subject:"Re\: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially"

Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com writes:

 On Dec 1, 2013 1:47 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:

 Noeck noeck.marb...@gmx.de writes:

  I personally don't understand why LP is not common at music
  universities but that's probably a chicken-or-the-egg thing and the
  lack of large scale marketing. But this would also need official
  contacts in the LP team who are responsible and can represent LP
  towards these institutions.

 Convert three musicians you know to using LilyPond.  If you go
 I couldn't get _him_ or _her_ to use it, then how to pitch LilyPond to
 someone you don't even have contact with?  Think about _why_ you could
 not get a friend of yours to use it.  What would need to happen so that
 you could?  Have you tried?  What did you learn when doing so?


 Here are the problems I run into: (1) most musicians/composers/institutions
 are already using something.

So we need to catch them before they do.  Janek got a number of his
choir colleagues to enter Stabat Mater (don't remember whose,
Pergolesi?) into LilyPond.  If they had no previous need to music
typesetting, the first idea they'll have _when_ they do is to take a
look at LilyPond.  After all, they know its basic note entry already.

The crucial question here is whether LilyPond will survive that first
look even given their previous exposure.  But that's already better than
starting from scratch.

Then we need to get and think about feedback like I could not for the
life of me figure out how to do x and its followup feedback I now know
how to do x, but that's far too complicated a trick to pull whenever
I need x.

 This means that the first hurdle is overcoming the inertia of I
 already have x, why should I switch? Which leads to (2) even if I can
 demonstrate that LP overcomes the technical difficulties of another
 notation program, people are going to be reluctant to switch because
 of the perceived difficulty of learning LP syntax or working without
 the UI bells and whistles of Finale, etc.

Which is a reason to teach them working with Frescobaldi, not
LilyPond.  Teaching LilyPond is like teaching blueprints to carpenters.
In the end, they know exactly what the blueprint means and where each
cut has to be placed, but they never got to touch a saw.

When that fails, try getting them hooked on Denemo first as an
entry-level drug potentially leaving to raw LilyPond use at a later
stage.

 They will also say, Well, it's not *that* bad of a problem.

 I frequently advocate the simplicity of setting SATB hymns in LP to
 the hymn writers and composers of my personal acquaintance (using the
 template I've mentioned on other threads). My standard response
 whenever they talk about a workaround for a provlem in Finale is, Or
 you could just use Lilypond. They acknowledge that LP would probably
 make their work much easier, but too many are too invested in Finale
 at this point to make the switch.

Well, what's the investment they'll lose?  It's either an imaginary or a
real loss, and if it's the latter, how can we address this?


 LP came out in the midst of other packages that already existed. As a
 result, it is fighting for marketshare in a relatively mature
 market.

Finale output is ugly to the degree where it is distracting readability,
particularly for instrumentalists.  Sibelius' corporate parent has fired
its core developer team in the UK, including its original authors.
Steinberg does not yet have a finished product on market.  Most other
players are fringe players.

The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially


Am 01.12.2013 09:45, schrieb David Kastrup:

This means that the first hurdle is overcoming the inertia of I
 already have x, why should I switch? Which leads to (2) even if I can
 demonstrate that LP overcomes the technical difficulties of another
 notation program, people are going to be reluctant to switch because
 of the perceived difficulty of learning LP syntax or working without
 the UI bells and whistles of Finale, etc.

Which is a reason to teach them working with Frescobaldi, not
LilyPond.  Teaching LilyPond is like teaching blueprints to carpenters.
In the end, they know exactly what the blueprint means and where each
cut has to be placed, but they never got to touch a saw.

When that fails, try getting them hooked on Denemo first as an
entry-level drug potentially leaving to raw LilyPond use at a later
stage.



Lacking spare time today I can only hook in sporadically into this 
important discussion.


I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by itself 
is a huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact.
If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's overwhelmingly 
daunting. And if you look at { c d e f g } like examples they aren't at 
all overwhelming.
Most people I tried to persuade simply said this isn't my cup of tea, 
I'm not a programmer.


So while I can imagine it _should_ be possible to convince people on the 
professional side of the spectrum, e.g. people responsible for scholarly 
editions that LilyPond _can_ produce professional results while giving 
huge surplus for the quality of the workflow through versioning there 
should be more (tutorial and presentational) material to show that you 
can initially get usable and useful results with rather small investment.

I'm thinking of stuff like integrated sheets for educational purposes.
(OK, that's just one little drop, but:) If someone would write a 
beginner's tutorial how to create such sheets with OOolilypond that 
would be a great resource. I think this approach is particularly nice 
because (IIRC) you can achieve first _useful_ results without even 
bothering about such things as input file structure.


This isn't to say that making LilyPond easier to use wouldn't be a great 
achievement, but people first have to reach the point where they have 
the need to tweak things.


Urs

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

 I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by itself is a 
 huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact.

Amen.

 If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's overwhelmingly 
 daunting.

…even for me, and I’m one of Lily’s biggest users in terms of number and size 
and “real-ness” of scores.

Here’s my experience:
1. I've tried to convince at least a dozen people — all of whom are of high 
intelligence (though none “programmers”) — to try Lilypond.
2. Every single one has preferred (or at least claimed to prefer) Lilypond's 
output to that of the engraving software they use — most are on Sibelius; a few 
use Finale.
3. About half took the time to install Lilypond and compile a simple example 
file.
4. To my knowledge, exactly one tried a second example.

Result? Not a single successful convert to date.

 Most people I tried to persuade simply said this isn't my cup of tea, I'm 
 not a programmer”.

THAT is the main problem right there — one we are likely never to overcome, as 
much as I hate to admit it.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Hi David,

 The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.

Having been “in the trenches” perhaps more than most others on this list, I can 
tell you the situation *is* really all that unfavorable for Lilypond.

In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this:
1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never* have to 
see Lilypond “code”); or
2. Robust (i.e., essentially ‘transparent’) MusicXML input/output (so that 
users can input items in the tool of their choice, and use Lilypond for output 
only).

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:

 Hi David,

 The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.

 Having been “in the trenches” perhaps more than most others on this
 list, I can tell you the situation *is* really all that unfavorable
 for Lilypond.

 In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this:
 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never*
 have to see Lilypond “code”);

According to the advertising, that's Denemo.

 or 2. Robust (i.e., essentially ‘transparent’) MusicXML input/output
 (so that users can input items in the tool of their choice, and use
 Lilypond for output only).

LilyPond for output only is not much of a goal: it buys us bug reports
without buying us a community interested in working with and on
LilyPond.  It's probably somewhat tantamount to those maintaining
Ghostscript, by now a probably somewhat frustrating task.

MusicXML export/import or even input/output is definitely something
needed for a variety of reasons.  If it's needed for note input on a
continuing basis, we should ask ourselves how we can encourage existing
input tools or editors to do better.  Of course, a robust input of
material that _has_ already been input previously is still independently
useful.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-12-01 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen

Kieren MacMillan writes:

 The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.

 Having been “in the trenches” perhaps more than most others on this
 list, I can tell you the situation *is* really all that unfavorable
 for Lilypond.

 In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this:
 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI

This is *exactly* why I've been playing/experimenting with GUI
backends/frontends since 2004.  If you haven't done so, please have
a look at Schikkers List

http://lilypond.org/schikkers

and come help me out!  If only to lure people over to LilyPond,
increase its potential user base.

 (so that users *never* have to see Lilypond “code”); or

and this is what I don't understand.

