musicxml/example-set/. They cover quite a broad spectrum of music notation. I would simply open these files with different applications and save the rendered scores each time as PDF files without changing / tweaking anything. Then we can compare the resulting PDF files. Of course this doesn't necessarily tell anything about the quality of music engraving of the compared applications. It rather shows the quality of the file format conversion of these programs. Yes, for this reason I suggest we do *not* do this, as it will distract attention from the main point that people do not understand, namely that just by inputting the music they want to play into LilyPond they can get a nicely playable score; whereas if they input the music into a drawing-based program they will have to position things by eye, using the mouse. (There is a secondary point, that if they alter the music in a LilyPond score the re-positioning of everything else takes place automatically, which often it will not with a drawing program). We will not help people by replacing this insight with observations about how bad musicxml2ly or, worse still Denemo's musicxml import is. Well, in fact they are not so bad, inasmuch as it would be self-defeating to import all manner of typesetting information into Denemo or LilyPond, these importers are there to save typing in reams of notes and durations basically. But, we will not communicate the main message this way. So what we need is some musicXML files which just contain some basic information, e.g. notes durations and markings the sort of thing someone might expect to type/click in to a program to tell it about the music they want. This would take some donkey work, though (potentially stripping out information about beaming, slur positioning ...), and it *may* not be needed. A first stab might be simply exporting scores from the commercial programs in musicXML and then reading them back. I did this with MuseScore http://denemo.org/compare#Example_2 and the gives a good insight into how much hand-tweaking is needed in MuseScore. This would not illustrate the point if Musescore exported more information to musicXML and imported more back and it may not work for other programs which may do this, but it *may* work just fine. This may be what you're getting at with the musicXML idea, but what about doing what we usually do to demonstrate lilypond...take a reference score, and set it up with no manual edits? So, for example, in Finale you would be able to connect slurs from notehead to notehead, but not adjust the curve in any way. In LP, you would add the parentheses and nothing else. This eliminates any issue of musicXML translation and trying to get the musicXML figured out may end up being like the post a few weeks ago where the poster decided it was easier to re-input the score than to deal with converting software. Richard Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 15:12 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Am 23.07.2013 15:09, schrieb Richard Shann: On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 14:03 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Am 20.07.2013 17:57, schrieb Richard Shann: I have been compiling some examples of LilyPond's typesetting compared with those of well-known alternatives: http://denemo.org/CompareScorewriters If anyone can provide better examples - these are just taken from published work that I could find with a quick search - then please let me know - especially if I am not doing LilyPond justice. My examples have a common origin in MusicXML files, but there may be some other way of standardizing the comparisons (short of re-typing music examples...). Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user What about the LilyPond and Finale renderings on that page: http://lilypond.ursliska.de/notensatz/lilypond-tutorials/tackle-complex-tasks/part-2-improving-the-output.html? Reading this page I see you refer to the model but it is not so clear what this is In this case the printed score from which I typeset the example with LilyPond and someone else with Finale 2008. Ah, I see, you are able to talk about Enter the plain music, correctly assign voices and don't apply any manual corrections in the context of Finale - with many such programs you cannot certain markings or text without manually positioning it, it just floats at the end of the mouse pointer until you click. Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 13:01 -0400, Carl Peterson wrote: On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Richard Shann richard.sh...@virgin.net wrote: On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 17:23 +0200, pls wrote: (both MusicXML and their corresponding PDF/PNG files) as reference files: http://www.musicxml.com/music-in-musicxml/example-set/. They cover quite a broad spectrum of music notation. I would simply open these files with different applications and save the rendered scores each time as PDF files without changing / tweaking anything. Then we can compare the resulting PDF files. Of course this doesn't necessarily tell anything about the quality of music engraving of the compared applications. It rather shows the quality of the file format conversion of these programs. Yes, for this reason I suggest we do *not* do this, as it will distract attention from the main point that people do not understand, namely that just by inputting the music they want to play into LilyPond they can get a nicely playable score; whereas if they input the music into a drawing-based program they will have to position things by eye, using the mouse. (There is a secondary point, that if they alter the music in a LilyPond score the re-positioning of everything else takes place automatically, which often it will not with a drawing program). We will not help people by replacing this insight with observations about how bad musicxml2ly or, worse still Denemo's musicxml import is. Well, in fact they are not so bad, inasmuch as it would be self-defeating to import all manner of typesetting information into Denemo or LilyPond, these importers are there to save typing in reams of notes and durations basically. But, we will not communicate the main message this way. So what we need is some musicXML files which just contain some basic information, e.g. notes durations and markings the sort of thing someone might expect to type/click in to a program to tell it about the music they want. This would take some donkey work, though (potentially