Re: Is lilypond really suitable for composing?

[Nathan Sprangers]

I've been using lilypond for a much shorter time, but my impression is that lilypond excels when you know exactly what you want to input. It's also difficult to work on different parts of the score unless you set up some sort of system to break the piece into smaller chunks.

So I've been doing more work at the piano than I used to, then creating my score in lilypond based on my hand written sketch. Honestly, working at the piano has been more efficient than doing similar work in musescore.

On Mar 22, 2018 11:41 AM, "jtruc34" <address@hidden> wrote:

That may seem like a stupid question, but I've been using LilyPond with
Frescobaldi for a year and a half, but I start to ask myself if it is as
efficient as if I had used another tool like Musescore.

I explain: I don't have at all a powerful computer, and I think that an
essential feature that I have to have to compose efficiently is to see what
I've written in real-time. There is such a feature in Frescobaldi name
"continuous engraving" (or something like that, my version is not in
English), but on my slow computer and with a big project such as a 20-pages
quartet or symphony, it takes at least 40 to 50 seconds to render.

In addition, it would be great to hear the music out of the midi file by
clicking on the preview (like on almost every WYSIWYG music software) but
Frescobaldi's midi player is pretty useless for that.

I'm not saying that LilyPond and Frescobaldi are bad, it's probably just me
who don't know the right tools or the right way to use them. I'm asking to
find a way to make my workflow more convenient to compose.

Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks!



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user