Re: mutopia's shortcomings
not production-ready. Hi Urs and Kieren, thanks for your replies. I don't want to urge you, especially not with the design of OLL as a library. My interest in it is definitely high. Your replies make the current status clear: not production-ready. at least not for Mutopia purposes (personally I am using it already). Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
I may have missed it if someone said it in the previous messages (apologies if so), but one of the benefits of mutopia over imslp is that the scores are for paper sizes that anyone can print. Most hand engraved scores are considerably bigger than A4 (and for good reason). A student who prints a Beethoven sonata from imslp will have to reduce Klavierformat to A4 which would result in something difficult to read. Mutopia provides a useful alternative. By the way I'm interested in people's opinions about B4 vs A4. For piano music which is preferable? On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:42:32 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Gilles, But why _LilyPond_, if you agreed that quality will can (never!) match that produced with the tool that produced the scores available on IMSLP ? Why not that other tool? What other tool? Hand-engraving with metal punch ca. 1852-1952? Because that’s the standard we’re measuring against by comparing to IMSLP. I did not understand that. I thought that we were discussing computer generated output with (possibly heavy) human tweaking. New editions will (probably?) not use hand-engraving as you describe, so that's not part of the competition. No cross-platform computer application I know of — proprietary or open source — has better output than Lilypond. In fact, even with just a basic stylesheet applied to it, my musical theatre Piano/Conductor scores rival (and in most cases surpass) what the big publishing houses (e.g., Warner-Chappell) put out for sale. This is one of the reasons I laud Urs’s attempt to get some of those houses to use Lilypond: it would actually improve their current output! My point in the long thread is that they may indeed be satisfied with their current business model (which, for some, include ugly practice) and tools; hence, perhaps nothing can help. Regard, Gilles 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: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi Joram, I already wanted to submit a score to Mutopia using the edition engraver. But I finally used ordinary tweaks because we were not sure how future proof this is. An excellent question/point. 1. How stable is the interface of the edition engraver? Right now, not sufficiently for Mutopia’s needs, I would offer. However, I know that Jan-Peter is actively working on it, so things should settle down relatively soon. Will the commands to use it change? See below. 2. Will it always be in the current place of OpenLilyLib? See below. 3. Might it get integrated into the core of LilyPond? This is the key question. Of course, I think it’s abolute must. Personally, I would assign it as high a priority as MusicXML import/export and other features with higher visibility/“wow factor”, given how mature its code is relative to those other items. If/when it is integrated into the core distribution, the functionality would likely increase and the syntax settle down more quickly, and be far more stable. However, I have no idea about the timeline or even interest for such a thing — that would be a question for Lily’s main code gatekeeper(s). Because it does not make sense to improve the maintainability of a large set of scores by relying on a functionality that has to be adapted manually in future and thus produces more manual interventions. Agreed. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi all, For me one of the biggest advantage of Mutopia (as a singer) is the possibility of transposing songs in every tones! Some years ago I submitted a few *mélodies* on Mutopia. My coding policy was tweaking the least, that for two reasons : 1) I thought the file is more maintainable with only raw code + is easily readable and modifiable. 2) I thought Lilypond will improve so that it will ask for less tweaks. I agree : – that Mutopia files aren’t (all) beautiful (and I contributed that way) – that layout and content should be separate (I try to do it most of the time) – that it is too soon to use edition-engraver for Mutopia files Regards, Calixte. 2015-04-27 16:38 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org: Am 27.04.2015 um 16:15 schrieb Noeck: Dear Kieren, With the edition-engraver, there is (a) no need to mix layout with contents I already wanted to submit a score to Mutopia using the edition engraver. But I finally used ordinary tweaks because we were not sure how future proof this is. This bings me to my questions: 1. How stable is the interface of the edition engraver? not production-ready. Will the commands to use it change? Probably yes. 2. Will it always be in the current place of OpenLilyLib? Definitely not. As 90% of openLilyLib that will be migrated to the new, real infrastructure, once this is ready enough. Currently OLL is more or less a bunch of more or less useful code snippets. Through the reorganization it will become a set of well-defined libraries that can be used like libraries and that are documented like software libraries. The last part is what hasn't been implemented yet, and i do *not* want significant portions of code to be migrated before we can guarantee that. 3. Might it get integrated into the core of LilyPond? (Currently it is not guaranteed that OLL is available when Mutopia scores are compiled, so its usage is complicated) We have the intention to do so. For now it is good to have it in openLilyLib, a place that is much more public than Jan-Peter's own repository, so we can test, discuss and develop it until it (hopefully) becomes mature and robust enough to be integrated in LilyPond itself. HTH Urs Because it does not make sense to improve the maintainability of a large set of scores by relying on a functionality that has to be adapted manually in future and thus produces more manual interventions. To be clear, I like the edition engraver very much. 