lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: producing "archival" scores


From: Cameron Horsburgh
Subject: Re: producing "archival" scores
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:05:06 +1000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 11:29:28PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:

(snip)

> >There is not now, nor ever will be, some universal music language.
> >MusicXML is an option, but not one everybody will choose.  One could ask
> >the exact same question by replacing 'lilypond' with 'MusicXML'.  The
> >issue with archival (it seems to me) is a format whose source will
> >"always" be readable and whose output will "always" be viewable.  Seems
> >to me Lilypond and MusicXML are the only ones that provide both of
> >these.  They also seem to me to be the only two options that are
> >non-proprietary so others will not have purchase anything to access your
> >work.  Whether you prefer MusicXML or Lilypond is a matter of taste,
> >methinks.  Obviously the people on this list are going to have a marked
> >bias towards Lilypond, but that is indeed another question.
> >
> >I could argue that Finale is also "a music interchange format that is
> >widely supported."  MusicXML is just one more way of encoding music.
> >Any format that uses plain text as source and a non-proprietary compiler
> >I think is a perfectly decent archival option.
> 
> There's an important distinction to be drawn here.  MusicXML vs
> Lilypond is not just a matter of taste because the two clearly have
> different goals.  MusicXML is objectively a terrible format for
> inputting music from a computer keyboard.  However, according to
> Wikipedia, "MusicXML is supported to varying degrees by over 75
> different notation programs, including the two leading scorewriting
> programs, Finale and Sibelius."  Because it is supported by many
> different programs of all types (graphical and ascii, free and
> non-free, etc.), and because it is open so that any project can add
> support for it, MusicXML is currently a viable "interchange format."
> 
> Lilypond is not readable by such a large array of programs, and so is
> currently a less viable interchange format.  Now, it is possible (but
> seemingly not likely) that in the future all these and other programs
> will adopt support for lilypond, which would make it a viable
> interchange format.  Barring that, though, and in it's current state,
> lilypond is something of a black hole.  You can turn anything else
> into lilypond via MusicXML, but once you've worked on it in lilypond,
> there's no obvious way to get it back into a different editable
> format.  Luckily, this problem could be entirely addressed on
> Lilypond's end if it could be compiled to a suitable interchange
> format.  Figuring out if there was already a way to do this was the
> intent of my original question.  In my opinion, being able to get a
> file into an interchange format as I've described here is one property
> (certainly not the only property) that helps make it archival.
> 

(snip)

> I should say that I make no claims about MusicXML being in some way
> ideal for interchange.  It may or may not have inherent features that
> make it better than lilypond or other formats for interchange.  The
> only things it has going for it that I know or care about are that it
> is open, and that it has done a good enough job marketing itself that
> it is already widely supported.  The latter is, I suspect, no small
> task, which is why one might satisfy themselves with using MusicXML
> for interchange rather than trying to make their favorite format into
> an interchange format by convincing everyone else in the world to
> support it.
> 

A few years ago Chris Cannam interviewed Jan and Han-Wen about the
LilyPond project, and there was some discussion about the
shortcomings of MusicXML and how it differs from LilyPond. I'm not
sure if it adds much to this discussion, but it might be relevant.

The interview itself has disappeared, but it was Slashdotted and some
kind soul posted the text of the article (and was promptly modded -1
Troll, but there you go.)

If you want to have a look, go to
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100385&cid=8559721 

If you can get past the GNAA trolls there were a few interesting
comments made, too. Have a look at
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/13/2054227 



-- 

=============================================
Cameron Horsburgh

=============================================





reply via email to

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