Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 23.04.2015 um 17:04 schrieb Gilles: Hello. On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:09:29 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Hi all, First of all: I have _not_ asked "the LilyPond team" to spend any resources for whatever. First of all, nobody wrote that you did. Well, let's say that perhaps your initial reply offe

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 27.04.2015 um 08:16 schrieb Michael Hendry: See https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/issues/573 In that wish I asked if it is useful or just a personal use case. So anybody who wants to use indented lines for such cases might add a comment there (to "upvote" it). I have added the foll

Re: Do we really offer the future?

> On 27 Apr 2015, at 00:18, Urs Liska wrote: > > > > Am 27.04.2015 um 01:12 schrieb Simon Albrecht: >> Am 26.04.2015 um 23:53 schrieb Michael Hendry: >>> On 26 Apr 2015, at 15:36, H. S. Teoh >>> > wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:23:26AM -0400,

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 27.04.2015 um 01:12 schrieb Simon Albrecht: Am 26.04.2015 um 23:53 schrieb Michael Hendry: On 26 Apr 2015, at 15:36, H. S. Teoh > wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:23:26AM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi, Am I the only one who puts bar checks at *both*

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 26.04.2015 um 23:53 schrieb Michael Hendry: On 26 Apr 2015, at 15:36, H. S. Teoh > wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:23:26AM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi, Am I the only one who puts bar checks at *both* the beginning and end of a bar? | a4 b c d | |

Re: Do we really offer the future?

> On 26 Apr 2015, at 15:36, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:23:26AM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> Am I the only one who puts bar checks at *both* the beginning and end of a >>> bar? >>> >>> | a4 b c d | >>> | e f g a | >> >> You’re the only one I’ve ev

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:47:02PM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi all, > > >> Why would you want to check each bar twice? > > These bar checks are mostly for humans to ease reading of the code, > > not for machine interpreting. > > Does it double the time required? > And if so, what total am

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Mark, > Actually Lilypond does check the bar checks and notifies if an incorrect > number of beats (as stated in the \time) are in a measure. I believe Simon knows that, and that he’s simply pointing out that the “extra” (i.e., second and redundant) bar check in the OP’s code is only needed

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi all, >> Why would you want to check each bar twice? > These bar checks are mostly for humans to ease reading of the code, not for > machine interpreting. Does it double the time required? And if so, what total amount of processing time is actually added (say, per 100 bar checks)? Cheers, Ki

RE: Do we really offer the future?

Albrecht Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 9:31 AM To: Michael Hendry; H. S. Teoh Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject: Re: Do we really offer the future? Am 26.04.2015 um 18:10 schrieb Michael Hendry: On 26 Apr 2015, at 15:16, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 06:15:13AM +, Keith OHara

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 26.04.2015 um 18:10 schrieb Michael Hendry: On 26 Apr 2015, at 15:16, H. S. Teoh > wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 06:15:13AM +, Keith OHara wrote: Michael Hendry gmail.com > writes: I routinely put the bar checks at the _beginnings_

Re: Chord charts (Re: Do we really offer the future?)

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:09:11 + (UTC) dl.mcnam...@comcast.net wrote: > Johan, > What is this tool for chord charts? > I'm working on this kind of thing, haven't found a good way to do this. http://johan.vromans.org/software/sw_playtab.html Please note that the information on the site is sligh

Re: Do we really offer the future?

> On 26 Apr 2015, at 15:16, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 06:15:13AM +, Keith OHara wrote: >> Michael Hendry gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I routinely put the bar checks at the _beginnings_ of the bars, >>> thus... >>> >>> | a4 b c d >>> | a8 b c d e f g a >>> | a1

Chord charts (Re: Do we really offer the future?)