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 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Dear Kieren, With the edition-engraver, there is (a) no need to mix layout with contents I already wanted to submit a score to Mutopia using the edition engraver. But I finally used ordinary tweaks because we were not sure how future proof this is. This bings me to my questions: 1. How stable is the interface of the edition engraver? Will the commands to use it change? 2. Will it always be in the current place of OpenLilyLib? 3. Might it get integrated into the core of LilyPond? (Currently it is not guaranteed that OLL is available when Mutopia scores are compiled, so its usage is complicated) Because it does not make sense to improve the maintainability of a large set of scores by relying on a functionality that has to be adapted manually in future and thus produces more manual interventions. To be clear, I like the edition engraver very much. Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Am 27.04.2015 um 16:15 schrieb Noeck: Dear Kieren, With the edition-engraver, there is (a) no need to mix layout with contents I already wanted to submit a score to Mutopia using the edition engraver. But I finally used ordinary tweaks because we were not sure how future proof this is. This bings me to my questions: 1. How stable is the interface of the edition engraver? not production-ready. Will the commands to use it change? Probably yes. 2. Will it always be in the current place of OpenLilyLib? Definitely not. As 90% of openLilyLib that will be migrated to the new, real infrastructure, once this is ready enough. Currently OLL is more or less a bunch of more or less useful code snippets. Through the reorganization it will become a set of well-defined libraries that can be used like libraries and that are documented like software libraries. The last part is what hasn't been implemented yet, and i do *not* want significant portions of code to be migrated before we can guarantee that. 3. Might it get integrated into the core of LilyPond? (Currently it is not guaranteed that OLL is available when Mutopia scores are compiled, so its usage is complicated) We have the intention to do so. For now it is good to have it in openLilyLib, a place that is much more public than Jan-Peter's own repository, so we can test, discuss and develop it until it (hopefully) becomes mature and robust enough to be integrated in LilyPond itself. HTH Urs Because it does not make sense to improve the maintainability of a large set of scores by relying on a functionality that has to be adapted manually in future and thus produces more manual interventions. To be clear, I like the edition engraver very much. 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
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi Gilles, And power users will complain in advance that they must tweak things (i.e. mix layout with contents) to get their required level of esthetics. Maybe that tweaked editions should not be in Mutopia's realm as a database[1] Maybe that such finely tuned editions could be managed with a source control system (keeping track of the differences with the baseline contents”). With the edition-engraver, there is (a) no need to mix layout with contents, and (b) the opportunity to store an arbitrary number of edition descriptions which can be compiled from the [one] content source. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Limits of algorithmic typesetting (was: Re: mutopia's shortcomings)
Hi Calixte, I think the question is more: “will machines be able to engrave scores that don’t need tweaks or human correction at all.” Yes. Maybe, but in my opinion — except if you implement something like an AI — it will never have the difference that makes traditional engraving so lovely (everything is not perfectly aligned and straight, whatever). Never say “never”. ;) But I would happily wager that it won’t happen in my lifetime (pace Kurzweil). Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:15:21 +0200, Noeck wrote:
Dear Kieren,
With the edition-engraver, there is (a) no need to mix layout with
contents
This seemed great; I looked for it in the documentation; and
did not find it...
I already wanted to submit a score to Mutopia using the edition
engraver. But I finally used ordinary tweaks because we were not sure
how future proof this is. This bings me to my questions:
1. How stable is the interface of the edition engraver?
Will the commands to use it change?
2. Will it always be in the current place of OpenLilyLib?
Now, I understand why. :-{
3. Might it get integrated into the core of LilyPond?
(Currently it is not guaranteed that OLL is available when Mutopia
scores are compiled, so its usage is complicated)
Because it does not make sense to improve the maintainability of a
large
set of scores by relying on a functionality that has to be adapted
manually in future and thus produces more manual interventions.
Indeed.
