[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Presentation: "Publisher-grade LilyPond" in Ottawa

From: Reinhold Kainhofer
Subject: Re: Presentation: "Publisher-grade LilyPond" in Ottawa
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:17:09 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.32-22-generic; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

Am Sonntag, 13. Juni 2010, um 16:55:01 schrieben Sie:
> May I suggest that "Publisher-Grade" is perhaps a misnomer?  This makes it
> sound like we can't produce *any* publisher-grade music without footnotes,
> or endnotes, or widow/orphan control.  Perhaps an adjustment to the title
> to "Publisher-Grade Critical Edition" would help clarify things.

Well, my talk about OrchestralLily was exactly about creating Publisher-grade 
critical editions ;-) They are definitely possible in lilypond (+LaTeX for the 
prefatory matter and the critical report).

On the other hand, each critical edition has its own requirements. I have 
found LilyPond fairly good for classical music and critical reports where the 
sources are clear, so only differences in the dynamics or maybe different 
orchestration (and some typos) need to be discussed. In this case, I simply 
insert larger images into latex, but don't have to mix text with music.

For ancient music, where the notation is less than clear (like in Boris' 
cases), however, the situation is apparently quite different.

Of course, there are still lots of shortcomings for classical editions, too, 
but they are no showstoppers, just annoyances (like not having footnotes to 
add a comment about a different orchestration, or a note referring to the 
critical report).

The only two things that are holding me up still are

-) The vertical reordering of figured bass figures with extenders (currently 
<6 5> <5 3> wrongly places the 3 above the extender). I'm still working on the 
patch, only some spacing issues are still holding me up...

-) Cues to vocal voices do not contain lyrics, and it is practically 
impossible to add lyrics to the quotes at all using workarounds.

> I'd appreciate anything you could do to clarify (for the  -devel list and
> for the bug tracker, not necessarily for the paper) the status of the
> "vendor tree" relative to inclusion in LilyPond.  For example, if there's a
> patch available that is just missing its test case, then we ought to have
> an issue about that.


> If there are other patches that are not yet up to
> LilyPond status, but might be able to get there, it would be nice to have
> them listed as issues with patches attached.  

I suppose a starting point could be to look at the patches already uploaded to 
rietveld by Boris:

> Then we'd at least know that
> there is work to be done.  As long as the patches are only in your vendor
> tree, the community can't really help.

BTW, is your "vendor tree" git repository available somewhere? It might even 
be useful to use your own dev/shingarov branch (or dev/shingarov/* branches) 
in Lilypond's git...


Reinhold Kainhofer, address@hidden,
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 *, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting,

reply via email to

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