My idea is exactly the opposite: to show people the corresponding text
input also, so that they have a very easy way to learn it and may at
their convenience choose to change their primary focus of input to text
input or GUI, depending on the situation at hand.  I hear this as the
biggest complaint against GUI based text processors, many people still
long for the days of Word Perfect with it's underwater screen.
However, show them LaTeX (or even Lyx) and they run.  As I said, I
have ideas but do not quite understand how people choose to use
computers.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar®  http://AvatarAcademy.nl  

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Hi David,

 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI
 According to the advertising, that's Denemo.

Perhaps when I’ve got a little time to spare, I’ll give that a look — if it’s 
really all that, it might become part of my standard “proselytizing” package.

 LilyPond for output only is not much of a goal: it buys us bug reports
 without buying us a community interested in working with and on LilyPond.

Ah, but you’re ignoring the “virus” factor: if enough people depend on Lilypond 
for output, an interested community arises to support it.
Right now, “nobody” depends on Lilypond for output, so there is — as you say — 
no community interested in working with and on it.

 MusicXML export/import or even input/output is definitely something
 needed for a variety of reasons.

We should start with “perfect export/import — even that (IMO) would turn the 
tide significantly, perhaps even decisively, in Lily's favour.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Hi Jan,

 This is *exactly* why I've been playing/experimenting with GUI
 backends/frontends since 2004.  If you haven't done so, please have
 a look at Schikkers List
 
http://lilypond.org/schikkers
 
 and come help me out!  If only to lure people over to LilyPond,
 increase its potential user base.

I looked at Schikkers List a year or so ago — it didn’t seem nearly 
feature-rich enough to convert anyone, so I didn’t look any further.
After things calm down around here (ca. Feb), I’ll give it a fresh look.

 (so that users *never* have to see Lilypond “code”); or
 and this is what I don't understand. […]
 I have ideas but do not quite understand how people choose to use computers.

Consider the tab ruler in Microsoft Word. The world’s simplest feature to use 
in one of the world’s most idiot-proof GUI-based applications, right? And yet 
nearly 100% of the documents I get from people simply have multiple tab 
characters used to push text “over to the right”. When I’m given the task of 
formatting a document someone else inputted, my first task is almost always to 
convert those tabs to single tabs with tab stops in the ruler.

Why is this true?
Because people want to use computers to get things done with the least possible 
effort UP FRONT.
People want computers to make their lives simpler — end of story.

Except for fringe cases (e.g., automated github-y workflows on multiple 
editions, etc.), Lilypond code makes 99.9% of engraving tasks 99.9% more 
difficult (at least UP FRONT) for 99.9% of the people who use engraving 
software at all — or at least that’s the appearance, and really that’s all that 
matters.

We can be confused all day about why our favourite tool(s) don’t run the world… 
but it’s pretty clear why, if you actually take the time to put yourself in the 
mindset of the vast majority of computer users.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially





Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca schrieb:
Hi David,

 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI
 According to the advertising, that's Denemo.

Perhaps when I’ve got a little time to spare, I’ll give that a look —
if it’s really all that, it might become part of my standard
“proselytizing” package.

 LilyPond for output only is not much of a goal: it buys us bug
reports
 without buying us a community interested in working with and on
LilyPond.

Ah, but you’re ignoring the “virus” factor: if enough people depend on
Lilypond for output, an interested community arises to support it.
Right now, “nobody” depends on Lilypond for output, so there is — as
you say — no community interested in working with and on it.

 MusicXML export/import or even input/output is definitely something
 needed for a variety of reasons.

We should start with “perfect export/import — even that (IMO) would
turn the tide significantly, perhaps even decisively, in Lily's favour.


In case anyone hasn't noticed: we (that is mainly Peter Bjuhr) have finally 
started on giving MusicXML export a try. For now as Frescobaldi functionality.

If anybody is interested in this and has experience with Python and/or MusicXML 
please contact us :-)

Urs

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
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: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:

 I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by
 itself is a huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact.

 Amen.

 If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's
 overwhelmingly daunting.

 …even for me, and I’m one of Lily’s biggest users in terms of number
 and size and “real-ness” of scores.

Well, we'll probably need some open discussion of common problems and
imaginary input that would make it considerably easier for people to
overcome them.

I'm not primarily interested in syntactic sugar here (though the
\override Context.Grob.property thingy is at least a friendly gesture
towards the user), but structural things.  LilyPond's rigid voicing is
not fun for entering piano music, particularly where comparatively free
stemming and slurring and beaming and staff crossing come into play.
That's one point I feel embarrassed about and am planning to improve one
day.

 Here’s my experience:
 1. I've tried to convince at least a dozen people — all of whom are of
 high intelligence (though none “programmers”) — to try Lilypond.
 2. Every single one has preferred (or at least claimed to prefer)
 Lilypond's output to that of the engraving software they use — most
 are on Sibelius; a few use Finale.
 3. About half took the time to install Lilypond and compile a simple example 
 file.
 4. To my knowledge, exactly one tried a second example.

 Result? Not a single successful convert to date.

I think Frescobaldi with its templates would likely be helpful.
Possibly also Denemo.  Staring at an empty canvas without any controls
is a bit disconcerting.  Basically you need to have a printout with the
basics at hand.  How many pages is our tutorial?

 Most people I tried to persuade simply said this isn't my cup of
 tea, I'm not a programmer”.

 THAT is the main problem right there — one we are likely never to
 overcome, as much as I hate to admit it.

That's relative, like people who don't use Emacs as an editor.  Nowadays
some newcomers start using it and don't understand the fuzz from
oldtimers who said they never managed getting along with it.

The basic problems for its workflow it have not changed all that much
over the last 20 years, so if you had thorough bad experiences with it,
you'll get reminded of them meeting it again.  But the degree to which
they hit you in the face has changed a lot.

In a similar vein, we won't change LilyPond's nature.  But there is a
lot one can do to make it appear less obnoxious, and possibly also
enable new workflows around it in connection with other tools.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Hi Urs,

 If anybody is interested in this and has experience with Python and/or 
 MusicXML please contact us

I have no Python experience, but lots of XML/XSL(T) experience — and, of 
course, a proven willingness to financially support Lilypond.
Will those help?

Kieren.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Hi David,

 we'll probably need some open discussion of common problems and
 imaginary input that would make it considerably easier for people to
 overcome them.

I’m right in the middle of an immense engraving project — I have lots of fodder 
and examples for such a discussion.

 LilyPond's rigid voicing is not fun for entering piano music

+1

 In a similar vein, we won't change LilyPond's nature.  But there is a
 lot one can do to make it appear less obnoxious, and possibly also
 enable new workflows around it in connection with other tools.

The second part is, I believe, Lily's best hope.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org writes:

 Kieren MacMillan writes:

 (so that users *never* have to see Lilypond “code”); or

 and this is what I don't understand.

 My idea is exactly the opposite: to show people the corresponding text
 input also,

also

 so that they have a very easy way to learn it and may at their
 convenience choose to change their primary focus of input to text
 input or GUI, depending on the situation at hand.  I hear this as the
 biggest complaint against GUI based text processors, many people still
 long for the days of Word Perfect with it's underwater screen.

How many passionate snorklers and divers do you know who would want to
actually _live_ underwater, abandoning the surface altogether?

 However, show them LaTeX (or even Lyx) and they run.  As I said, I
 have ideas but do not quite understand how people choose to use
 computers.

The most-sold keyboards are some Casio or whatever with blinkenlights
and automatic rhythms and learning software and so ever, and the
majority of those never gets to see much more action than blink and let
the preprogrammed stuff run off.

There are more CD players sold than music instruments.  People don't
want to be faced with manual intervention for their music every quaver
but rather every hour or so.