Best regards,
Gilles
To be clear, I like the edition engraver very much.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi Gilles, This seemed great It *is* great — trust me. =) I looked for it in the documentation; and did not find it… Hopefully someday you will. it does not make sense to improve the maintainability of a large set of scores by relying on a functionality that has to be adapted manually in future and thus produces more manual interventions. Indeed. It also doesn’t make sense to feed a self-fueling spiral of wider non-acceptance by actively avoiding the use of a tool as game-changing as the edition-engraver. Instead, why not download it (from OLL), try it out, and — if it proves as beneficial to you as it is to some of us — help try to get it polished and accepted into the standard Lilypond distro? Just a “glass half-full” thought amongst this mostly “glass half-empty” thread. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
2015-04-27 19:02 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: it does not make sense to improve the maintainability of a large set of scores by relying on a functionality that has to be adapted manually in future and thus produces more manual interventions. It also doesn’t make sense to feed a self-fueling spiral of wider non-acceptance by actively avoiding the use of a tool as game-changing as the edition-engraver. Instead, why not download it (from OLL), try it out, and — if it proves as beneficial to you as it is to some of us — help try to get it polished and accepted into the standard Lilypond distro? While it may or may not be a good idea to use EditionEngraver for big scores / big collections of scores, it definitely will be great if many people will try using it and report any issues. best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi. On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:43:59 +0200, Federico Bruni wrote: 2015-04-21 1:07 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Seems to me it has been quite successful in its goals of making sheet music easily available for free, all works in the public domain or under creative commons licenses, in (user-editable, user-improvable) LilyPond format, pdf, and midi — all with volunteer labor. Looks like the total is over 1900 works now. Other than the “user-editable, user-improvable” issue, all of those things are far better done by IMSLP. Put another way, looking at IMSLP (with 310,000 scores) and Mutopia (with 1,900), the shine quickly comes off Mutopia for anyone except the handful of hardcore DIY musicians who (e.g.,) want to take a violin piece from Mutopia and make a guitar arrangement. You forgot the quality of sheets: a (really) digital PDF will always look better than a scanned PDF. And if it's too old or don't like anything you can change it and get what you want. This is the value of Mutopia and the reason why I strongly disagree on the idea of merging it into IMSLP. In the past discussion on this topic there were a couple of ideas on better integration between the two projects. I think it would be far better — and probably result in better visibility/marketing for Lilypond — if Mutopia were merged into IMSLP. (There appears to have been a thought in this direction at some point, but not any more; cf. http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Community_Projects/Mutopia_score_archive). Then, for important works, there would be the Lilypond source, side-by-side with scans of existing editions. But it seems this was considered, and rejected for exactly the reasons that Mutopia now flounders (cf. http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP_talk:Community_Projects/Mutopia_score_archive ). Whether merge or not depends on the ultimate purpose of the project. IMSLP is mainly a repository of printed scores (final output) that happens to provide source code for some scores, while Mutopia is primarily a repository of musical data (LilyPond input data) that happens to provide the final output. I think that the original problem with Mutopia is that it did not position itself as a contents database but only as a score repository. In the former case, one would have required that submitted contents follow rules well beyond just being a LilyPond-compilable source. If all works would follow the same standard layout, it would be much easier to maintain, upgrade (the layout) and adapt to different users taste wrt to the output (for example, changing the font should be doable with just rerunning LilyPond with an appropriate command-line switch). Even if not everyone will agree on the standard layout, I feel that it is extremely important to define one, with the maximum flexibility. The contents of all files that make up the complete layout does not have to be easily comprehensible by everyone; I think that the indispensable features are that * it should be manageable automatically (i.e. changing the standard should not require manual intervention) * the files requiring user input (i.e. music contents) should be completely separate from layout definitions Of course, the devil is in the details. And power users will complain in advance that they must tweak things (i.e. mix layout with contents) to get their required level of esthetics. Maybe that tweaked editions should not be in Mutopia's realm as a database[1] Maybe that such finely tuned editions could be managed with a source control system (keeping track of the differences with the baseline contents). Best regards, Gilles [1] Those editions could be available from there too, but would not be (so easily) upgradable. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
