Re: Basic questions about LilyPond.

[David Bobroff]

At 11:58 PM 4/7/2004 +1000, you wrote:
>     In general, each of the programs I named above seems to have problems
for
>me, at least insofar as I have gleaned information about how they work
(since I
>do not have copies of any of them, and have tried only demo versions of older
>versions of Finale and Sibelius):
>
>Finale:
>  User interface seems awkward and difficult, not sufficiently
keyboard-based.
>Perhaps I just haven't learned enough about it, but I couldn't perform any
tasks
>at all with the keyboard.

LilyPond: no integrated GUI, text-based input.

>Sibelius:
>  Keyboard use seems better than Finale, but still not sufficiently so.
Certain
>things seemed rigidly determined, not alterable by the user.  (Admittedly
I was
>using an older demo, and the problem may have been corrected - but an example
>is: I was able to change the position of a note, but couldn't change the
>position of an accidental relative to the note.)
>  Also, heavy reliance on the keypad seemed too much of an obstacle for
use on a
>laptop.

Again, LilyPond is completely text-based in it's input.  I use it on a
laptop myself.

>Score:
>  Being an MS-DOS-style program is, if anything, a drawcard for me; but I
gather
>this program is more suitable for engraving already-complete music than for
>composing, which involves frequent changing of bars.

I've never seen Score in use myself, but editing in LilyPond is simply a
matter of typing.

>Graphire Music Press:
>  I'm not aware of any mailing list for this program, and know almost nothing
>about it.  But I believe that, like Score, it is not suitable for
composing in,
>for similar reasons.
>

Never heard of it.

>Igor Engraver:
>  I have concerns about speed of operation and stability of the software,
based
>on reports I heard from others.  Constant crashes of Windows-based software I
>already use make my computing life a real obstacle course, and the last
thing I
>need is unstable major software.  (My attention has drifted away from
Igor, so
>maybe more recent releases have corrected this - I don't know.)
>  Also, changes in the company and in the apparent direction of
development of
>the software give me concern about long-term commitment to this software.
>
>     Maybe I have the ideal software in mind, which doesn't exist outside
my own
>mind, and maybe I'd find significant problems with any existing software.
>However, since it appears LilyPond is Unix-based, and doesn't have a
graphical
>user interface (which I don't like much anyway), and I have read high
praise for
>it, and am considering switching to Linux, it at least seems worth
considering
>for my own use.

Know nothing of it personally.

>     Could I please ask for any general opinions on the following questions?
>
>1.
>     Does LilyPond compare well in features with professional-level programs
>such as those I named above?  My composing style is not avant-garde, but does
>tend to occasionally use rather complex textures which require flexible
>solutions to notation problems.  So I definitely need to be able to notate
the
>sort of complexity one might find in late-19th or early-20th century piano
>music.

LilyPond compares quite favorably.  The developers have as their standard
engraved music.

>     For instance: are devices such as polytonal key signatures in different
>staves, non-standard key signatures,

Yes.

> and different metres in different staves

Yes, but, I believe, with some caveats.

>possible in LilyPond.
>
>2.
>     I am a touch-typist and pianist, and thus efficient keyboard use of
>software is an important consideration to me.  I do not like software where I
>have to alternate my right hand often between the mouse and the keyboard;
and I
>do not like any software that requires me to use the mouse hundreds of
times per
>hour, and feel that it could cause hand damage (even more than the keyboard
>might).
>     So I would appreciate some opinions about how efficiently music can be
>entered on the computer keyboard without using the mouse at all, or at
least not
>for often-repeated operations.


The only reason you'll need a mouse to use LilyPond will be to change from
viewing your input to your output.  All editing is done in a text editor
(emacs, vim, whatever, and LilyPond has custom modes for use with emacs and
vim).  The file is then processed and the output, typically postscript/pdf
is veiwed with a viewer.

>3.
>     If I adopt any music notation program, it will be used on a laptop
>computer, with its lack of a separate numeric keypad.  (While this can be
>simulated by toggling shift keys, this seems a clumsy procedure.)  Is
LilyPond
>dependent on frequent use of a numeric keypad - like Sibelius is, for
instance.
>If so, can the configuration be altered to get around this.
>     In general, how configurable is LilyPond for different methods of usage?

I'm repeating myself a bit here but, again, the input is text-based.  Yes,
you will need numbers but they're available across the top row anyway.
Numbers are used for note values.  LilyPond input syntax is very compact.
It is not necessary to enter a note's duration value if it is the same as
the preceding note's value.

I'm not sure what you mean by "configurable".  It is possible to create
your own definitions for things you use a lot.  That can be almost
anything: a musical pattern that you use over and over (possibly useful in
composition, for example).

>4.
>     Playback of a score on the computer is of secondary importance to me,
but I
>might as well know about this: so does LilyPond play back music?  Or is it
>strictly *notation* only.  Are the playback features (if they exist) quite
>advanced, or rather basic?  Do you need a lot of technical knowledge to
get good
>playback.  (I know a lot about notation and music theory, but almost nothing
>about the use of audio on computers, and have limited interest in getting
>involved in complex technical matters.)


LilyPond can create MIDI files for playback.

You're familiar with Finale, Sibelius and other programs.  I used to use
Finale quite a bit and became moderately adept at it.  I really liked it.
I used some TeX based music printing systems (MusiXTeX/OpusTeX) off and on
and eventually tried LilyPond.  I came back to LilyPond again a year or so
ago.  There was a learning curve involved as well as the need to change the
way I thought about music printing software.  LilyPond allows you to treat
your music as data.  LilyPond worries about linebreaks, spacing etc. (these
can all be overridden, of course).  If you change the size of the printed
music LilyPond automatically changes the layout to reflect the size change.

As for your concerns about disk space; The tarball for the latest stable
version of LilyPond is 1.8Mb.  The unpacked source directory after
compiling is 66.3Mb (there are undoubtedly other files taking up space,
such as font files etc., the LilyPond binary is 2.4Mb).  The files created
are plain text files.  They are compact to begin with and are very
compressible.  LilyPond creates output files that are larger of course
(*.dvi, *.ps, *.pdf) but it is not necessary to keep these files around.

I suspect that LilyPond will suit you very well.

I recommend that you subscribe to the user list.

-David