Why would I use a computer if I still have to think myself?

At some point of time, you have to stop worrying about pissing off the
people who don't like this kind of manual access.  You'll not reach them
anyway.  What we do have to worry about is pissing off those who'd
actually _like_ this approach but have LilyPond keep getting in their
way.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially


On 30/11/13 21:40, David Kastrup wrote:

The backend is much less coherent, so expertise is harder to acquire,
people tend to work with partial knowledge, and progress is a lot more
fragile.  We need to get those four months down, and yes, a shouting
match is not going to help.  What will help is refactoring and
rearchitecturing, and that needs people with a thorough programming
background.


Is it perhaps worthwhile having a purely backend cycle where _all_ development 
effort is focused on turning the backend into something that's easy to work with?



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially


On 01/12/13 09:45, David Kastrup wrote:

Finale output is ugly to the degree where it is distracting readability,
particularly for instrumentalists.  Sibelius' corporate parent has fired
its core developer team in the UK, including its original authors.
Steinberg does not yet have a finished product on market.  Most other
players are fringe players.

The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.


The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that Sibelius 
too has its problems when I recently received a score from a friend which would 
surely have looked much better done in Lilypond.


The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter.  My 
Bärenreiter scores engraved (presumably) with Finale may be less beautiful than 
the obviously hand-engraved earlier publications, but they are entirely 
satisfactory so far as reading goes.  Most practical readability problems arise 
because of publishers (or composers) who put inadequate work into copyediting 
parts, not because of the software used.


I don't say this to discourage anyone, but just to note that what matters to the 
end user is very often the facility to get the score _just as they want it_, not 
the ability of the program to automatically second-guess their desires.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:

 On 30/11/13 21:40, David Kastrup wrote:
 The backend is much less coherent, so expertise is harder to acquire,
 people tend to work with partial knowledge, and progress is a lot
 more fragile.  We need to get those four months down, and yes, a
 shouting match is not going to help.  What will help is refactoring
 and rearchitecturing, and that needs people with a thorough
 programming background.

 Is it perhaps worthwhile having a purely backend cycle where _all_
 development effort is focused on turning the backend into something
 that's easy to work with?

I don't think this sort of preplanning works out well.  Mostly it just
leads to people going away until the stuff they are not interested in is
done.  We need to figure out better ways to work on parallel and partly
conflicting goals.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially


On 01/12/13 12:49, David Kastrup wrote:

I don't think this sort of preplanning works out well.  Mostly it just
leads to people going away until the stuff they are not interested in is
done.  We need to figure out better ways to work on parallel and partly
conflicting goals.


Yes, I guess that's a risk. :-(  Perhaps if you start by getting all the key 
developers to commit to trying to communicate and discuss with all the others 
exactly how their part of the backend works ... ?


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Hi Joseph,

 The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that Sibelius 
 too has its problems when I recently received a score from a friend which 
 would surely have looked much better done in Lilypond.
 
 The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter.

I disagree somewhat… and so do most of my Finale- and Sibelius-using friends 
and colleagues, who complain endlessly about how much time it takes to tweak 
scores and parts.

What *is* true is that beauty in engraving is less of an issue to most people 
than just getting it done.

 what matters to the end user is very often the facility to get the score 
 _just as they want it_, not the ability of the program to automatically 
 second-guess their desires.

Actually, what matters to most end user is to have something “good enough”… 
and, I’m sad to say, Finale and Sibelius do that (for them) with almost no 
tweaking at all.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially


On 01/12/13 14:00, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

I disagree somewhat… and so do most of my Finale- and Sibelius-using friends 
and colleagues, who complain endlessly about how much time it takes to tweak 
scores and parts.


How does that compare to their reaction to Lilypond?  I would guess amazement at 
how much Lilypond gets right, but frustration with how relatively complicated it 
is to enter a score and see the results?  And probably overwhelming frustration 
when they hit the point of wanting to tweak something?



What *is* true is that beauty in engraving is less of an issue to most people 
than just getting it done.

Actually, what matters to most end user is to have something “good enough”… 
and, I’m sad to say, Finale and Sibelius do that (for them) with almost no 
tweaking at all.


Yes, and this is overwhelmingly true of most things in life.  Easy to get it 
good enough almost always wins over difficult but gets it perfect.


When I compare Finale/Sibelius output with hand-copied (not hand-engraved!) 
parts from earlier years, which was the norm for a lot of new works, there is 
very rarely any contest.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-12-01 Thread Richard Shann

On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 11:41 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
  In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this:
  1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never*
  have to see Lilypond “code”);
 
 According to the advertising, that's Denemo. 

I hope nothing I write could be described as advertising, rather than
describing. I never have to see Lilypond code for the music typsetting
that I do with Denemo, but that is because I have installed all the
tweaks I need (you can parcel up Lilypond code as a user to be emitted
by a command that you install into Denemo, with the same status as
Denemo's other commands). 
So it depends on the user; likewise publication quality depends on the
publisher - I use the term in the way that I guess people will
understand it, namely better than some main-stream publishers editions
that I have.
Later in this thread someone has commented that many users want to be
able to make a score look just like they want. I think this is so -
often people want a score to look exactly like some particular thing;
one suspects that had they seen something else, they would have wanted
that instead. Such people with a specific idea of what they want the
final output to look like will usually have to tackle the LilyPond code
when using Denemo - more often they will jump to the far end and start
editing the output. (Truly, I know of people using pdf editors!).

How this compares with people's experience of commercial programs I
don't really know - the other day someone posted a Sibelius score on
IMSLP which wouldn't render correctly on my Debian Stable box. They had
posted the musicXML too, so I imported it into Denemo and re-typeset it
with LilyPond. The result was this:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Oboe_Sonata_in_C_major_(Albinoni,_Tomaso)

I didn't need to tweak it with LilyPond, and, for fun, I transposed it
up a minor third for treble recorder with absolutely no further
adjustments. This was remarkably painless, even though there were
mistakes in the musicXML (there is one bar that is actually incomplete
and one with wrong notes).

Richard


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-12-01 Thread immanuel litzroth

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:

 On 01/12/13 09:45, David Kastrup wrote:

 Finale output is ugly to the degree where it is distracting readability,
 particularly for instrumentalists.  Sibelius' corporate parent has fired
 its core developer team in the UK, including its original authors.
 Steinberg does not yet have a finished product on market.  Most other
 players are fringe players.


 The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.


 The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that
 Sibelius too has its problems when I recently received a score from a
 friend which would surely have looked much better done in Lilypond.

 The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter.  My
 Bärenreiter scores engraved (presumably) with Finale may be less beautiful
 than the obviously hand-engraved earlier publications, but they are
 entirely satisfactory so far as reading goes.  Most practical readability
 problems arise because of publishers (or composers) who put inadequate work
 into copyediting parts, not because of the software used.

 I don't say this to discourage anyone, but just to note that what matters
 to the end user is very often the facility to get the score _just as they
 want it_, not the ability of the program to automatically second-guess
 their desires.


I follow a music education program that requires me to play in a combo 1
hour a week. The scores there are prepared
by paid professionals, usually in Sibelius. They are invariably late, and
usually unreadable when they arrive.
Chords on top of each other, confusing spacing and layout, although they
are normally just a melody (if even that) without
any articulation marks and some chords.
If anyone is interested I can post some nice examples of the stuff I'm
being given under the motto Sightread That!.
It normally takes me 30 mins to redo them in lilypond and get something
infinitely better.