2015-04-21 1:07 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Seems to me it has been quite successful in its goals of making sheet music easily available for free, all works in the public domain or under creative commons licenses, in (user-editable, user-improvable) LilyPond format, pdf, and midi — all with volunteer labor. Looks like the total is over 1900 works now. Other than the “user-editable, user-improvable” issue, all of those things are far better done by IMSLP. Put another way, looking at IMSLP (with 310,000 scores) and Mutopia (with 1,900), the shine quickly comes off Mutopia for anyone except the handful of hardcore DIY musicians who (e.g.,) want to take a violin piece from Mutopia and make a guitar arrangement. You forgot the quality of sheets: a (really) digital PDF will always look better than a scanned PDF. And if it's too old or don't like anything you can change it and get what you want. This is the value of Mutopia and the reason why I strongly disagree on the idea of merging it into IMSLP. In the past discussion on this topic there were a couple of ideas on better integration between the two projects. I think it would be far better — and probably result in better visibility/marketing for Lilypond — if Mutopia were merged into IMSLP. (There appears to have been a thought in this direction at some point, but not any more; cf. http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Community_Projects/Mutopia_score_archive). Then, for important works, there would be the Lilypond source, side-by-side with scans of existing editions. But it seems this was considered, and rejected for exactly the reasons that Mutopia now flounders (cf. http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP_talk:Community_Projects/Mutopia_score_archive ). ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Am 24.04.2015 um 12:43 schrieb Federico Bruni: 2015-04-21 1:07 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca mailto:kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Seems to me it has been quite successful in its goals of making sheet music easily available for free, all works in the public domain or under creative commons licenses, in (user-editable, user-improvable) LilyPond format, pdf, and midi — all with volunteer labor. Looks like the total is over 1900 works now. Other than the “user-editable, user-improvable” issue, all of those things are far better done by IMSLP. Put another way, looking at IMSLP (with 310,000 scores) and Mutopia (with 1,900), the shine quickly comes off Mutopia for anyone except the handful of hardcore DIY musicians who (e.g.,) want to take a violin piece from Mutopia and make a guitar arrangement. You forgot the quality of sheets: a (really) digital PDF will always look better than a scanned PDF. I think it depends: firstly, many IMSLP scores are on a level of typographical quality which – I’m sorry – Lilypond might never reach. And if scan quality is not too low, I do fancy the more soft, mellow look of scans from hand-engraved scores. Yours, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi Simon, You forgot the quality of sheets: a (really) digital PDF will always look better than a scanned PDF. I think it depends: firstly, many IMSLP scores are on a level of typographical quality which – I’m sorry – Lilypond might never reach. +1000 And if scan quality is not too low, I do fancy the more soft, mellow look of scans from hand-engraved scores. I remember suggesting the [ultimately implemented] feature that stems should be rounded to mimic worn metal punches. Maybe we should have a dithering feature, which “mellows” Lily’s output? ;) Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
I'm trying to decide if the last sentence (referring to the scores at the 3 links) is made in jest. It must be, right? LK On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Simon Albrecht simon.albre...@mail.de wrote: Am 24.04.2015 um 16:35 schrieb Gilles: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:01:29 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Simon, You forgot the quality of sheets: a (really) digital PDF will always look better than a scanned PDF. I think it depends: firstly, many IMSLP scores are on a level of typographical quality which – I’m sorry – Lilypond might never reach. +1000 Why do use LilyPond then? Or: Doesn't your appreciation need a more specific context? Like: LilyPond might never reach [that] level of typographical quality *without human tweaking*. If you’re interested, have a close look at http://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.9_%28Mahler,_Gustav%29 (UE, 1912) or http://imslp.org/wiki/File:PMLP106915-Mendelssohn_op.79_Sechs_Sprueche.pdf and http://imslp.org/wiki/3_Motets,_Op.69_%28Mendelssohn,_Felix%29 (Peters, perhaps around 1900?). Nothing the likes of this will ever be engraved by a machine. Yours, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Am 24.04.2015 um 16:35 schrieb Gilles: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:01:29 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Simon, You forgot the quality of sheets: a (really) digital PDF will always look better than a scanned PDF. I think it depends: firstly, many IMSLP scores are on a level of typographical quality which – I’m sorry – Lilypond might never reach. +1000 Why do use LilyPond then? Or: Doesn't your appreciation need a more specific context? Like: LilyPond might never reach [that] level of typographical quality *without human tweaking*. If you’re interested, have a close look at http://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.9_%28Mahler,_Gustav%29 (UE, 1912) or http://imslp.org/wiki/File:PMLP106915-Mendelssohn_op.79_Sechs_Sprueche.pdf and http://imslp.org/wiki/3_Motets,_Op.69_%28Mendelssohn,_Felix%29 (Peters, perhaps around 1900?). Nothing the likes of this will ever be engraved by a machine. Yours, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:48:02 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Gilles, Why do you use LilyPond then? Here’s my answer: for compositions that have not yet been engraved — for example, every single one that will be written after today. But why _LilyPond_, if you agreed that quality will can (never!) match that produced with the tool that produced the scores available on IMSLP ? Why not that other tool? As a composer (and self-publisher), using Lilypond is a no-brainer for me. For engravers/publishers looking only to produce Yet Another Edition Of “That Old Chestnut”, I would imagine using Lilypond is far from a no-brainer — in fact, as we’ve seen, it’s a pretty tough sell, even for individual users. The question was not in reference to that subject. Rather it is about the objective quality of the result (independent of much work is required to get it). Best regards, Gilles ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
