I just think that a lot of the complaints I'm seeing in this forum are because people don't understand what problem LilyPond is trying to solve and who will benefit. If somebody ever develops a front-end to LilyPond that's actually integrated (as opposed to something like Rosegarden that can just export to LilyPond's format), then it might be more accessible to the average musician.ĭon't get me wrong - I think that LilyPond is great. LilyPond, by itself, is only of use to professional engravers, and only those who are willing to learn how to use it. It might take quite a bit longer to get your music input, but the end result will look nice - and will not require nearly as much tweaking. LilyPond, on the other hand, reads a description of the music in a text-based format, and formats it automatically - using much nicer algorithms than Finale apparently uses. But if you spend a little bit of time fixing the glaring errors, the result is readable by most musicians. How's the output? Pretty crappy if you don't spend any time playing with it. While it has some very non-intuitive options, it's straightforward enough that most amateur musicians are able to sit down and click around until they get it to do what they want. You can enter your notes relatively quickly, tweak them a little, print, and go. Finale is buggier than Windows ME and twice as bloated, but once you learn how to use it, it gets the job done. The most popular music notation software is Finale. If you're less serious than I am, LilyPond is definitely not intended for you. LilyPond is not intended for people like me. I'm a pretty serious amateur jazz musician, and I do a fair amount of composing and arranging for jazz ensembles of about 8-16 musicians. A tool that bangs out pretty nice scores fast, that's a good use of software. The whole thing seemed to be "we make better printouts that anybody else" seems awfully subjective and not really the main point.Ī tool that likely takes 10 times as long to make a simple score for band class (not to mention the huge learning curve) is not a good computer tool for most musicians. Those people that want engraving, will probably pay an engraver to do so. They aren't looking to make works of art. So, the use LaTeX markup ideas, add in a Scheme interpreter, don't really bother with MIDI import or other standards, focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else and basically come up with a tool that almost nobody will probably use.īecause most musicians just want to make readable scores quickly and effectively. Basically, the authors are trying to make a tool that matches their ideal of music engraving. I was reading this, and it basically summed up how good ideas can go horribly wrong. by the time it gets ready, all the interested people and developers will have gone elsewhere or vanished in disgust. On the other hand, if your objective is to create a framework for music notation software, midi in, etc, etc, then you need to work with people in that community so that you can have more attention and people drawn to that project.Īs it stands now, this software is like enlightenment 17. Most of my musician friends cant even use finale well, so how can one expect the same of this program. Fine, but i dont see how this is going to help inspire musicians to use this arcane latex garbage to print out a set of exercises. The developers seem to be focusing on making things "right" and in a description language. This is never going to get off the ground, and is a hindrance to the adoption of linux by musicians, when in reality things like jack, ardour, and alsa make it an excellent platform for creative types, a la Pd, miller puckette's wonderful synthesis program. The problem is that programmers arent creative in this department. I also use linux, and like the open source model. Guys, I am a professional musician who occasionaly makes a few hundred bucks setting out of print scores to finale or sibeleus.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |