[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A few questions
Re: A few questions
Mon, 9 Jan 2006 20:33:07 +0100 (CET)
Sorry for the late answer!
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Elie Roux wrote:
One of the aim will certaily be to make a standard for gregorian chant
representation, that will be under GPL, and that everyone will be able to
use, a bit like MusicXML is ; I think it is quite important that something
like that exists. But of course it's just a part of the project, other parts
will be how to write it simply (eventually with a GUI like denemo) and how to
I guess you had a look at the "Ancient notation" and, in particular, the
"Gregorian square neumes ligatures" section in the lilypond manual
(section 188.8.131.52 as of lily 2.7.26)? Lily comes with a low-level input
language (e.g. the "high-level" ligature torculus is expressed as a
combination of "low-level" ligatures pes and flexa). But nevertheless,
this language still abstracts from a particular flavour of notation
(i.e. the language does not express the graphical appearance of the
neumes, but is musicologically common for square neumes, gothic numes,
adiastematic neumes, etc.; although, currently only square neume ligatures
are fully implemented).
I explored some pists for printing : MusiXTeX seems interesting but it is not
complete for gregorian chant. One part of the project could consist in
completing it. I also watched OpusTeX, but even if it seems better-made, the
licence is not clear, and I want to make something totally under GPL.
While the input language for Lily's Gregorian Chant implementation
has been developed from scratch, OpusTeX served as a model with respect to
the features supported. Only very few of OpusTeX's features are still
missing, most notably the versus/responsio marks and horizontal alignment
of vowels in the lyrics with left side of corresponding ligatures.
OpusTeX's \augmentumduplex command is considered superfluous for Lily,
providing that the horizontal placement of dots within ligatures will be
fixed. \musicinitial and \textinitial are also missing, but can be
mimicked with help of the instrument name engraver (though we may want to
add handy scheme macros for this purpose). Lily has also severe problems
with spacing between ligatures, and placement of accidentals within
ligatures is not yet handled correctly. Meanwhile, I consider Lily's
Gregorian Chant engine much better than OpusTeX with respect to many
typographical details (except for horizontal alignment).
But writing MusiXTeX or OpusTeX is totally horrible, with key words like
"\punctumreversumparvum", so another way to write it must be used. Lilypond
style of writing seems apreciated, that's why I'm interested in defining some
grammar for gregorian chant in the style of Lilypond, and eventually
integrate it into Lilypond for another way of printing.
Can you explain this in more detail? Is your plan to extend or replace
the current input language for Gregorian Chant notation?
But a first step
could be a definition of an easy language, that could be converted into xml,
and from xml to MusiXTeX for example, even if it is unwise :).
Conversion from a (musicological oriented) xml language to MusiXTeX should
be basically feasible, but will probably be a lot of work to implement,
since MusiXTeX's input language is rather CAD-stylish than musicologically
could of course evolve as the printing system (of Lilypond) would evolve too,
but evolution is not dangerous, as all partitions could be converted in xml,
that will not evolve.
I'm very interested in the evolution and the actual state of Lilypond's
gregorian chant engine, it would be nice if I could have informations, and,
if the project goes in this direction, I could collaborate. I think producing
notation is important, but I don't know how Lilypond produces it, is it
There are a couple of Gregorian Chant characters implemented in metafont,
see appendix C.4 in the tutorial:
(Search in this table for characters that contain the
substring "vaticana" in their name.)
More "dynamic" shapes, such as the curved shape of the porrectus, are
drawn "on the fly" by directly generating proper postscript/pdf code.
Hope that helps,
|[Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread]|
- Re: A few questions,
Juergen Reuter <=