On 24/04/2015 12:42, Gilles wrote: Even if not everyone will agree on the standard layout, I feel that it is extremely important to define one, with the maximum flexibility. The problem arises, of course, when there are existing, conflicting, standards. There IS a standard out there, to which pretty much EVERY Brass Band march part I've seen adheres to (probably BH house style, as they are the dominant publisher), that lilypond just does not produce by default. Yet talk to an orchestral musician and I guess many of them would say that the lilypond style feels natural. If you impose a single style, you are pretty much guaranteeing that certain branches of music will stay away because the house style is just totally wrong. At a minimum, you need different basic styles for different types of music. Of course, if style sheets become a lilypond reality, that will make life a lot better in that respect ... Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Limits of algorithmic typesetting (was: Re: mutopia's shortcomings)
I think the question is more: “will machines be able to engrave scores that don’t need tweaks or human correction at all.” Maybe, but in my opinion — except if you implement something like an AI — it will never have the difference that makes traditional engraving so lovely (everything is not perfectly aligned and straight, whatever). Yours, Calixte 2015-04-24 23:39 GMT+02:00 Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 23:22:54 +0200, Eyolf Østrem wrote: On 24.04.2015 (14:12), tyronicus wrote: Simon Albrecht-2 wrote I should’ve written “I believe that nothing as beautiful/good as this will ever be engraved by a machine” then, since basically it is my belief. Maybe I exaggerated a little :-) And you may believe differently of course. My contrary belief: A machine will draw a circle better than a human 100% of the time. It's a matter of telling it how. A machine may draw a more geometrically perfect circle, but if I were to hang the drawing on my wall, I'd much rather have one made by Mirò than by a machine. Same with notation. Following this line of reasoning, you'll end up that it's better to have scores written by hand (as a really unique artisanal creation)... Also, a machine can be told to not draw a perfect circle, to fool you into thinking that was not drawn by machine. ;-) Regards, Gilles ___ 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: mutopia's shortcomings
On Apr 24, 2015, at 6:43 AM, Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com wrote: You forgot the quality of sheets: a (really) digital PDF will always look better than a scanned PDF. And if it's too old or don't like anything you can change it and get what you want. +1 Also, ultimately do we want the archive of public domain musical works to be available as inflexible scans or as flexible music data? (Ask anyone working in digital humanities…) This is the value of Mutopia and the reason why I strongly disagree on the idea of merging it into IMSLP. In the past discussion on this topic there were a couple of ideas on better integration between the two projects. I agree. Ultimately, Mutopia isn’t going away, and it is (and will continue to be) associated with LilyPond. Sure, it’s easy to disparage it for this or that, but I think it’s a valuable resource that’s worth maintaining and improving. I benefit from it and so I contribute back a little of my time updating old works, improving their quality. Cheers, -Paul ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:01:29 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Simon, You forgot the quality of sheets: a (really) digital PDF will always look better than a scanned PDF. I think it depends: firstly, many IMSLP scores are on a level of typographical quality which – I’m sorry – Lilypond might never reach. +1000 Why do use LilyPond then? Or: Doesn't your appreciation need a more specific context? Like: LilyPond might never reach [that] level of typographical quality *without human tweaking*. Gilles [...] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi Gilles, Why do use LilyPond then? Here’s my answer: for compositions that have not yet been engraved — for example, every single one that will be written after today. As a composer (and self-publisher), using Lilypond is a no-brainer for me. For engravers/publishers looking only to produce Yet Another Edition Of “That Old Chestnut”, I would imagine using Lilypond is far from a no-brainer — in fact, as we’ve seen, it’s a pretty tough sell, even for individual users. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi Wol, Even if not everyone will agree on the standard layout, I feel that it is extremely important to define one, with the maximum flexibility. The problem arises, of course, when there are existing, conflicting, standards. Let’s be clear that there are two different areas of “standards” to be discussed: the input (Lilypond source code) and the output (engraved score). As you noted, when our current stylesheet project comes to fruition, it will be possible to output any “house style” you want, including the “BH Brass Band Style”. That doesn’t in any meaningful way affect our decisions regarding standards for the Lilypond source code, if we want to develop and promote them. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi Gilles, But why _LilyPond_, if you agreed that quality will can (never!) match that produced with the tool that produced the scores available on IMSLP ? Why not that other tool? What other tool? Hand-engraving with metal punch ca. 1852-1952? Because that’s the standard we’re measuring against by comparing to IMSLP. No cross-platform computer application I know of — proprietary or open source — has better output than Lilypond. In fact, even with just a basic stylesheet applied to it, my musical theatre Piano/Conductor scores rival (and in most cases surpass) what the big publishing houses (e.g., Warner-Chappell) put out for sale. This is one of the reasons I laud Urs’s attempt to get some of those houses to use Lilypond: it would actually improve their current output! Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Limits of algorithmic typesetting (was: Re: mutopia's shortcomings)
