Re: [GLISS] basics

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 24/09/12 14:07, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> I suggest to ask more for complaints than for ideas: what users find
> confusing, inconvenient and difficult to express in Lily syntax.  I
> think this will be more valuable information than proposals "let's
> have a syntax like this".

Actually, rather than "what users find difficult" (which I agree is important in 
and of itself), perhaps it's better to take a different tack: to try and prepare 
a systematic specification for the musical notations that Lilypond should support.

Then, go through each one and identify the extent Lilypond supports that 
notation, e.g.:

   (1) Lilypond syntax does not adequately support this notation without
       significant user effort, whether it's writing Scheme code, creating new
       glyphs, needing to create a new system of pitches and accidentals, ...

          EXAMPLE: arrowed quarter-tone notation.  For details, see:
          https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1278

   (2) Lilypond syntax theoretically supports this notation, but the actual
       engraving results are unreasonably imperfect.

          EXAMPLE: hairpin notation where the hairpin is meant to start or
          terminate part-way through a note.  See:
          
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-09/msg00690.html

          Also applies to placement of ornaments where they do not fall
          precisely on the note.

   (3) Lilypond supports this notation, but the syntax is excessively verbose
       compared to the simplicity or regularity of the notation itself.

          TENTATIVE EXAMPLE (I haven't really thought this through:-): slight
          horizontal and/or vertical offsets of dynamics, as is commonly found
          in many scores.  See e.g. Janek's example of the Mozart Requiem
          engraved by Bärenreiter:
          
http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-26#lilypond_output_analysis

   (4) Lilypond supports this notation, but the documentation is poor,
       confusing, or difficult to find.

Note that more than one of (2), (3) and (4) might apply to some notations.

That's going to give you a lot more information than what people _think_ are the 
problems, because the scope of notation that most Lilypond users engage with is 
probably much narrower than the scope of notation Lilypond needs to support in 
order to be a really effective engraving solution.

I don't have a copy of the Elaine Gould book you mentioned earlier, but that, 
together with Keith Stone and Gardner Read might be a good starting point.  It's 
also probably worth taking a reflective sample of compositions from different 
periods and seeing how readily they can be engraved; from contemporary music, 
for example, I think that Boulez, Stockhausen and Ferneyhough will probably give 
a good reflection of what Lilypond's limits are.