Johan, What is this tool for chord charts?I'm working on this kind of thing, haven't found a good way to do this.Sent from XFINITY Connect Mobile App-- Original Message --From: Johan VromansTo: lilypond-user@gnu.orgSent: April 26, 2015 at 11:49 AMSubject: Re: Do we really offer

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 07:16:42 -0700 "H. S. Teoh" wrote: > Am I the only one who puts bar checks at *both* the beginning and end of > a bar? > > | a4 b c d | > | e f g a | I do this very often, in particular with chords. Now I happen to have a nice tool that can process LilyPond chor

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:23:26AM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi, > > > Am I the only one who puts bar checks at *both* the beginning and end of a > > bar? > > > > | a4 b c d | > > | e f g a | > > You’re the only one I’ve ever heard of doing so. =) > Exactly ½ of your bar checks

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi, > Am I the only one who puts bar checks at *both* the beginning and end of a > bar? > > | a4 b c d | > | e f g a | You’re the only one I’ve ever heard of doing so. =) Exactly ½ of your bar checks are redundant, of course. Cheers, Kieren. Kie

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 06:15:13AM +, Keith OHara wrote: > Michael Hendry gmail.com> writes: > > > I routinely put the bar checks at the _beginnings_ of the bars, > > thus... > > > > | a4 b c d > > | a8 b c d e f g a > > | a16 b c d e f g a b c d e f g a b > > > > That works ve

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Michael Hendry gmail.com> writes: > I routinely put the bar checks at the _beginnings_ of the bars, thus... > > | a4 b c d > | a8 b c d e f g a > | a16 b c d e f g a b c d e f g a b > That works very nicely. When I had a measure that took more than one line of input, I used

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 24.04.2015 um 23:36 schrieb Noeck: Am 24.04.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Urs Liska: could also be put on a Wiki page somewhere. I put a rough collection of 'head lines' here: https://github.com/joram-berger/snippets/wiki/recent-ideas-on-the-list Thanks, that is what I meant. I hope it is edi

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 24.04.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Urs Liska: > could also be put on a Wiki page somewhere. I put a rough collection of 'head lines' here: https://github.com/joram-berger/snippets/wiki/recent-ideas-on-the-list I hope it is editable by everyone. It is contains only what I remembered from the last days

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi David AND ALL OTHERS Am 23.04.2015 um 20:06 schrieb David Nalesnik: If you wish a lily-feature not yet available. 1. Look into our bug-tracker. Maybe there is an issue for it already. You may want to comment there. 2. If not, mail to our bug-list requesting this feature. This

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Kevin, On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Kevin Tough wrote: > On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 13:06 -0500, David Nalesnik wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Thomas Morley > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > in this long thread (and some others) people posted their > >

Re: Do we really offer the future?

work with > publishers and > > their concerns would be prime contributors to this > conversation. I think > > this would go a long way in unifying our efforts rather than > debating th

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:59:40 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Am 24.04.2015 um 01:26 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi Gilles, I have _not_ asked "the LilyPond team" to spend any resources for whatever. First of all, nobody wrote that you did. You wrote What's for the LilyPond team in spending resources

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 24.04.2015 um 01:26 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi Gilles, I have _not_ asked "the LilyPond team" to spend any resources for whatever. First of all, nobody wrote that you did. You wrote What's for the LilyPond team in spending resources trying to work around those self-inflicted limitati

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Gilles, >> I have _not_ asked "the LilyPond team" to spend any resources for whatever. > First of all, nobody wrote that you did. You wrote > What's for the LilyPond team in spending resources > trying to work around those self-inflicted limitations? That response fairly strongly implies tha

Re: Do we really offer the future?

ha ha) to those who need engraving > work > > done, wherever it comes from, whether it be a big or small publisher, > > composers, etc. Anyone with experience trying to work with publishers and > > their concerns would be prime contributors to this conversation. I think &g

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hello. On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:09:29 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: Hi all, I had to leave this alone for a while, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to reply calmly to a number of the first responses on this thread. It's only lately that the discussion has reached a level of constructivity that may b

Re: Do we really offer the future?

+ I do think that your efforts are important for the future of LilyPond. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Urs, thanks a lot for all your efforts. I think you see the situation very clearly and I hope you continue this way. I can't see what I could contribute to that but in general you have my support for what you do. Best, Joram ___ lilypond-user maili

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Depends on how you type your files and read music, I guess. As a singer I learned reading music relatively so it is more natural for me and i exclusively use \relative mode. But I agree there are limitation like Kieren second example with split voices: I always expect the note before the split to b

Re: Do we really offer the future?