Am 24.04.2015 um 20:25 schrieb Larry Kent: I'm trying to decide if the last sentence (referring to the scores at the 3 links) is made in jest. It must be, right? I should’ve written “I believe that nothing as beautiful/good as this will ever be engraved by a machine” then, since basically it is my belief. Maybe I exaggerated a little :-) And you may believe differently of course. Perhaps it becomes clear if I exaggerate in another way: http://imslp.org/wiki/File:PMLP03269-Bach_-_Dritter_Theil_der_Clavier_%C3%9Cbung,_bestehend_in_verschiedenen_Vorspielen_-...-_vor_die_Orgel.pdf. It’s not the same, but a hint of that is still present in below-linked editions, and it’s that which can’t really be emulated by an algorithm – for what I think. Yours, Simon PS: For everyone with similar likings, I can strongly recommend the ‘Performer’s Facsimiles’ series, which contains nice and affordable reprints of e.g. the Clavierübung volumes by Seb. Bach. :-) LK On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Simon Albrecht simon.albre...@mail.de mailto:simon.albre...@mail.de wrote: Am 24.04.2015 um 16:35 schrieb Gilles: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:01:29 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Simon, You forgot the quality of sheets: a (really) digital PDF will always look better than a scanned PDF. I think it depends: firstly, many IMSLP scores are on a level of typographical quality which – I’m sorry – Lilypond might never reach. +1000 Why do use LilyPond then? Or: Doesn't your appreciation need a more specific context? Like: LilyPond might never reach [that] level of typographical quality *without human tweaking*. If you’re interested, have a close look at http://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.9_%28Mahler,_Gustav%29 (UE, 1912) or http://imslp.org/wiki/File:PMLP106915-Mendelssohn_op.79_Sechs_Sprueche.pdf and http://imslp.org/wiki/3_Motets,_Op.69_%28Mendelssohn,_Felix%29 (Peters, perhaps around 1900?). Nothing the likes of this will ever be engraved by a machine. Yours, Simon ___ 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: Limits of algorithmic typesetting (was: Re: mutopia's shortcomings)
Simon Albrecht-2 wrote I should’ve written “I believe that nothing as beautiful/good as this will ever be engraved by a machine” then, since basically it is my belief. Maybe I exaggerated a little :-) And you may believe differently of course. My contrary belief: A machine will draw a circle better than a human 100% of the time. It's a matter of telling it how. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/mutopia-s-shortcomings-tp174877p175259.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: mutopia's shortcomings
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:33:29 +0100, Anthonys Lists wrote: On 24/04/2015 12:42, Gilles wrote: Even if not everyone will agree on the standard layout, I feel that it is extremely important to define one, with the maximum flexibility. The problem arises, of course, when there are existing, conflicting, standards. There IS a standard out there, to which pretty much EVERY Brass Band march part I've seen adheres to (probably BH house style, as they are the dominant publisher), that lilypond just does not produce by default. Yet talk to an orchestral musician and I guess many of them would say that the lilypond style feels natural. If you impose a single style, you are pretty much guaranteeing that certain branches of music will stay away because the house style is just totally wrong. At a minimum, you need different basic styles for different types of music. Of course, if style sheets become a lilypond reality, that will make life a lot better in that respect ... I was not at all suggesting a uniform layout of the printed output! On the contrary, I propose a standard way for managing an encoding project: list of files, names of those files, separation of concerns (contents vs graphical output), naming of variables, settings for different printed output (according to standard practice for the music style at hand), etc, etc. Best regards, Gilles ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Limits of algorithmic typesetting (was: Re: mutopia's shortcomings)
On 24.04.2015 (14:12), tyronicus wrote: Simon Albrecht-2 wrote I should’ve written “I believe that nothing as beautiful/good as this will ever be engraved by a machine” then, since basically it is my belief. Maybe I exaggerated a little :-) And you may believe differently of course. My contrary belief: A machine will draw a circle better than a human 100% of the time. It's a matter of telling it how. A machine may draw a more geometrically perfect circle, but if I were to hang the drawing on my wall, I'd much rather have one made by Mirò than by a machine. Same with notation. -- will one flock stop at Senju town? geese flying north ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:42:32 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Gilles, But why _LilyPond_, if you agreed that quality will can (never!) match that produced with the tool that produced the scores available on IMSLP ? Why not that other tool? What other tool? Hand-engraving with metal punch ca. 1852-1952? Because that’s the standard we’re measuring against by comparing to IMSLP. I did not understand that. I thought that we were discussing computer generated output with (possibly heavy) human tweaking. New editions will (probably?) not use hand-engraving as you describe, so that's not part of the competition. No cross-platform computer application I know of — proprietary or open source — has better output than Lilypond. In fact, even with just a basic stylesheet applied to it, my musical theatre Piano/Conductor scores rival (and in most cases surpass) what the big publishing houses (e.g., Warner-Chappell) put out for sale. This is one of the reasons I laud Urs’s attempt to get some of those houses to use Lilypond: it would actually improve their current output! My point in the long thread is that they may indeed be satisfied with their current business model (which, for some, include ugly practice) and tools; hence, perhaps nothing can help. Regard, Gilles Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Limits of algorithmic typesetting (was: Re: mutopia's shortcomings)
Eyolf Østrem wrote A machine may draw a more geometrically perfect circle, but if I were to hang the drawing on my wall, I'd much rather have one made by Mirò than by a machine. Same with notation. Music notation may be at times a graphic art, but isn't it more often a tool for communication? Which is ideally beautiful but must be firstly clear and concise. I loved it when Urs and Janek offered framed A3s from their Fried engravings. It is certainly something I would hang on my wall. Human handwriting may be a better comparison. It is lovely to read handwriting, but it is far easier to read printed text. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/mutopia-s-shortcomings-tp174877p175264.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: Limits of algorithmic typesetting (was: Re: mutopia's shortcomings)
