[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Another documentation issue

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Another documentation issue
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 01:06:53 -0500

What I am saying is I am intrigued and impressed by the statement:

Lilypond serves as a formal definition of a music document.

I think this is a good goal and I serious when I say it is a superior goal to the goal of making Lilypond useful. That goal is too broad and invites the question 'Useful for what?'.

If Lilypond is meant to demonstrate the art of music engraving, if it is meant to recapture a lost art as it was practiced before the computer age, if it is meant to improve musical performances, then it should educate the user rather than allow the user to dictate to it. Meaning there is a downside to Lilypond being bigger and more powerful and more responsive to the user's demands. The vast majority of the time, bigger is better. But the average user may not be an expert music engraver and would make mistakes if Lilypond let him.

I don't see a clear definition of what constitutes an improvement of Lilypond or statement of purpose other than what I read in the introduction, I would feel better if the developers were working from some definition of Lilypond and actively referred to it and reminded each other of it while they discuss the details. Something as simple as 'Remember that Lilypond is not meant to create sheetmusic, but to impove musical performances'.

In other words I don't see any leadership here, but I think the introduction serves as a manifesto and a call to action. My only gripe is I don't think the developers regard it as such. Which I don't understand, because I think it is more exciting to develop a program which is more specific, rather than, say, a notation program. Lilypond is not a notation program, it is a music engraving program with the specific goal of improving the lot of musicians and their performances. The developers of Lilypond recognize that in rare instances there is a difference between meeting the needs of the user as a musician rather than as an engraver.

Something along these lines, something that would bring Lilypond development into sharp focus would be good for it.

If all else fails, simply defining who the user is would do it. Lilypond was originally developed for a certain kind of user. In fact, it was written for only one person.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Han-Wen Nienhuys" <address@hidden>
To: "Stephen" <address@hidden>
Cc: "Graham Percival" <address@hidden>; "lily-devel" <address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Another documentation issue

Stephen wrote:
I think my main gripe is that there may be a trend towards catering to the requests of the user. Ideally, Lilypond should be made incapable of producing bad output. That means limiting the options and choices given to the user.

I disagree with your reasoning, but that is besides the point: what are you specifically complaining of - or aren't you complaining?

Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden -

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]