2015-04-23 14:45 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan : > > It is far faster to input > > I disagree: I find absolute mode far faster for input, and the benefit in > favour of absolute *increases* the moment I have to do any > cutting-and-pasting. I must say that I've never tried absolute mode in any real

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 14:01 +0100, Richard Shann wrote: > On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 08:31 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > > > > Interesting, I didn't realize that this was a reason to use a front-end > > > to generate the LilyPond. With the Denemo front end it is Del,M to > > > dele

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Urs, Thank you again for your excellent efforts in this regard. > So finally I'm back at the beginning, namely my original post's question, > preparing a convincing set of facts, arguments and "promises" that help to > overcome the reservations with regard to b) and c) of the above list. I h

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Shane, > For God's sake don't deprecate \relative Okay, “deprecation” is a bit strong. =) But I don’t even tell newbies about it when I’m introducing them to Lilypond — I tried that for a while, and found that overcoming the confusion not worth the effort. > It is far faster to input I d

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Calixte: ... > Or have a script/feature/tool that automatically counts measures : it would > be able to put bar numbers in comment, ... You can try: http://turkos.aspodata.se/git/musik/bin/addnum.pl it works for me... You're welcome to suggest changes. Regards, /Karl Hammar ---

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi all, I had to leave this alone for a while, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to reply calmly to a number of the first responses on this thread. It's only lately that the discussion has reached a level of constructivity that may be helpful. In the meantime the discussion has split up to

Re: Do we really offer the future?

> On 23 Apr 2015, at 01:48, Kieren MacMillan > wrote: > > Hi Stephen (et al.) > >> anyway I tried a few examples and used %1a %2a etc for measures and used the >> bar check (|) as an end >> eg. >> %1a >> music | > This would be reliant on meticulous use of of the “%NNNa" and “|” pairs to

Re: Do we really offer the future?

> Of course, it still doesn’t help one find a global variable To be more precise: One can’t click on time signatures, spacer rests, barlines, etc. If your global variable contains tempo marks, etc. point-and-click finds it. Joram ___ lilypond-user mai

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On April 22, 2015 7:43:10 PM "Trevor Daniels" wrote: Although not well-publicised there is a way of entering multi-voice or multi-staff music complete bar by complete bar. There is a restriction that bars must be all the same length, but at least all the notes of a bar are entered together a

Re: Do we really offer the future?

For God's sake don't deprecate \relative. It is far faster to input and you can convert with Frescobaldi. Shane On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Stephen (et al.) > >> anyway I tried a few examples and used %1a %2a etc for measures and used the >> bar check (|) as an

Re: Do we really offer the future?

well you need to 1. remove the space with sed, so music % 1 becomes %1 also I added "a" at the end so it wouldn't get confused ie. %1 will also remove %10 %100 etc 2. since you used it after measure one sed can only delete measures after -- so 2 on you could just input %1x in the files where you

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Stephen (et al.) > anyway I tried a few examples and used %1a %2a etc for measures and used the > bar check (|) as an end > eg. > %1a > music | I use music | % 1 Would sed still work? > worked almost every time, only problem I had was if I had to fix the octave Yet another reason t

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hey Calixte what a great idea it made me think. what about sed? >>Or have a script/feature/tool that automatically counts measures : it would be able to put bar numbers in comment, and with another script we could say delete/comment/whatever measure n to m anyway I tried a few examples and used %

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi, > Is it possible that you always use the “LilyPond/Engrave (Publish)” option to > run LilyPond? This removes the links between the input and the pdf. If you > use “LilyPond/Engrave (Preview)” or the LilyPond icon on the toolbar, the > links are included in the pdf. That does it! Of cour

Re: Do we really offer the future?

> > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:11:34 -0400 > From: Kieren MacMillan > To: Noeck > Subject: Re: Do we really offer the future? > > Hi Joram (et al.), > >> just use point-and-click in Frescobaldi which brings me >> quickly to the place wher

Re: Do we really offer the future?

hers and > their concerns would be prime contributors to this conversation. I think > this would go a long way in unifying our efforts rather than debating them. > > - Abraham > > > View this message in context: Re: Do we really offer the futur

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Kieren, On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Kieren MacMillan [via Lilypond] < ml-node+s1069038n175042...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > Hi Joram (et al.), > > > just use point-and-click in Frescobaldi which brings me > > quickly to the place where I want to change something. > > That feature doesn't work f

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Joram (et al.), > just use point-and-click in Frescobaldi which brings me > quickly to the place where I want to change something. That feature doesn't work for me. Is that because of the way I’ve structured my files? Thanks, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, compos

Re: Do we really offer the future?