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 23:22:54 +0200, Eyolf Østrem wrote: On 24.04.2015 (14:12), tyronicus wrote: Simon Albrecht-2 wrote I should’ve written “I believe that nothing as beautiful/good as this will ever be engraved by a machine” then, since basically it is my belief. Maybe I exaggerated a little :-) And you may believe differently of course. My contrary belief: A machine will draw a circle better than a human 100% of the time. It's a matter of telling it how. A machine may draw a more geometrically perfect circle, but if I were to hang the drawing on my wall, I'd much rather have one made by Mirò than by a machine. Same with notation. Following this line of reasoning, you'll end up that it's better to have scores written by hand (as a really unique artisanal creation)... Also, a machine can be told to not draw a perfect circle, to fool you into thinking that was not drawn by machine. ;-) Regards, Gilles ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi Joram, The people working on Mutopia are open for any good proposals. You want to make a huge splash, and get more Lilypond awareness than you can probably handle? ;) Crowd-engrave something big (i.e., very popular) and daring (i.e., still under copyright somewhere like the U.S.A., but not elsewhere like Canada) — the original orchestration of “Rhapsody In Blue” would be a good example. Then post it to IMSLP (not sure where Mutopia is hosted, so the legality of posting it there would be a different matter), and watch the fireworks. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi all, Seems to me it has been quite successful in its goals of making sheet music easily available for free, all works in the public domain or under creative commons licenses, in (user-editable, user-improvable) LilyPond format, pdf, and midi — all with volunteer labor. Looks like the total is over 1900 works now. Other than the “user-editable, user-improvable” issue, all of those things are far better done by IMSLP. Put another way, looking at IMSLP (with 310,000 scores) and Mutopia (with 1,900), the shine quickly comes off Mutopia for anyone except the handful of hardcore DIY musicians who (e.g.,) want to take a violin piece from Mutopia and make a guitar arrangement. I think it would be far better — and probably result in better visibility/marketing for Lilypond — if Mutopia were merged into IMSLP. (There appears to have been a thought in this direction at some point, but not any more; cf. http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Community_Projects/Mutopia_score_archive). Then, for important works, there would be the Lilypond source, side-by-side with scans of existing editions. But it seems this was considered, and rejected for exactly the reasons that Mutopia now flounders (cf. http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP_talk:Community_Projects/Mutopia_score_archive). On Apr 20, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Simon Albrecht simon.albre...@mail.de wrote: I think it’s mainly three problems: – Lilypond versions, as Paul already mentioned. Yes. – Coding style: the lilypond code I saw till now from Mutopia mostly gave me a real headache, because it was excessively hard to read, inefficient or hacky. Which makes reusing it an unpleasant experience. Yes. I would call real code reuse — certainly anything other than the most trivial cut-and-paste exercise — essentially impossible. – Visual quality of the output: Many of the scores very effectively display that using Lilypond does not warrant making beautiful scores Yes. Urs and I are hoping to change this (dramatically, for the better, in one fell swoop) with the openLilyLib stylesheet project. But for now, the defaults in Lilypond are far from publication quality (IMO). Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Am 20.04.2015 um 22:29 schrieb dl.mcnam...@comcast.net: In another thread, it seemed like common knowledge that Mutopia has some serious flaws. Could someone fill me on on what the (most important if there's a whole slew) problems are? I think it’s mainly three problems: – Lilypond versions, as Paul already mentioned. – Coding style: the lilypond code I saw till now from Mutopia mostly gave me a real headache, because it was excessively hard to read, inefficient or hacky. Which makes reusing it an unpleasant experience. – Visual quality of the output: Many of the scores very effectively display that using Lilypond does not warrant making beautiful scores, if you ask me. This might also be due to ancient Lily versions being used, but mainly it’s because Lilypond output only starts to look really pleasing when you increase paper margins, (use another text font – though that’s likely my personal point of view), manually improve page and line breaking etc. etc. That is to say, you need a proper understanding of typographical quality yourself – it’s not much one needs to do, actually, since most things are handled very well, but some things are important /in my eyes/. That’s what I’d call the main problems… Yours, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
On Apr 20, 2015, at 4:29 PM, dl.mcnam...