stripping out information about beaming, slur positioning ...), and it *may* not be needed. A first stab might be simply exporting scores from the commercial programs in musicXML and then reading them back. I did this with MuseScore http://denemo.org/compare#Example_2 and the gives a good insight into how much hand-tweaking is needed in MuseScore. This would not illustrate the point if Musescore exported more information to musicXML and imported more back and it may not work for other programs which may do this, but it *may* work just fine. This may be what you're getting at with the musicXML idea, but what about doing what we usually do to demonstrate lilypond...take a reference score, and set it up with no manual edits? So, for example, in Finale you would be able to connect slurs from notehead to notehead, but not adjust the curve in any way. In LP, you would add the parentheses and nothing else. This eliminates any issue of musicXML translation and trying to get the musicXML figured out may end up being like the post a few weeks ago where the poster decided it was easier to re-input the score than to deal with converting software. We have just crossed in the post on this issue. We would need willing owners of proprietary programs to do signifcant work ... Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Richard Shann richard.sh...@virgin.netwrote: On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 13:01 -0400, Carl Peterson wrote: This may be what you're getting at with the musicXML idea, but what about doing what we usually do to demonstrate lilypond...take a reference score, and set it up with no manual edits? So, for example, in Finale you would be able to connect slurs from notehead to notehead, but not adjust the curve in any way. In LP, you would add the parentheses and nothing else. This eliminates any issue of musicXML translation and trying to get the musicXML figured out may end up being like the post a few weeks ago where the poster decided it was easier to re-input the score than to deal with converting software. We have just crossed in the post on this issue. We would need willing owners of proprietary programs to do signifcant work ... Finale and Sibelius offer 30-day trial versions of their software, and Finale has a free version of their software, Notepad ( http://www.finalemusic.com/products/finale-notepad/) that is mainly limited in number of instruments and export options. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
Which version of Sibelius? I believe it was Sibelius 7 that introduced the magnetic layout feature which moves things around as you place them. Of course, that's still nothing like Lilypond. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Richard Shann richard.sh...@virgin.net To: Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:11 PM Subject: Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 15:12 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Am 23.07.2013 15:09, schrieb Richard Shann: On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 14:03 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Am 20.07.2013 17:57, schrieb Richard Shann: I have been compiling some examples of LilyPond's typesetting compared with those of well-known alternatives: http://denemo.org/**CompareScorewritershttp://denemo.org/CompareScorewriters If anyone can provide better examples - these are just taken from published work that I could find with a quick search - then please let me know - especially if I am not doing LilyPond justice. My examples have a common origin in MusicXML files, but there may be some other way of standardizing the comparisons (short of re-typing music examples...). Richard __**_ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/**listinfo/lilypond-userhttps://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user What about the LilyPond and Finale renderings on that page: http://lilypond.ursliska.de/**notensatz/lilypond-tutorials/** tackle-complex-tasks/part-2-**improving-the-output.htmlhttp://lilypond.ursliska.de/notensatz/lilypond-tutorials/tackle-complex-tasks/part-2-improving-the-output.html ? Reading this page I see you refer to the model but it is not so clear what this is In this case the printed score from which I typeset the example with LilyPond and someone else with Finale 2008. Ah, I see, you are able to talk about Enter the plain music, correctly assign voices and don't apply any manual corrections in the context of Finale - with many such programs you cannot certain markings or text without manually positioning it, it just floats at the end of the mouse pointer until you click. Without wishing to bias any result, I have to say that Sibelius is _appalling_ at placing lyrics by default. -- Phil Holmes __**_ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/**listinfo/lilypond-userhttps://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
Sib 7. -- Phil Holmes - Original Message - From: Alex Yoder To: Phil Holmes Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc Which version of Sibelius? I believe it was Sibelius 7 that introduced the magnetic layout feature which moves things around as you place them. Of course, that's still nothing like Lilypond. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Richard Shann richard.sh...@virgin.net To: Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:11 PM Subject: Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 15:12 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Am 23.07.2013 15:09, schrieb Richard Shann: On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 14:03 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Am 20.07.2013 17:57, schrieb Richard Shann: I have been compiling some examples of LilyPond's typesetting compared with those of well-known alternatives: http://denemo.org/CompareScorewriters If anyone can provide better examples - these are just taken from published work that I could find with a quick search - then please let me know - especially if I am not doing LilyPond justice. My examples have a common origin in MusicXML files, but there may be some other way of standardizing the comparisons (short of re-typing music examples...). Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user What about the LilyPond and Finale renderings on that page: http://lilypond.ursliska.de/notensatz/lilypond-tutorials/tackle-complex-tasks/part-2-improving-the-output.html? Reading this page I see you refer to the model but it is not so clear what this is In this case the printed score from which I typeset the example with LilyPond and someone else with Finale 2008. Ah, I see, you are able to talk about Enter the plain music, correctly assign voices and don't apply any manual corrections in the context of Finale - with many such programs you cannot certain markings or text without manually positioning it, it just floats at the end of the mouse pointer until you click. Without wishing to bias any result, I have to say that Sibelius is _appalling_ at placing lyrics by default. -- Phil Holmes ___ 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: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