All, On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Noeck [via Lilypond] < ml-node+s1069038n175034...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > this is a triviality for most of you and it does not solve the original > issue of deleting a measure easily. > I have really enjoyed following this thread. It's always fascinating to

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi, this is a triviality for most of you and it does not solve the original issue of deleting a measure easily. But I wanted to mention how jumping between staves and selecting measures gets much easier than searching the ly file. Once the file structure is done and the score is (partially) compl

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 22.04.2015 um 21:26 schrieb Calixte Faure: Or have a script/feature/tool that automatically counts measures : it would be able to put bar numbers in comment, and with another script we could say delete/comment/whatever measure n to m. I think this is something that will eventually be doab

Re: Do we really offer the future?

2015-04-22 20:07 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan : > Someone spoke of python being able to translate between parallel and > non-parallel music. Wouldn’t it be great to have a tool where you could: > 1. Say “Given the current Lilypond file being outputted, show me ‘in > parallel’ [whatever that mean

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 22.04.2015 um 20:33 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: The current workaround, of course, is to use \tag around the section(s) in question. In particular, that method [relatively] easily solves “hide these 16 measures” types of situations (like my Example #2) and “depending on the version/edition, use

Re: Do we really offer the future?

> The current workaround, of course, is to use \tag around the > section(s) in question. In particular, that method [relatively] > easily solves “hide these 16 measures” types of situations (like my > Example #2) and “depending on the version/edition, use either THIS > or THIS” (like my Example #1

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Urs, > I think you could vastly benefit from using openLilyLib's GridLY library. No doubt true. (I look forward to examining GridLY, when I have a spare moment.) > Of course thst's only viable for new projects. We should strive to create tools for which this isn’t [ever] true. =) Someone s

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 22. April 2015 19:20:38 MESZ, schrieb Kieren MacMillan : >Hi Simon, > >>> 1. In 2013, I composed and engraved a piece with nearly 12,000 >frames (57 staves x 208 measures). It contains two sections (of ~32 and >~16 measures) which were specifically added "for That Production” (and, >as such,

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Pete, So major compositional changes -- the ones we're calling "structural" here -- are implemented at that first (gen.purp.prog.lang) level, tossing LP not much to trip over then or fail to carry through. My point, then: Why stuff a complicated-enough engraving prog

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Simon, >> 1. In 2013, I composed and engraved a piece with nearly 12,000 frames (57 >> staves x 208 measures). It contains two sections (of ~32 and ~16 measures) >> which were specifically added "for That Production” (and, as such, contain >> “external material”). Now I want to modify the pi

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 22.04.2015 um 17:48 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi Pete, So major compositional changes -- the ones we're calling "structural" here -- are implemented at that first (gen.purp.prog.lang) level, tossing LP not much to trip over then or fail to carry through. My point, then: Why stuff a complica

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Pete, > So major compositional changes -- the ones we're > calling "structural" here -- are implemented at that > first (gen.purp.prog.lang) level, tossing LP not much > to trip over then or fail to carry through. > > My point, then: Why stuff a complicated-enough > engraving program with (com

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 22.04.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: We try to explain this away by saying that LP is an engraving tool, not a composition tool, but -- if we're really serious about making LP more attractive to the "average" user of notation software, this is too glib. In using LilyPond for all my c

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 08:31 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > Interesting, I didn't realize that this was a reason to use a front-end > > to generate the LilyPond. With the Denemo front end it is Del,M to > > delete a measure in all the staffs. > > Does that work even when the co

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 22.04.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: We try to explain this away by saying that LP is an engraving tool, >not a composition tool, but -- if we're really serious about making LP >more attractive to the "average" user of notation software, this is too glib. Agreed. It will be intere

