LilyPond vs. MuseScore

Theory and practice of composition and arranging for classical guitar, discussion of works in progress, etc.
Forum rules
III Our MP3, WMV, MOV, OGG, AVI, Authors' rights

Composers' Workshop
Theory and practice of composition and arranging for classical guitar, discussion of works in progress, etc.

Once you have subscribed to the 002 group, you can attach the following types of files to your messages:
Audio : .mp3 .ogg .wav .flac
Video : .avi .flv .mov .wmv
Score : .pdf .jpg .gif .png
Finale: .mus
Nick Payne
Amateur luthier
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Canberra

Re: LilyPond vs. MuseScore

Post by Nick Payne » Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:14 pm

One thing which I'm not that keen on is that the Lilypond program has to generate the entire score from scratch whenever you want to view something recently inputed.
Not at all. Have a look at the showLastLength command. For example, if I'm engraving a piece in 3/4 time, until I've completed inputting the score I would include the line:

Code: Select all

showLastLength = R1*3/4*10
in the ly file to only generate the last ten bars of the score. This cuts processing time to a couple of seconds. Once the source file is complete I comment out that line to get the full score built.


User avatar
Posts: 6531
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Re: LilyPond vs. MuseScore

Post by Paul » Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:20 pm

Bloody marvellous!


Re: LilyPond vs. MuseScore

Post by aNovitiate » Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:01 pm

pogmoor wrote: I am not in the "marketing game" nor did I say that OMR software is 100% accurate. I said it's much quicker to scan music than entering it by hand. I say this as a user of PhotoScore Ultimate. Of course it costs money and it's only worth getting if you need to use it - as an amateur arranger I wouldn't be without it.
I understand ... and Agree - completely ... and thank you for the clarification and guidance.
pogmoor wrote: On the LilyPond vs, MuseScore theme - which after all is what this thread is meant to be about -
Good point - so, I thought it worthwhile (for all) to start a separate music OCR software thread, which I just did.
pogmoor wrote: I think I might be a MuseScore user (if I hadn't bought Sibelius a long time ago) as it looks very flexible and the quality of the output looks good to me. I admire LilyPond users for being able to remember all those codes but I don't think I could get on with it. I used a lute tablature program called Tab for a while that works the same way and it always gave me a headache to remember how to use it :)
Yes, the MuseScore crew seems to be doing a Great job ... and staying intent on improving it.

While LilyPond produces an admirable result, it involves (requires) essentially learning a mini-programming language, which is fine, if one is constantly using it, but easy to forget over less-than-frequent use.

Thanks, again - for the patient input and guidance. We're making valuable progress. :D


confirmation: proof of concept

Post by aNovitiate » Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:00 pm

I succeeded in hooking up a digital keyboard (Y.. PSR-E423) via USB to a PC ... and the keyboard 'typed' notes right into a blank MuseScore score-document - without further adjustment! Yea! ... most importantly, chords, too, which are time-consuming to enter via a PC keyboard.

The only issue, I can see, is that the process doesn't, directly, know about note-duration (e.g. quarter-note vs. eighth-note etc); you have to choose the note-duration with your mouse.

The only major downside is that I'll have to learn some keyboard notes - to 'type' the input :contrat: That shouldn't kill us, right?

It's a heck of a lot faster than trying to 'scan' and re-edit.

... and MuseScore can/will 'play' your score back (for confirmation), using synthesized tones for whatever instrument, you designated, upon creating the blank score document. :bravo:

Now, we can re-finger and re-position to our hearts content; then, re-Print for our loose-leaf repertoire book. :lol:


Re: LilyPond vs. MuseScore

Post by olson1958 » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:50 pm

Musecore seems a lot more user friendly for those of us who don't want to make the time for programming.


Re: LilyPond vs. MuseScore

Post by Buckley » Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:00 pm

I just checked out Musescore yesterday and was pleasantly surprised to see how easy it was to use. I got the hang of Lilypond a few years ago and could at one time pound out scores pretty easily, but Musescore seems so much easier.

User avatar
Posts: 1504
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:18 pm
Location: UK / Cyprus

Re: LilyPond vs. MuseScore

Post by sxedio » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:51 pm

I use lilypond quite a bit, don't remember much, so every new score is created by copying an older one and then modifying accordingly, and keeping documentation at hand. I like the end result and don't feel like changing now.

If you are considering midi input, you could use a guitar midi controller, see viewtopic.php?f=16&t=62023
(Gr) (En) (very little Fr)


Re: LilyPond vs. MuseScore

Post by Adilson » Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:58 pm

hello everybody

I like Lilypond. It's very easy to install in my favorite Operacional Sistem Ubuntu.



Re: LilyPond vs. MuseScore

Post by AlexRaven » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:56 pm

i write my notes in musescore and Guitar Pro 6. In Guitar Pro you can easily remove tabs if you don' need it. I've tried to install Llypond in Windows but something went wrong and I did not succeed. May be I missed something - but tell me - Lyli can import pdf files? if not how one manage to load pdf in some musical editor? Is there any free converters from pdf to musescore supported import files?

Nick Payne
Amateur luthier
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Canberra

Re: LilyPond vs. MuseScore

Post by Nick Payne » Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:37 am

For OCR, have a look at Audiveris, which is open source music OCR software that can read PDF and various graphic formats such as JPG or TIFF, and which outputs musicXML format files. You can get it from, where you'll find source code and prebuilt installers for Linux and Windows.

However, my experience from playing around with it is that if your input is not high quality (i.e. most of the scanned PDFs found on IMSLP are of insufficient quality), you'll spend so much time fixing scanning errors caused by the poor quality input that it's no quicker than entering the notes from scratch in whatever engraving program you normally use.

Return to “Composers' Workshop”