@comcast.net wrote: In another thread, it seemed like common knowledge that Mutopia has some serious flaws. Indeed, I’m thinking sheesh, why’s everybody gotta be pickin on the mutopia project? Seems to me it has been quite successful in its goals of making sheet music easily available for free, all works in the public domain or under creative commons licenses, in (user-editable, user-improvable) LilyPond format, pdf, and midi — all with volunteer labor. Looks like the total is over 1900 works now. Could someone fill me on on what the (most important if there's a whole slew) problems are? One of the problems is that many of the files are for older versions of LilyPond and so they don’t exactly meet the highest standards of engraving aesthetics (or reflect well on the current quality of LilyPond). There is an effort underway to update these older files that has made some substantial progress, see: http://lilypondblog.org/2014/12/catching-up-with-the-mutopia-project/ http://lilypondblog.org/2014/12/catching-up-with-the-mutopia-project/ Another problem is limited volunteer manpower. (So if anyone is looking for something easy they can do to contribute back to the wider LilyPond ecosystem…) Cheers, -Paul___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:07:46 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi all, Seems to me it has been quite successful in its goals of making sheet music easily available for free, all works in the public domain or under creative commons licenses, in (user-editable, user-improvable) LilyPond format, pdf, and midi — all with volunteer labor. Looks like the total is over 1900 works now. Other than the “user-editable, user-improvable” issue, all of those things are far better done by IMSLP. Put another way, looking at IMSLP (with 310,000 scores) and Mutopia (with 1,900), the shine quickly comes off Mutopia for anyone except the handful of hardcore DIY musicians who (e.g.,) want to take a violin piece from Mutopia and make a guitar arrangement. I think it would be far better — and probably result in better visibility/marketing for Lilypond — if Mutopia were merged into IMSLP. (There appears to have been a thought in this direction at some point, but not any more; cf. http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Community_Projects/Mutopia_score_archive). Then, for important works, there would be the Lilypond source, side-by-side with scans of existing editions. But it seems this was considered, and rejected for exactly the reasons that Mutopia now flounders (cf. http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP_talk:Community_Projects/Mutopia_score_archive). Some pieces accessible on IMSLP were typeset for Mutopia, with a publisher link to Mutopia's site. So visibility of LilyPond can be achieved through publishing to IMSLP in addition to Mutopia. On Apr 20, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Simon Albrecht simon.albre...@mail.de wrote: I think it’s mainly three problems: – Lilypond versions, as Paul already mentioned. Yes. – Coding style: the lilypond code I saw till now from Mutopia mostly gave me a real headache, because it was excessively hard to read, inefficient or hacky. Which makes reusing it an unpleasant experience. Yes. I would call real code reuse — certainly anything other than the most trivial cut-and-paste exercise — essentially impossible. – Visual quality of the output: Many of the scores very effectively display that using Lilypond does not warrant making beautiful scores Yes. Urs and I are hoping to change this (dramatically, for the better, in one fell swoop) with the openLilyLib stylesheet project. But for now, the defaults in Lilypond are far from publication quality (IMO). A word like stylesheet looks promising. I looked at the openlilylib.org web site but could not find the stylesheets. All the problems with Mutopia stem from not having a standardized way of managing the layout and contents. Mutopia should not be like IMSLP; rather it should be a database of LilyPond input format (the _music_ part). With standard stylesheets, one would be able to automatically update/adapt the contents. Of course, the devil is in the details... :-} Gilles ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mutopia's shortcomings
Hi, IMSLP (with 310,000 scores) and Mutopia (with 1,900) I don’t think that it should be put this way. IMSLP looks nicer, has much more scores and thus the chances to find what you are looking for is much better. But Mutopia’s focus is on editable LilyPond scores while IMSLP is mostly scanned scores. This implies extra reasons to exist for Mutopia: - scores can be edited by the user with a free program - the github repository in the back allows for a consistently managing updates But most of all there is no either-or: Nobody prevents you from putting LilyPond scores on Mutopia *and* on IMSLP. Even more, you can link from an IMSLP entry to the source on Mutopia. This combines the best of two sites: Score updates can be handled in the Mutopia github repo and the scores can be presented to a wider public on the nice IMSLP web page. I think it’s mainly three problems: – Lilypond versions, as Paul already mentioned. Which are updated pretty successfully step by step, despite the low manpower. https://github.com/MutopiaProject/MutopiaProject/milestones – Coding style: the lilypond code I saw till now from Mutopia mostly gave me a real headache, because it was excessively hard to read, inefficient or hacky. Which makes reusing it an unpleasant experience. Yes. I would call real code reuse — certainly anything other than the most trivial cut-and-paste exercise — essentially impossible. I would not be so harsh. I just picked three input files at random and I would say, I could use all of them, because the musical content is properly written there. I would add more tweaks but it is a good start. I already used one and edited it for a choir (in real life ;) ). I am not sure yet whether my improvements should be pushed to Mutopia: https://github.com/MutopiaProject/MutopiaProject/issues/575 – Visual quality of the output: Many of the scores very effectively display that using Lilypond does not warrant making beautiful scores This is true and it reassures me that you mention exactly the points I would change in virtually any score: increase paper margins, use another text font, manually improve page and line breaking (cf. https://github.com/MutopiaProject/MutopiaProject/issues/141) Yes. Urs and I are hoping to change this (dramatically, for the better, in one fell swoop) with the openLilyLib stylesheet project. But for now, the defaults in Lilypond are far from publication quality (IMO). I am looking forward to that. – Another issue is: Mostly only small pieces can be found for obvious reasons (less effort). But this is also addressed: https://github.com/MutopiaProject/MutopiaProject/issues/355 and this might give more visibility of LilyPond also on IMSLP. I complained about Mutopia my self some years ago, starting a similar thread (mainly about visual quality and the web-design). But I think it is the same situation as for many LilyPond issues: Complaining does not help. It needs volunteers and work to change things. The people working on Mutopia are open for any good proposals. Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