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Richard, > Interesting, I didn't realize that this was a reason to use a front-end > to generate the LilyPond. With the Denemo front end it is Del,M to > delete a measure in all the staffs. Does that work even when the code is abstracted into one or more shared global variables, etc.? Or does

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi James, > I think there's one command in Finale that demonstrates a major obstacle to > widespread adoption of LilyPond: Delete Measure Stack. This is an extremely > common need when editing scores, and raw LilyPond code offers no clean, > easy way to do it. + 1 x 10^googol This is such a good

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:52:10 +0200 Urs Liska wrote: > > One way is to enter your music in parallel > > But one has to admit that this more or less requires you to enter your > music accordingly *beforehand*. > And I think with this you'd deprive yourself of significant advantages > that LilyP

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 22.04.2015 um 13:47 schrieb Trevor Daniels: James Harkins wrote Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:24 AM I think there's one command in Finale that demonstrates a major obstacle to widespread adoption of LilyPond: Delete Measure Stack. This is an extremely common need when editing scores, and raw L

Re: Do we really offer the future?

James Harkins wrote Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:24 AM > I think there's one command in Finale that demonstrates a major obstacle to > widespread adoption of LilyPond: Delete Measure Stack. This is an extremely > common need when editing scores, and raw LilyPond code offers no clean, > easy way to

Re: Do we really offer the future?

James Harkins wrote Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:21 AM > Even after a few years of using LP, it's still kind of a mindf... erm, > mind-blower that notes appear close together in the score but they may be > written in widely separated locations in the LP code. Although not well-publicised there

Re: Do we really offer the future?

2015-04-22 12:52 GMT+02:00 Calixte Faure : > I always wondered why Lilypond was defined as a program ( > http://www.lilypond.org/) for me it is more (should be) a descriptive > language, that several programs can interpret. > Only LilyPond as a program can process the lilypond input and transform

Re: Do we really offer the future?

2015-04-22 12:21 GMT+02:00 James Harkins : > Even after a few years of using LP, it's still kind of a mindf... erm, > mind-blower that notes appear close together in the score but they may be > written in widely separated locations in the LP code. I'm used to > programming and it's slightly bizarr

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi all, I always wondered why Lilypond was defined as a program ( http://www.lilypond.org/) for me it is more (should be) a descriptive language, that several programs can interpret. As Lilypond is above all an engraving program, I don’t think we should work on composing tools. Let this kind of fe

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On April 22, 2015 12:30:18 PM Shane Brandes wrote: Lilypond is not a terribly great tool for composition purposes. Not that I don't use it for that but when I do the whole piece is already in my head and I am not usually prone to making large changes in structure. As noted previously that tend

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 03:24 +, James Harkins wrote: > It's a bit of a side topic, but the the thread has touched on > questions of usability, so I think it's related. > > I think there's one command in Finale that demonstrates a major obstacle to > widespread adoption of LilyPond: Delete Measu

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Lilypond is not a terribly great tool for composition purposes. Not that I don't use it for that but when I do the whole piece is already in my head and I am not usually prone to making large changes in structure. As noted previously that tends to be a cumbersome process. Also somewhat cumbersome

Re: Do we really offer the future?

It's a bit of a side topic, but the the thread has touched on questions of usability, so I think it's related. I think there's one command in Finale that demonstrates a major obstacle to widespread adoption of LilyPond: Delete Measure Stack. This is an extremely common need when editing scores, an

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On 20/04/15 15:54, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Some say that Microsoft obtained its original OS dominance (which at one > point was approaching 95%) specifically by giving the priority to non-users: > it wilfully allowed (or even secretly supported) the proliferation of pirated > copies of early W

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Gilles (et al.), > Whether or not funds will be obtained is a question that comes only > after people at various levels are made aware that LilyPond exists. I totally agree. We should be pushing for Lilypond to be taken up by as many educational and commercial [!!] institutions as possible, a

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:19:37 -0700, Jim Long wrote: On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:45:20PM +0200, Gilles wrote: If and when "big" publishers use LilyPond, the result will be more restricted access (through cost) to culture (because they won't release their proprietary contents). Forgive me if I'

