[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and
From: |
Heikki Junes |
Subject: |
Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:24:14 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050602) |
Erik Sandberg wrote:
As you say, it could be useful to start a constructive dialogue with the SCORE
folks, to
(a) see what it would require (in terms of improved program design) to make
them join us.
(b) get inspiration from their engraving expertise.
I found a nice EPS-file advertising what SCORE can do, take a look at
http://www.scoremus.com/color.eps
The example contains many things what lilypond is able to do.
In my opinion, LilyPond should excel in the basic music notation, in music
notation for everyone. This is the base where most users are.
Therefore, the biggest news for an ordinary user may be the "\verse"
-markup,
currently mentioned only in the comment of the score-text.ly -source, see:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.7/input/regression/out-www/collated-files.html#score-text.ly
This "\verse" could, for example, just simplify the following:
\markup {
% \fill-line {
\line {
"3. "
\column {
\line { My last Li-ly text }
\line { See what will be next! }
}
}
% }
}
to something as simple as
\verse {
"3. "
"My last Li-ly text"
"See what will be next!"
}
I am also happy to see that LilyPond meets the needs of contemporary
composers, experts, etc. through the spurred development via sponsoring.
If LilyPond will continue meet the needs of most modern composers, its
manuals will become the primary source for studying _hand-written_
notation practises -- I would like to see this happen. I still prefer
first to write scores by
hand, and only then to transcribe them using LilyPond.
I am not worried about that will the number of LilyPond users increase.
It will, as long as the LilyPond project continues.
Heikki
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, (continued)
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Johannes Schindelin, 2005/08/18
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Pedro Kröger, 2005/08/18
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Johannes Schindelin, 2005/08/18
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/08/18
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Pedro Kröger, 2005/08/18
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Erik Sandberg, 2005/08/18
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration,
Heikki Junes <=
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/08/18
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Erik Sandberg, 2005/08/18
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/08/18
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Erik Sandberg, 2005/08/20
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Hans Aberg, 2005/08/20
- Page breaks, was: something else, Mats Bengtsson, 2005/08/22
- Re: Page breaks, was: something else, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/08/22
- Re: Page breaks, was: something else, Erik Sandberg, 2005/08/22
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Trevor Baca, 2005/08/18
- Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/08/18