Why Lilypond?

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
User avatar
Mark Clifton-Gaultier
Posts: 1972
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:03 pm
Location: England

Re: Why Lilypond?

Post by Mark Clifton-Gaultier » Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:26 am

wbajzek wrote:. Can you point to examples in that file?
Yes, I'll do that - just don't have time right now. I agree, many issues do come down to personal preference.
wbajzek wrote:it turns out that both were engraved by Sylvain Lemay
Which scores are those?
jckoto3 wrote:But really, the look of the notes on the page are really not that terribly important compared to the sounds they can produce in skilled hands!
The beauty of the page is very important to me - maybe it doesn't matter when you're simply listening, but the sheet music itself is an artefact, like a book or a CD cover. Why not make them as pleasing to the eye as possible?
jckoto3 wrote:If you're satisfied with the output from Finale (and you already have the program), then there you go.
I was prompted to enquire because this is, after all, primarily a guitar site; I wondered if there were some guitar specific reasons for using Lilypond that were unknown to me.
jckoto3 wrote:I actually prefer very clearly legible hand calligraphy for scores, but that seems to be a dying art
I was taught to write music by hand and I agree to some extent. For all the many advantages of software based typesetting it is clear that many modern setters have barely enough theoretical knowledge, never mind any practical experience of writing music. This is particularly true in the guitar world and must partly account for the continued lack of a common standard with regard to things like position indications, harmonics etc.

Mark

wbajzek

Re: Why Lilypond?

Post by wbajzek » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:58 pm

Mark Clifton-Gaultier wrote:
wbajzek wrote:. Can you point to examples in that file?
Yes, I'll do that - just don't have time right now. I agree, many issues do come down to personal preference.
Thanks. Take your time, but if you get a chance, please do. I'm getting increasingly interested in the subject and others' perspectives would be very helpful.
wbajzek wrote:it turns out that both were engraved by Sylvain Lemay
Which scores are those?
One of the Stefano Grondona-edited Llobet books and Frank Koonce's Renaissance book. I'm not saying I think they're the most beautiful scores ever, but they are consistently very nice whereas some of the other pieces I have are either riddled with mistakes (anything eschig) or inconsistencies (schott)

I was prompted to enquire because this is, after all, primarily a guitar site; I wondered if there were some guitar specific reasons for using Lilypond that were unknown to me.
No, in fact I find some guitar related stuff to be cumbersome in lilypond, but I know that's my inexperience speaking. There have been other threads where members have come up with handy macros to accomplish these things, and I don't know the language well enough to do that myself yet. As I learn to incorporate those things, I'll probably compile them into a library that can be reused as needed.

Tiago

Re: Why Lilypond?

Post by Tiago » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:52 am

It's never too late... the problem with Lilypond is the learning curve, it's certainly not intuitive, but they have a good manual on the site. I have used Sibelius, Finale and Lilypond and all three are great, however, personally, Lilypond is superior and it works directly with latex which is the best of two worlds, you don't get more professional than that. There's one thing wbajzek mentioned which is important because it's true, lilypond's renderer to pdf isn't the best which means that all the flaws you see on screen isn't what a lilypond score actually looks like when printed. Most tweaks that are needed are just about page format, titles spacing, etc. Probably the same happens with the others in different degrees. For this reason you can't compare scores on screen, i've seen many people doing it but it's wrong, you have to print them.

From what i'm reading on the Sibelius forum there is a plugin to convert sibelius scores to lilypond which also give the best of two worlds if it works correctly, i could write the scores faster in Sibelius and print them with lilypond.

http://www.sibelius.com/cgi-bin/helpcen ... 3&&guest=1
One of them says "Sibelius remains by far the best notation software we've ever used. But, in our opinion, nothing beats Lilypond for typesetting." My opinion also.
Last edited by Tiago on Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JohnPierce

Re: Why Lilypond?

Post by JohnPierce » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:18 am

On August 1, Avid (owner of Sibelius) shut down the Sibelius development group in London. According to the Sibelius Users group, Avid is itself in financial trouble. If true, those bode ill for future support and improvement. See http://www.sibeliususers.org/ for more details under the "Backgound" link on that page.

Tiago

Re: Why Lilypond?

Post by Tiago » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:27 am

Yes someone mentioned it in another thread, it's a shame.

ps.

http://unito.academia.edu/LucaRossettoCasel/Books

This guy realized all the scores on his PhD thesis with Lilypond. There's dozens and dozens of pages of scores and all of them have all kind of imperfections, but it's just on the screen.

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

Re: Why Lilypond?

Post by Paul » Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:21 am

I was very happy to see that Frescobaldi is now available for Windows (and Mac OS X). I had Linux on my computer just so that I could use it along with LilyPond, but now Linux is unnecessary.

P.

Marco Helms

Re: Why Lilypond?

Post by Marco Helms » Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:53 pm

With Frecobaldi typesetting with Lilypond is very comfortable, without it is... I wouldn't even think about it. Concerning different OS, Windowsinstall goes painlessly. On OS X it is a little tricky to get fresco up and running, but there is a detailed instruction on the homepage of frescobaldi. Under many Linux distros lily & fresco have to be compiled from source, but e.g. Ubuntu provides packagesources for both, but not always latest versions.

If you are already familiar with programminglanguages the plugin for the free huge IDE called eclipse may be intersting too, but I haven't tried it yet.

For difficult notation problems not to be solved with the detailed documentation I can also recommend the german lilypondforum.de, they have a support in english and some very skilled members.

Return to “Composers' Workshop”