Re: Gregorian chant input in LilyPond
Conversion between gregorio and lilypond is a relevant topic for me too. Some time ago I started working on it - https://github.com/igneus/lygre - and for now there is grely, a Ruby script translating gabc to simple lilypond (simplified modern notation, not the quadratic notation also supported by lilypond). Now I see the installation instructions on github are outdated. I will try to update them ASAP. The lygre package is now available as a Ruby gem, which is more convenient to install and use. I'm not sure if grely as it is now would be of any use for you, Joram. If you have any wishes what more it could do, feel free to express them. In the future I might get back to grely and implement some of them. Crash- and bug-reports are also welcome. Some kind of lilypond to gabc translator is also planned, because I have a huge corpus of chants written in Lilypond that I would eventually like to be able to convert to gabc. Regards, Jakub 2014-12-28 0:12 GMT+01:00 Noeck noeck.marb...@gmx.de: Dear Br. Samuel, thanks for your thoughts in reply to my mail! Am 27.12.2014 um 23:48 schrieb Br. Samuel Springuel: The biggest issue for this would be the fact that gabc and lilypond notation approach representing music from two different view points. I know that, but it does not seem such a big issue to me: The gabc input should contain a clef (c2 or f3 etc.) and this would fix the relation between the two representations, wouldn’t it. (This implies that there is no general conversion of a-m (gabc) to a-g (LP) but a clef-dependent one). This way I would end up with a definition which note (a-m) is a do and so on. However, it would not mean that the la is 400 Hz. But this latter issue can not be solved in a general way. Or do I still have a misconception here? I would even see that difference as a gain, because the key independent input of gabc seems convenient to me (for chant notation) and the LP representation could be still used in a normal staff and could be transposed. So it would combine the best of two approaches. In fact, I am a bit more concerned about the spacing. In gabc, one can set the spacing within a neume and I don’t know how to do that in LP and gregorio cares less about the timing than LP. I suspect that not everyone would be satisfied with any particular solution. That might be true and perhaps my reasoning above is too naive. Please correct me then. Cheers, Joram ___ 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
Gregorian chant input in LilyPond
Hi, while comparing gabc [1] and LilyPond [2] syntax for Gregorian chant music, I wondered whether LilyPond could profit from the simplicity of gabc. I see at least two options: a) A conversion of the respective syntax Something like gabc2ly. It could be used as a standalone tool on the commandline or perhaps used to translate a selected part of the file in Frescobaldi. b) A new input mode It could be called \gregorianmode and do the same translation within LilyPond directly. This would be much nicer as the gabc-style source could be edited and would not be gone in the one-way street of the conversion. Has anyone tried anything similar? Was that discussed before? Is it a bad idea? If not, I could try (a) – option (b) is certainly out of my reach. Cheers, Joram [1]: http://home.gna.org/gregorio/gabc/ [2]: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/typesetting-gregorian-chant ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Gregorian chant input in LilyPond
The biggest issue for this would be the fact that gabc and lilypond notation approach representing music from two different view points. The different heights (a to m) in gabc represent the actual position of the neume on the staff, regardless of the clef position. As a result g may correspond to fa, re, ti (or ta), so, mi, or do depending on the clef (c1, c2, c3 (flatted), c4, f3, or f4). Given that Gregorian chant uses a movable do, this isn't as illogical as it may sound because one group may choose different pitches for the same neume on the same clef in different pieces and different groups may sing the same piece at different pitches. There really is very little correspondence between a note's pitch and where it appears on the staff. What matters is the relation between the notes (the scale) not the actual pitches. In short: gabc represents the *visual representation* of a chant score (i.e. what appears in the manuscript), not the musical content. Lilypond notation, on the other hand, is very much tied to the pitch. a' (in absolute mode) is A440 and means that regardless of key settings (relative mode and the transpose function both play with this mapping). This makes sense because modern music (which Lilypond is designed around) uses a fixed do. Regardless of who performs a piece, or which piece a note appears in, the same note represents the same pitch. In short: lilypond notation represents the *musical content* (i.e. what we hear), not how it visually appears on the page (position tweaks, stencil tweaks, etc. excepted). Any attempt to convert from gabc to lilypond would require bridging that gap by establishing conventions for how the height of a note on the staff maps on to a particular pitch. That's not to say that isn't possible (the visual representation and the musical content are related, after all, otherwise scores would be meaningless), but it would require some thinking out and I suspect that not everyone would be satisfied with any particular solution. ✝ Br. Samuel, OSB (R. Padraic Springuel) PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Gregorian chant input in LilyPond
Dear Br. Samuel, thanks for your thoughts in reply to my mail! Am 27.12.2014 um 23:48 schrieb Br. Samuel Springuel: The biggest issue for this would be the fact that gabc and lilypond notation approach representing music from two different view points. I know that, but it does not seem such a big issue to me: The gabc input should contain a clef (c2 or f3 etc.) and this would fix the relation between the two representations, wouldn’t it. (This implies that there is no general conversion of a-m (gabc) to a-g (LP) but a clef-dependent one). This way I would end up with a definition which note (a-m) is a do and so on. However, it would not mean that the la is 400 Hz. But this latter issue can not be solved in a general way. Or do I still have a misconception here? I would even see that difference as a gain, because the key independent input of gabc seems convenient to me (for chant notation) and the LP representation could be still used in a normal staff and could be transposed. So it would combine the best of two approaches. In fact, I am a bit more concerned about the spacing. In gabc, one can set the spacing within a neume and I don’t know how to do that in LP and gregorio cares less about the timing than LP. I suspect that not everyone would be satisfied with any particular solution. That might be true and perhaps my reasoning above is too naive. Please correct me then. Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