The other bands I play in also usually have scores in lily written by me,
the other guys mainly distribute some copies of handwritten
stuff and are working on their Sibelius/Finale scores. I see no evidence of
Sibelius/Finale being better in any sense than lily to actually
produce scores.
Immanuel
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:

 Hi Joseph,

 The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that
 Sibelius too has its problems when I recently received a score from
 a friend which would surely have looked much better done in
 Lilypond.
 
 The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter.

 I disagree somewhat… and so do most of my Finale- and Sibelius-using
 friends and colleagues, who complain endlessly about how much time it
 takes to tweak scores and parts.

 What *is* true is that beauty in engraving is less of an issue to most
 people than just getting it done.

 what matters to the end user is very often the facility to get the
 score _just as they want it_, not the ability of the program to
 automatically second-guess their desires.

 Actually, what matters to most end user is to have something “good
 enough”… and, I’m sad to say, Finale and Sibelius do that (for them)
 with almost no tweaking at all.

If people are not interested in the output, the selling point are the
input methods.

I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like

URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648
Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for
unpitched notes

or the followup

URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3682
Issue 3682: Patch: Implement \beamExceptions function fishing exceptions
from beamed music.

which feel to me like non-trivial steps in usability.  But most of the
time I'm left alone with figuring out what might work best for people.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially


On 01/12/13 14:13, immanuel litzroth wrote:

I follow a music education program that requires me to play in a combo 1 hour a
week. The scores there are prepared
by paid professionals, usually in Sibelius. They are invariably late, and
usually unreadable when they arrive.
Chords on top of each other, confusing spacing and layout, although they are
normally just a melody (if even that) without
any articulation marks and some chords.


Sounds to me like, regardless of the software involved, you are paying the wrong 
professionals.


Out of curiosity, what form do the scores arrive in -- paper, PDF, ... ?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially


On 01/12/13 14:56, immanuel litzroth wrote:

Here's a nice example.


That's almost certainly someone writing to full score (which has particular 
spacing properties) and auto-exporting to parts without ever actually looking at 
them.  Surprise to surprise, the horizontal spacing issues are different in an 
individual part than in a full score, particularly if (as in this case) the part 
is _all_ chords with no notes to space things out.


(Although why they don't in that case put in a cue melody line, I can't imagine. 
 Makes no sense to me.)


I would imagine these pieces are meant to be performed by ad-hoc ensembles which 
are not necessarily consistent in instrumentation.  So probably what happens is, 
Random Engraver takes all the possible instrument choices, throws them into one 
giant full score, gets it looking sort of all right there, and then exports the 
parts without a second thought.  It's a recipe for disaster.


This is not really a fault of Sibelius -- similar problems can happen with 
Lilypond if you proofread full score but not individual parts.  (For example, 
imagine a hairpin that's spread over quite a wide horizontal space in the score, 
but a fairly narrow space in the individual part: it may need a custom tweak to 
look right in the second case.)



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-12-01 Thread Henning Hraban Ramm


Am 2013-12-01 um 15:26 schrieb Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org:

 I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by itself is a 
 huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact.
 If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's overwhelmingly 
 daunting. And if you look at { c d e f g } like examples they aren't at all 
 overwhelming.
 Most people I tried to persuade simply said this isn't my cup of tea, I'm 
 not a programmer“.

Hm, my ex-girlfriend was a fiddler in an Irish Folk band. She was used to note 
her tunes like „c d e f“ anyway and had no big hurdles with the LilyPond 
template I made for her. Don’t know if she still uses LilyPond, though ;-)

But most other people I know (that write notes at all), are content with the 
default quality of Finale (price is not a problem if you don’t care about 
legality) or even (I forgot the name of that crappy Windows-only program).

Myself I used to use Myriad Harmony Assistant until 2006 (a first try with 
LilyPond some years before failed, because I couldn’t get it to compile on 
Linux PPC; the same with MusiXTeX’s preprocessors); „Harmony“ has great MIDI 
output (I still miss it), a convoluted interface and rather poor notation - but 
still better that the competition in its price range; AFAIR I chose it since it 
could output PS/PDF, others had only bitmaps.

I guess „we“ have a chance in combination with TeX, i.e. at universities etc. 
where TeX is in broad use, since the approach and needed expertise is similar.



Greetlings, Hraban
---
fiëé visuëlle
Henning Hraban Ramm
http://www.fiee.net
http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/
https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer)





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-12-01 Thread immanuel litzroth

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:

 On 01/12/13 14:56, immanuel litzroth wrote:

 Here's a nice example.


 That's almost certainly someone writing to full score (which has
 particular spacing properties) and auto-exporting to parts without ever
 actually looking at them.  Surprise to surprise, the horizontal spacing
 issues are different in an individual part than in a full score,
 particularly if (as in this case) the part is _all_ chords with no notes to
 space things out.

 (Although why they don't in that case put in a cue melody line, I can't
 imagine.  Makes no sense to me.)

 I would imagine these pieces are meant to be performed by ad-hoc ensembles
 which are not necessarily consistent in instrumentation.  So probably what
 happens is, Random Engraver takes all the possible instrument choices,
 throws them into one giant full score, gets it looking sort of all right
 there, and then exports the parts without a second thought.  It's a recipe
 for disaster.

 This is not really a fault of Sibelius -- similar problems can happen with
 Lilypond if you proofread full score but not individual parts.  (For
 example, imagine a hairpin that's spread over quite a wide horizontal space
 in the score, but a fairly narrow space in the individual part: it may need
 a custom tweak to look right in the second case.)

 Well,
1) I don't seem to run into many of these problems with lilypond and I do
transcriptions of small ensembles *and* export all
the voices separately (that's including drums) -- I almost never have to
clean up for readability issues, and don't have the
time to do it for aesthetic issues.
2) The contention was that this stuff would be easier in Sibelius. Not that
you can get it right there too.
Immanuel
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Hi David,

 I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like
 
 URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648
 Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for
 unpitched notes

It’s a nice feature… but applicable, I would imagine, to a spectacularly small 
percentage of users. I, for one, can think of exactly three staves (and then 
only a fraction of the measures in those staves) in I would have used this 
feature, out of the last several thousand that I’ve engraved.

On the other hand, something really useful — and helpful in getting users “out 
of the code” — would be the ability to say:

lastCymbalCrash = {
  \atMoment (256 . 1) b4\accent\sff
}

and then output a 256-measure part (complete with rests, time signatures, etc.) 
for the poor cymbal player with

\score {
  \new RhythmicStaff  \theGlobalStuff \lastCymbalCrash 
}

Or how about

\score {
  \new Staff \with { \lineBreaksAt (5 10 17 21 26) \pageBreaksAt (17) 
\autoBreaksOnAt (26) }  \theMusic
}

Or any of a dozen other functions I could dream up in a few minutes which would 
make life easier here in the trenches.

 most of the time I'm left alone with figuring out what might work best for 
 people.

This, I think, is the key problem with front-end” Lilypond development right 
now: there are spectacular things going on in the back-end — prerequisites, 
of course, for real advance(s) to the “front-end” — but there are few real 
quantum leaps on the user side that mean anything to people who are cranking 
out real-world scores on a daily basis. And those are the ones that reduce the 
well-documented inertia that keep many users from switching to Lilypond.

When 2.18 is out, perhaps the ‘Pond would benefit from a discussion of what 
real-world functions might bring us closer to some of those “huddled masses 
yearning to be free”.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-12-01 Thread Henning Hraban Ramm


Am 2013-12-01 um 19:15 schrieb David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:

 I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like
 
 URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648
 Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for
 unpitched notes

I hear you - as a magazine layouter I seldom get feedback at all, and then 
mostly some nitpicking of the authors.