Am 23.07.2013 19:11, schrieb Richard Shann: On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 15:12 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Am 23.07.2013 15:09, schrieb Richard Shann: On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 14:03 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Am 20.07.2013 17:57, schrieb Richard Shann: I have been compiling some examples of LilyPond's typesetting compared with those of well-known alternatives: http://denemo.org/CompareScorewriters If anyone can provide better examples - these are just taken from published work that I could find with a quick search - then please let me know - especially if I am not doing LilyPond justice. My examples have a common origin in MusicXML files, but there may be some other way of standardizing the comparisons (short of re-typing music examples...). Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user What about the LilyPond and Finale renderings on that page: http://lilypond.ursliska.de/notensatz/lilypond-tutorials/tackle-complex-tasks/part-2-improving-the-output.html? Reading this page I see you refer to the model but it is not so clear what this is In this case the printed score from which I typeset the example with LilyPond and someone else with Finale 2008. Ah, I see, you are able to talk about Enter the plain music, correctly assign voices and don't apply any manual corrections in the context of Finale Actually I can't talk that way about Finale - because I don't know it. What I formulated is _my_ LilyPond perspective on it, and I asked Janek to typeset the example with Finale with the given premises. I actually don't know what he did to come up with that result. - with many such programs you cannot certain markings or text without manually positioning it, it just floats at the end of the mouse pointer until you click. This leads nicely to another point I wanted to throw in. This whole discussion reminds me of one topic I have on my wishlist for lilypondblog.org: How can you tell in a Finale or Sibelius score what is default and what is manually tweaked? This isn't intended to be a 'display of superiority' but rather a real matter of interest because I don't know (anymore) how a WYSIWYG user would think about such issues (if he is aware of them at all). If anybody feels inspired to write something in that direction (e.g. showing an example, formulating a set of questions etc.) feel free to contact Janek or me. Urs Richard ___ 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: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
Am 20.07.2013 17:57, schrieb Richard Shann: I have been compiling some examples of LilyPond's typesetting compared with those of well-known alternatives: http://denemo.org/CompareScorewriters If anyone can provide better examples - these are just taken from published work that I could find with a quick search - then please let me know - especially if I am not doing LilyPond justice. My examples have a common origin in MusicXML files, but there may be some other way of standardizing the comparisons (short of re-typing music examples...). Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user What about the LilyPond and Finale renderings on that page: http://lilypond.ursliska.de/notensatz/lilypond-tutorials/tackle-complex-tasks/part-2-improving-the-output.html? Unfortunately TYPO3 scrambled the links to the full-size images, but it already gives you an idea. I like this example because it displays a task LilyPond does _not_ manage - but then shows that Finale behaves much worse with it. (But to be honest: it's Finale 2008 and should maybe rerendered with a current version). Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Comparing LilyPond with Sibelius, Finale, Musescore etc
I have been compiling some examples of LilyPond's typesetting compared with those of well-known alternatives: http://denemo.org/CompareScorewriters If anyone can provide better examples - these are just taken from published work that I could find with a quick search - then please let me know - especially if I am not doing LilyPond justice. My examples have a common origin in MusicXML files, but there may be some other way of standardizing the comparisons (short of re-typing music examples...). Richard It's nice to have these comparisons, but I have a couple of comments: - You should specify what the version number of the respective programs. Several of the similar comparisons that have been discussed earlier on the list, have been based on fairly old versions of Finale and Sibelius, which may be unfair. - I really like that you point out that you are not fully certain how much tweaking was used in the original typesettings, but it would of course be even better to have example where you have this knowledge. If you search the mailing list archives, you should find several examples of similar comparisons and at least one or two of these included a fairly detailed comparison of the amount of tweaking that was needed for the different programs. - In the Sibelius comparison, it's really a pity that you didn't include the correct lyrics. The alignment and layout of lyrics is clearly an important issue in music typesetting, so I don't agree with the comment that these are not important. In particular, it's a pity that they dummy lyrics you have inserted for the Denemo/LilyPond version doesn't use correct hyphens, i.e. Lo -- rem ip -- sum instead of Lo- rem ip- sum for example. The current example gives the false impression that Denemo/LilyPond isn't able to handle hyphens correctly. Regards /Mats -- = Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing School of Electrical Engineering Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se WWW: http://www.ee.kth.se/~mabe = ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