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 08:19:37PM -0700, Jim Long wrote: ... > I'm not I understand ... I'm not *sure that* I understand ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:45:20PM +0200, Gilles wrote: > If and when "big" publishers use LilyPond, the result will be more > restricted access (through cost) to culture (because they won't release > their proprietary contents). Forgive me if I've missed important bits of this conversation, but I

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:50:24 +0200, Federico Bruni wrote: 2015-04-17 16:45 GMT+02:00 Gilles : A FLOSS like LilyPond is a great opportunity to share (musical) culture, at the lowest possible cost. A project like Mutopia is a promising future: digital scores (of public domain music) that are fr

Re: [OT] Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi. On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:18:19 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Gilles, On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Gilles wrote: When people put convenience above all, they start giving up their freedom. My experience — this thread being no different so far — is that such discussions always end up in

[OT] Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Gilles, On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Gilles wrote: > When people put convenience above all, they start giving up their freedom. My experience — this thread being no different so far — is that such discussions always end up in absolutist terms (moral and otherwise). It’s almost a defining qu

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:22:23 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Andrew (et al.), I would have thought that, like the invention of desktop publishing in the 1980’s, which allowed small scale companies and individuals to produce professional publications, lilypond frees composers, musicians, and

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Urs, > this seems a good idea, but not for my original question. Fair point. > If you could find the time to put together a list of arguments (or maybe a > nice blog post) why a *composer* should use LilyPond this would also be very > helpful. I would *love* to do that — a blog post sounds

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Gilles, > This cannot be the overall guiding rule, if "progress" has any value at all. > Is the sole expectation, of students attending music schools, to be > hired by a publishing company? Of course not — I neither said nor even implied that. However, right now schools have the choice betwee

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Gilles (et al.), > we are all aware of the limited resources, and I doubt that > focusing on how to please established editing houses will lead us > closer to the principles and goals of free software. Now *that* I totally agree with. And perhaps this discussion will always split along the li

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi. On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:52:54 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Federico (et al.), I've thought for a long time that the right way to go is to seek public funds for engraving public domain contents Me too. I think it’s telling that most of the non-publishing music world is going in exa

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Andrew (et al.), > I would have thought that, like the invention of desktop publishing in the > 1980’s, which allowed small scale companies and individuals to produce > professional publications, lilypond frees composers, musicians, and engravers > from the tyranny - and rejections - of the

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hello. On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:39:29 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Gilles (et al.), To whom LilyPond should strive to "offer the future”? To everyone it possibly can. ;) Yes, but we are all aware of the limited resources, and I doubt that focusing on how to please established editing h

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Federico (et al.), > Possible advantages: > - you, as a typesetter, may be allowed to submit lilypond projects to them. I > don't know this market but I guess that a publishing company wants to own the > source files (they can understand and edit) and not just the PDF. The smaller and/or you

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Federico (et al.), >> I've thought for a long time that the right way to go is to seek >> public funds for engraving public domain contents > Me too. I think it’s telling that most of the non-publishing music world is going in exactly the opposite direction: schools are adding “musical entre

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Peter (et al.), > As someone who has made the journey from (one of) the two established > notation programs to LilyPond, I'm convinced it was the right decision for me > but it would honestly be hard for me to recommend it for anyone else - > composer or editor - at this point. Unfortunatel

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Hi Johan, > Why should serious businesses use Unix? > Outcome: they didn’t. Actually, they do, on quite a large scale: UNIX and UNIX-like servers have a ~68% market share for public servers. And the share of internal (corporate) servers is not insignificant (though not nearly 2/3, of course).

Re: Do we really offer the future?

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:00:19 +0200 Federico Bruni wrote: > - you, as a typesetter, may be allowed to submit lilypond projects to > them. I don't know this market but I guess that a publishing company > wants to own the source files (they can understand and edit) and not just > the PDF. I don't k

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Am 20.04.2015 um 12:00 schrieb Federico Bruni: 2015-04-20 4:33 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard >: So I don’t quite understand the need to help out these companies. What exactly is the motivation? What would they put back to the lilypond development effort?

Re: Do we really offer the future?

2015-04-20 4:33 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard : > So I don’t quite understand the need to help out these companies. What > exactly is the motivation? What would they put back to the lilypond > development effort? Maybe nothing, but never say never... Possible advantages: - you, as a typesetter, may

  1   2   >