Hey, isolated durations are GREAT! I can remember some pieces where they would 
have been very handy. 

Can’t say anything about other improvements - most of my songs are too simple 
for them, and I use LilyPond far too seldom.
But I’m looking forward to better accidentals in chord names.


Greetlings, Hraban
---
fiëé visuëlle
Henning Hraban Ramm
http://www.fiee.net
http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/
https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer)





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

 How does that compare to their reaction to Lilypond?  I would guess amazement 
 at how much Lilypond gets right, but frustration with how relatively 
 complicated it is to enter a score and see the results?  And probably 
 overwhelming frustration when they hit the point of wanting to tweak 
 something?

Exactly.
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Hi Richard,

 They had posted the musicXML too, so I imported it into Denemo
 and re-typeset it with LilyPond. The result was this:
 
 http://imslp.org/wiki/Oboe_Sonata_in_C_major_(Albinoni,_Tomaso)
 
 I didn't need to tweak it with LilyPond, and, for fun, I transposed it
 up a minor third for treble recorder with absolutely no further
 adjustments. This was remarkably painless, even though there were
 mistakes in the musicXML (there is one bar that is actually incomplete
 and one with wrong notes).

A rather spectacular example!

Nice,
Kieren.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-12-01 Thread Richard Shann

On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 09:19 -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
 
 On the other hand, something really useful — and helpful in getting
 users “out of the code” — would be the ability to say:
 
 lastCymbalCrash = {
   \atMoment (256 . 1) b4\accent\sff
 }
 
 and then output a 256-measure part (complete with rests, time
 signatures, etc.) for the poor cymbal player with 

Ha! It's funny you should mention this, but I just added a command to
Denemo to create a staff complete with time signature changes and empty
measures for a score (for a completely different reason). Front-end
stuff is so easy to do with a pre-processor like Denemo.

Richard Shann



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Hi Richard,

 Ha! It's funny you should mention this, but I just added a command to
 Denemo to create a staff complete with time signature changes and empty
 measures for a score (for a completely different reason).

Synchronicity!

 Front-end stuff is so easy to do with a pre-processor like Denemo.

Fair enough… but to accomplish such “obvious” things,
1. Lilypond shouldn’t require a pre-processor (the very mention of which makes 
most potential users eyes cross); and
2. Users shouldn’t be required to learn a new tool.

I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project load 
diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially


Am 01.12.2013 12:04, schrieb Kieren MacMillan:

Hi Urs,


If anybody is interested in this and has experience with Python and/or MusicXML 
please contact us

I have no Python experience, but lots of XML/XSL(T) experience — and, of 
course, a proven willingness to financially support Lilypond.
Will those help?


Both will surely help, although it's probably too early for talking 
about concrete sponsorship.

I see three possible approaches for you:

1)
Write to Peter privately, and you'll probably get into an exchange of 
ideas what could be useful.


2)
Goto https://github.com/openlilylib/ly2xml/wiki/_pages and have a look 
if anything rings a bell with you.

But be warned: The hyperlinks may lead you far away ;-)

3)
Have a look at http://music-encoding.org
It's not about MusicXML export but something for a later step. But it's 
a major academic initiative that _seems_ to be partially complementary 
to us, and it may be a good thing to think about converters for 
MEI-ly-MEI.
I'm telling this you because MEI is an XML DTD and so it should be 
possible to convert between both with XSLT. And probably this is already 
done or started, so some research in this regard would be useful.


Best
Urs


Kieren.



___
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: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-12-01 Thread Martin Tarenskeen




On Sun, 1 Dec 2013, Kieren MacMillan wrote:


I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project load 
diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality.


Denemo is mentioned several times in this thread.

I have installed and tried Denemo several times recently and in the past, 
but never managed to make it make life with LilyPond easier for me.


I guess that if you are used to writing Lilypond Code by hand, using 
Frescobaldi, or another editor, there is not much benefit in using Denemo.


If you are used to using Finale, Sibelius - from a Sibelius/Finale-users 
point of view - there is not much benefit in using Denemo either.


Which leads to my question: Denemo seems to be a powerful and feature-rich 
tool, which is continuously improved, but how many people do actually use 
it for real-life music engraving projects?


--

MT___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-12-01 Thread Richard Shann

On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 17:27 +0100, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
 
 On Sun, 1 Dec 2013, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
 
  I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project load 
  diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality.
 
 Denemo is mentioned several times in this thread.
 
 I have installed and tried Denemo several times recently and in the past, 
 but never managed to make it make life with LilyPond easier for me.
 
 I guess that if you are used to writing Lilypond Code by hand, using 
 Frescobaldi, or another editor, there is not much benefit in using Denemo.

It would depend on what sort of activity you were doing - composing and
transcribing being the two main ones. I have heard it said that most
composers still use pencil, rubber and paper until they are ready to
publish. For transcribing I gain both in speed and enjoyment by using
Denemo for transcribing. That's because while typing in note names and
durations I get no sense of the music, I tend to lose my place. By
contrast, by playing rhythms and then the piece on a MIDI controller I
am leveraging my ability to read music - I know where I am in the score
as I know where I am when reading a book.
 
 If you are used to using Finale, Sibelius - from a Sibelius/Finale-users 
 point of view - there is not much benefit in using Denemo either.

AFAIK they don't offer such a method of entering the music, so are
slower and less pleasant. And then you have to adjust the positions of
things by dragging them around...

 
 Which leads to my question: Denemo seems to be a powerful and feature-rich 
 tool, which is continuously improved, but how many people do actually use 
 it for real-life music engraving projects?

Not many I think. I would like to know why, but I guess that devoting a
lot of screen space (you want ideally to see your original to transcribe
from, your input and the typeset at once) and desk space (for a MIDI
keyboard) could be factors. But mostly I suspect, it is because it is an
unusual program - people expect to work steadily away entering their
notes using Sibelius, Finale or MuseScore, and for some (e.g. those
doodling about composing things) the raw speed of music entry is not an
issue. And people expect to spend time tidying up the engraving just to
remove collisions.

But the feedback I get about Denemo is almost entirely positive - those
who find it unusable just quietly switch to something else, out of
politeness I guess. Most unhelpful!

Richard Shann








___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com writes:

 On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 11:41 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
  In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this:
  1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never*
  have to see Lilypond “code”);
 
 According to the advertising, that's Denemo. 

 I hope nothing I write could be described as advertising, rather than
 describing.

I did not want to imply that I considered the description inaccurate.
I could have said according to how it is marketed, but that's probably
not much better.

It's a sad thing that businessmen talking about their product nowadays
is tantamount to politicians talking about their government
activities.

Actually, that would be ok.  The sad thing is that both have become
equivalent to con men talking about their get rich schemes nowadays.

So strike advertising or marketing, and replace it with
description.  Until that term is corrupted as well.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Henning Hraban Ramm lilypon...@fiee.net writes:

 Am 2013-12-01 um 19:15 schrieb David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:

 I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like
 
 URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648
 Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for
 unpitched notes

 I hear you - as a magazine layouter I seldom get feedback at all, and
 then mostly some nitpicking of the authors.

 Hey, isolated durations are GREAT! I can remember some pieces where
 they would have been very handy.

Well, the main reason I'm surprised is that a few years ago there were
proposals about it and I said this will have to wait until some other
parser parts are where they need to be and there was wailing and
gnashing of teeth.  Actually, that was the second iteration.  The first
was rather heated, Han-Wen violently opposed the idea, I agreed with
him, there was bitter disappointment, and then q was designed instead.

Fixing the broken and hotly loved q eventually fell to my lot, and
issue 2240, required for that, introduced the largest Scheme
incompatibility for 2.16.  We still have fallout from that.

So now the stars are right, I mean, the parser parts are where I needed
them to be for the original issue, I implement the stuff, and people
have moved on.  And implementing the stuff comes at a cost: it was
moderate for me once I had the parser where I needed it to be, but of
course there is a followup cost for all tools that try understanding
LilyPond input: editors, converters, and so on.

We have not really found a good answer to that problem.  Good MusicXML
support would help as it is not affected by how user-friendly the
LilyPond input is.

 Can’t say anything about other improvements - most of my songs are too
 simple for them, and I use LilyPond far too seldom.
 But I’m looking forward to better accidentals in chord names.

Chord names look generally awful by default.  It's not just the
accidentals.  That's really an area where we could need a good
typesetting and font person (someone with a lot of experience rather
than someone just interested in doing it) to pound them into shape.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:

 Hi David,

 I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like
 
 URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648
 Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for
 unpitched notes

 It’s a nice feature… but applicable, I would imagine, to a
 spectacularly small percentage of users. I, for one, can think of
 exactly three staves (and then only a fraction of the measures in
 those staves) in I would have used this feature, out of the last
 several thousand that I’ve engraved.

 On the other hand, something really useful — and helpful in getting
 users “out of the code” — would be the ability to say:

 lastCymbalCrash = {
   \atMoment (256 . 1) b4\accent\sff
 }

 and then output a 256-measure part (complete with rests, time
 signatures, etc.) for the poor cymbal player with

 \score {
   \new RhythmicStaff  \theGlobalStuff \lastCymbalCrash 
 }

What makes this hard is that lengths are precomputed, this may lead to
weird side effects.  Now to be honest, \lyricsto has the same problem.
I'm not sure this isn't related to some obscure bugs...

 Or how about

 \score {
   \new Staff \with { \lineBreaksAt (5 10 17 21 26) \pageBreaksAt (17)
 \autoBreaksOnAt (26) } \theMusic
 }

 Or any of a dozen other functions I could dream up in a few minutes
 which would make life easier here in the trenches.

So dream them up, one by one, and either let them first be discussed
here, one by one, before preparing an issue report.  Yes, some may end
up as invalid or as not compatible with how LilyPond does things, and
some may sit years in the tracker.  When preparing a careful proposal
fitting with the rest of LilyPond, this may be somewhat deflating.

 most of the time I'm left alone with figuring out what might work
 best for people.

 This, I think, is the key problem with front-end” Lilypond
 development right now: there are spectacular things going on in the
 back-end — prerequisites, of course, for real advance(s) to the
 “front-end”

No, that's rather independent.  The frontend is about how much it sucks
to tell LilyPond what one wants, and the backend is about how much it
sucks what LilyPond does once it has understood what is wanted.
Dependencies come into play only when LilyPond has no useful concept
representing the idea to be presented to the frontend.

 — but there are few real quantum leaps on the user side that mean
 anything to people who are cranking out real-world scores on a daily
 basis. And those are the ones that reduce the well-documented inertia
 that keep many users from switching to Lilypond.

Well, we have by now a slowly growing number of power uses that crank
out ad-hoc solutions.  At some point of time we need to integrate a few
of them back into LilyPond when they are often asked for, being
reasonably careful that this makes sense as a whole.

 When 2.18 is out, perhaps the ‘Pond would benefit from a discussion of
 what real-world functions might bring us closer to some of those
 “huddled masses yearning to be free”.

We'll certainly need to get a better idea how to grow better without
getting different tasks in the way of each other.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Martin Tarenskeen m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl writes:

 On Sun, 1 Dec 2013, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

 I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project
 load diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality.

 Denemo is mentioned several times in this thread.

 I have installed and tried Denemo several times recently and in the
 past, but never managed to make it make life with LilyPond easier for
 me.

I think the idea was to make life _without_ LilyPond prettier by
outsourcing the real work to LilyPond behind your back.

 I guess that if you are used to writing Lilypond Code by hand, using
 Frescobaldi, or another editor, there is not much benefit in using
 Denemo.

It's a different workflow.  There is LyX which people use in order to
avoid touching LaTeX.  It works for casual users, but LyX powerusers at
some point of time need more knowledge to get LyX to do what they need
than if they just used LaTeX directly.  Some move on then.

The involved principles seem related with Denemo/LilyPond, but I have no
idea how much LilyPond knowledge can be employed from within Denemo, and
where the sweet spots are beyond which people get annoyed enough to move
to direct LilyPond input.

For some, the mixture might be just what they want.

 Which leads to my question: Denemo seems to be a powerful and
 feature-rich tool, which is continuously improved, but how many people
 do actually use it for real-life music engraving projects?

No idea about that.

URL:http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=denemo
URL:http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=lilypond

Looks like a quarter of LilyPond users has Denemo installed.  Or
something.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-12-01 Thread SoundsFromSound

Kieren MacMillan wrote
How does that compare to their reaction to Lilypond? I would guess
amazement at how much Lilypond gets right, but frustration with how
relatively complicated it is to enter a score and see the results? And
probably overwhelming frustration when they hit the point of wanting to
tweak something?

Exactly.
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list

lilypond-user@

https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

For what it's worth, I was a user of Sibelius since 2000, and Finale since
2001. I recently switched completely to LilyPond for all of my
archival-quality engravings [master copies] and I am very happy with my
decision. Personally, I was a bit overwhelmed at first with this whole text
input concept, but I stuck with it and now I can't believe how much of a
boost my workflow has seen because of LilyPond. Not to mention how my
compositions look now on the page. Who knows if they sound good, but at
least they look good. :)

I hope you guys don't abandon the idea of text input because it may be
daunting to some who are making the switch as I have, for engraving. At the
risk of sounding uber-cliché, I really am in awe of the power of LilyPond
and how beautiful my scores look once they are printed. It has that nice
old-school hand-engraved vibe that I dig. :) And text input allows for some
crazy-powerful tweaking and the OCD in me is beyond happy with the
possibilities.

I do still find myself having to use Finale every now and then for projects
that require it [paid clients, school gigs, etc.], but I would say the
biggest selling point for me was seeing the score as a finished product.
What a feeling. It makes the learning curve worth it, imho.

The biggest complaint I've heard from many of my peers (when it comes to
possibly switching from Finale/Sibelius) is that LilyPond looks like way
too much work and Text input?? That makes absolutely no sense for music.
You're not writing a book! It's a score!.

Sorry for the long post. I just wanted to share my thoughts as a working
composer and power-user of Finale and Sibelius who has since switched to
LilyPond for his personal portfolio. I'm always happy to help grow the
LilyPond community.

Have a nice weekend!

Ben

-
composer | sound designer
LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) -- http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Supporting-my-work-on-LilyPond-financially-tp154644p154813.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: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

SoundsFromSound soundsfromso...@gmail.com writes:

 The biggest complaint I've heard from many of my peers (when it comes
 to possibly switching from Finale/Sibelius) is that LilyPond looks
 like way too much work and Text input?? That makes absolutely no
 sense for music.  You're not writing a book! It's a score!.

Well, I'd argue that a mouse makes absolutely no sense for music input.
A practised typist can write several hundred words per minute and keep
this up for quite a long time.

Input the same amount of information with a mouse, and you'll have
Repetitive Strain Injury in no time at all.

MIDI input would be a good compromise if you are an actual keyboard
player: LilyPond's input tool shed is not too impressive here.  But MIDI
only carries the performance part of the musical information, not the
notational part.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially





David Kastrup d...@gnu.org schrieb:
SoundsFromSound soundsfromso...@gmail.com writes:

 The biggest complaint I've heard from many of my peers (when it comes
 to possibly switching from Finale/Sibelius) is that LilyPond looks
 like way too much work and Text input?? That makes absolutely no
 sense for music.  You're not writing a book! It's a score!.

Well, I'd argue that a mouse makes absolutely no sense for music input.

And I'd add that what you input as text is much closer to the content you 
input. If you want an 'a' you write 'a'.
Sounds completely convincing to me, but doesn't seem to be very effective 
usually ...

Urs

A practised typist can write several hundred words per minute and keep
this up for quite a long time.

Input the same amount of information with a mouse, and you'll have
Repetitive Strain Injury in no time at all.

MIDI input would be a good compromise if you are an actual keyboard
player: LilyPond's input tool shed is not too impressive here.  But
MIDI
only carries the performance part of the musical information, not the
notational part.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
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: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-11-30 Thread Mike Solomon


On Nov 30, 2013, at 12:06 AM, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,
 
 2013/11/29 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
 
 But one person who just works on LilyPond can make a difference.  Can we
 keep this up?
 
 As you can see, it appears that David (d...@gnu.org) is doing abou
 as much as the rest of the development team combined!
 

I would argue that the point that Janek brings up above is not a healthy sign 
for LilyPond development.  Several developers, including myself, have lowered 
their participation considerably over the past two years.

In my opinion, it would benefit LilyPond, and David too, if there were more 
skilled volunteer developers working on the project.

Cheers,
MS
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org writes:

 On Nov 30, 2013, at 12:06 AM, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:

 2013/11/29 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
 
 But one person who just works on LilyPond can make a difference.  Can we
 keep this up?
 
 As you can see, it appears that David (d...@gnu.org) is doing abou
 as much as the rest of the development team combined!

Going by commits, it's more like 30-40%, and I tend to break issues into
quite more commits than most contributors.  So while I'm unsurprisingly
the largest _single_ contributor (everybody else works mostly in his
spare time), as much as the rest of the development team combined
would be quite an exaggeration even if we talk just about committed
lines of code.  But that does not take into account a lot of other
important work that is going on for keeping LilyPond alive.

 I would argue that the point that Janek brings up above is not a
 healthy sign for LilyPond development.  Several developers, including
 myself, have lowered their participation considerably over the past
 two years.

 In my opinion, it would benefit LilyPond, and David too, if there were
 more skilled volunteer developers working on the project.

The main problem for letting skilled volunteers work effectively to the
benefit of the project is the state LilyPond's code base is in.  Then
there are the tools, and the work dynamics.

If you take a look at

commit 7d3d28de0ce6e2f018aff599cecd944d1754fe3c
Author: Mike Solomon m...@apollinemike.com
Date:   Thu Jan 10 08:54:12 2013 +0100

Makes all side-positioning based on skylines instead of boxes.

via the tracker
URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=1q=7d3d28de0ce6e2f018aff599cecd944d1754fe3c
then you'll find its core issue in 2.17.10, and followup problems in
2.17.15, 2.17.25, 2.17.26, 2.19.0.

For one thing it means our reviews and the underlying infrastructure
don't work out well when people apply them as they understand them.

For another, it means that LilyPond's architecture is becoming
increasingly fragile: improve one corner, and four distant corners
crumble under unforeseen consequences.  At some point of time we are
running into an equilibrium where any change will cause a chain of
repercussions that does not really die down in a sane amount of time.

When we arrive there, more skilled volunteer developers working on the
project don't really achieve more.

The backend is a mess, with simple-closures, pure-unpure containers,
cross-staff flags and other cryptic stuff with strange interactions that
only few people can tamper with while causing only moderate damage to
existing functionality.

There are some subsystems which are surprisingly independently
maintainable, like the MIDI system.  But that partly also means that
they are not actually well-integrated with LilyPond's data structures
and concepts.  The various output format backends don't make a whole lot
of sense to me, but they are also somewhat independent.

So there would be some room for people specializing on some things, and
there is a lot that could be done even without messing with a whole lot
of other things.

A Cairo backend would be a mostly independent endeavor.  Fast rendering
interfaces would be mostly independent.  Work on Emacs modes would be
completely independent (Frescobaldi is a whole independent UI project).

GUILEv2 migration is sorely needed, and would be a mostly independent
project even though it touches quite a bit of code all over the place.

It is clear that our development cycles have not worked out well.  It's
taken probably 9 months at least from the time we wanted to go for
releasing 2.18 to now, and it has been frustrating to people.

If we take a look at Linux development for comparison, the merge
window for a new version is open two weeks, then it takes months to get
to release quality.  That's a linear development model at the core, but
widely distributed code tested and merged in different combinations in a
host of repositories.  Nonlinear is, for example, GCC, where work
commences on several branches but done mostly centralized.

LilyPond is not modular enough to work well with the Linux methods where
Linus Torvalds merges patches at an insane rate (he probably merges more
patches on a hard work day than I produce in the whole year).

Work in the GCC style where work is done on unstable branches only makes
sense when people see their changes through to a state where they don't
cause lots of problems, both as genuine bugs and more importantly as
impediments to further development.

We have basically the situation that a month of initial work comes with
followup costs before a stable release is reached.  That's more or less:

month of documentation - half a month of translation
month of frontend work - month of bug fixes
month of backend work - four months of bug fixes

and so on, for different parts there is a different amount of followup
work that is necessary.  Working on several parallel branches

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013/11/30 Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org:

 On Nov 30, 2013, at 12:06 AM, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 2013/11/29 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:

 But one person who just works on LilyPond can make a difference.  Can we
 keep this up?

 As you can see, it appears that David (d...@gnu.org) is doing abou
 as much as the rest of the development team combined!


 I would argue that the point that Janek brings up above is not a healthy sign 
 for LilyPond development.  Several developers, including myself, have lowered 
 their participation considerably over the past two years.

That's true.  However, i think this is mostly independent from David
and funding his work: it's not like he's taking work away from us.  He
specializes in a very particular area (syntax, parser, user
interfaces, removing exceptions and weird stuff) whille other people
usually worked on formatting code (like skylines, guitar bends, slurs,
etc).

As for the money, for me personally the fact that David is getting
paid doesn't make any difference with regard to my motivation to work
as a volunteer.  But maybe for someone this makes a difference.

The only way that i see in which David influences development is that
he doesn't allow bad code during reviews, and it's hard to write good
code when there's a lot of bad code and architectural problems already
in the codebase (at least that's how the situation looks for me).

 In my opinion, it would benefit LilyPond, and David too, if there were more 
 skilled volunteer developers working on the project.

Well, that's obvious.  I was thinking about this myself, and i'm doing
the only thing that i can do: becoming skilled myself...

I was trying to get some students do LilyPond work as undergraduate
project, and there was a bit of interest, but not enough.

best,
Janek

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013/11/30 Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org:
 I would argue that the point that Janek brings up above is not a healthy sign 
 for LilyPond development.
 Several developers, including myself, have lowered their participation 
 considerably over the past two years.

Maybe i should ask the question why are you less active?.  But i
don't want to be overly inquiring; i assume that your job and family
simply takes so much time that you cannot do LilyPond work.

Janek

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013/11/30 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org writes:
I would argue that the point that Janek brings up above is not a
healthy sign for LilyPond development. Several developers, including
myself, have lowered their participation considerably over the past
two years.

In my opinion, it would benefit LilyPond, and David too, if there were
more skilled volunteer developers working on the project.

The main problem for letting skilled volunteers work effectively to the
benefit of the project is the state LilyPond's code base is in. Then
there are the tools, and the work dynamics.

If you take a look at

commit 7d3d28de0ce6e2f018aff599cecd944d1754fe3c
Author: Mike Solomon m...@apollinemike.com
Date: Thu Jan 10 08:54:12 2013 +0100

Makes all side-positioning based on skylines instead of boxes.

via the tracker
URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=1q=7d3d28de0ce6e2f018aff599cecd944d1754fe3c
then you'll find its core issue in 2.17.10, and followup problems in
2.17.15, 2.17.25, 2.17.26, 2.19.0.

For one thing it means our reviews and the underlying infrastructure
don't work out well when people apply them as they understand them.

For another, it means that LilyPond's architecture is becoming
increasingly fragile: improve one corner, and four distant corners
crumble under unforeseen consequences. At some point of time we are
running into an equilibrium where any change will cause a chain of
repercussions that does not really die down in a sane amount of time.

When we arrive there, more skilled volunteer developers working on the
project don't really achieve more.

Well, it would be good to do a Great Code Cleanup, but can we manage
such a task? As you wrote, we need skilled devs for that.

[]
It is clear that our development cycles have not worked out well. It's
taken probably 9 months at least from the time we wanted to go for
releasing 2.18 to now, and it has been frustrating to people. []

Well, i was intending to start a discussion about this, but i thought
it would be best to wait until 2.18 is out. Is it a good idea to
start it now?

best,
Janek

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:

 The only way that i see in which David influences development is that
 he doesn't allow bad code during reviews, and it's hard to write good
 code when there's a lot of bad code and architectural problems already
 in the codebase (at least that's how the situation looks for me).

More favorable to me than it looks to me.  I don't really have the time
and energy for thorough reviews.  And there is a dearth of reviews going
on, and there is a dearth of expertise.  When we want to get a stable
release out, there is some code that reeks of being a troublemaker, so
my reviews end up more similar to an allergic reaction than a
well-reasoned analysis.

I cannot always prove that some code is going to cause problems.  But
that's not the point.  Inscrutable code is a vector for bugs to get in
under cover.  And it is a problem in itself.  And it does not
particularly help that LilyPond is already full of it.

 In my opinion, it would benefit LilyPond, and David too, if there
 were more skilled volunteer developers working on the project.

 Well, that's obvious.  I was thinking about this myself, and i'm doing
 the only thing that i can do: becoming skilled myself...

Which we need to become easier...

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:

 []  It is clear that our development cycles have not worked out
 well.  It's taken probably 9 months at least from the time we wanted
 to go for releasing 2.18 to now, and it has been frustrating to
 people. []

 Well, i was intending to start a discussion about this, but i thought
 it would be best to wait until 2.18 is out.  Is it a good idea to
 start it now?

Would it be better not to have a plan how to do better?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013/11/30 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:

 []  It is clear that our development cycles have not worked out
 well.  It's taken probably 9 months at least from the time we wanted
 to go for releasing 2.18 to now, and it has been frustrating to
 people. []

 Well, i was intending to start a discussion about this, but i thought
 it would be best to wait until 2.18 is out.  Is it a good idea to
 start it now?

 Would it be better not to have a plan how to do better?

I meant that discussing this right now may introduce a bit of
disorganization, and it shouldn't make a difference to discuss it in a
month, after 2.18 release (assuming it will be as planned).

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-11-30 Thread Noeck



Am 30.11.2013 22:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
 
 The only way that i see in which David influences development is that
 he doesn't allow bad code during reviews, and it's hard to write good
 code when there's a lot of bad code and architectural problems already
 in the codebase (at least that's how the situation looks for me).
 
 More favorable to me than it looks to me.  I don't really have the time
 and energy for thorough reviews.  And there is a dearth of reviews going
 on, and there is a dearth of expertise.  When we want to get a stable
 release out, there is some code that reeks of being a troublemaker, so
 my reviews end up more similar to an allergic reaction than a
 well-reasoned analysis.

But: »Der Ton macht die Musik« (for non German speakers: it's not what
you say but the way you say it). From my outside perspective it looks to
me as if a lot could be gained in appreciating other people’s work and
putting things as friendly as possible also in cases of disagreement.

Having a clear and agreed procedure of code style, code review,
positions in the team, timelines and strategies for release versions
might help to improve the atmosphere.

I will be quiet now, because I don't want to stir up things that aren't
truly my business on a public list. I appreciate very much all of your
work and I hope very much that the atmosphere in the community can get a
biotope for all developers to work in.

Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-11-30 Thread Noeck

Hi,

I was thinking about fund raising for some days now. I see several
possible sources for supporting LP financially:

1) Private donations from developers:
This seems to be partly the case and you have my deep respect that you
both work for and spend money on LP. This group probably stays
relatively small.

2) Private donations from hobby users:
Probably most users are not paid for their music engraving. If LP would
not exist (nor some other free (as in free beer) software), they might
have to pay for Finale (600$) or Sibelius (550€). But probably they
would go with a light version of these programs (50$ - 120€). Just to
have an idea what would be to spend otherwise (without LP).
I write this to both sides: Spending about 100€ in 2 years is quite a
lot if you use LP just for fun, not spending anything is quite cheap for
such a great program.

Here I would really encourage people using LP to think about this and
help financially with a realistic amount of money, because there is need
for it. Even if it is not much, the sheer number of users can contribute
significantly.

3) Private donations from professionals:
If professionals could be convinced that spending the money on LP
development rather than on commercial products is beneficial also for
them that would be great. How? Does someone have a closer relation to
this occupational group than I do and has any ideas how to promote LP?

4) Donations/payments from institutions:
I can not guess the user base, but I assume that institutional support
is needed for sustainability and long term support. So far I have only
heard about musicians in the LP community who are very tech-savvy and/or
use linux anyway.
Somehow the benefits of LP should be made clearer for music/composing
professors the fact that many things can be made doable which are not up
to now with any program. If his/her chair is supporting LP, this program
could be a showpiece project (high quality engraving, open and free
software, international project, huge amount of work already done and
therefore a lot to show at low cost). Students in a paid assistant job
could work on LP, this particularly in the computer science departments.
Universities should be a place where new ways are chosen and new ideas
pushed forward.
And music teachers/schools could support it as licences for engraving
software are mostly unaffordable for schools, but if everything is set
up, pupils can write { a4 g f } and learn a program that everyone can
use at home. So schools could teach this and offer a free software and
support LP also financially. For music teachers OOoLy is so convenient
to produce worksheets.
So, in my opinion, universities and schools should be convinced of LP,
because 100€ for a single person is quite something, but a remarkably
good project which can bring some good publicity could be worth much
more for such institutions. I personally don't understand why LP is not
common at music universities but that's probably a chicken-or-the-egg
thing and the lack of large scale marketing. But this would also need
official contacts in the LP team who are responsible and can represent
LP towards these institutions.


tl;dr
My summary: LP would need either a large user base with small donations
(like wikipedia partly) or institutions behind it (I'm thinking about
the Document Foundation or Linux, in this case more about universities).

Cheers,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

2013-11-30 Thread Martin Tarenskeen




On Sun, 1 Dec 2013, Noeck wrote:


But: »Der Ton macht die Musik« (for non German speakers: it's not what
you say but the way you say it).


I can understand both German and English. But I have always thought the 
original is in French: C'est le ton qui fait la musique. Sounds good to 
me :-)


--

MT___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially