Slashdot Mirror

Lilypond 2.4.1 fails completely on several Mutopia files including chopin-op-25-01.ly and also Lilypond itself doesn't compile without a lot of tweaking. Do you have a bug tracker? I couldn't see any mention of one on Lilypond - Development - Participate.webpage

Here's the error for that .ly file:

error: Error found in this music expression. Ignoring it
Backtrace:
In unknown file:
?: 0* [lilypond-main ("chopin-op-25-01.ly")]
In /usr/local/share/lilypond/2.4.1/scm/lily.scm:
596: 1* (let* ((failed #) (handler #)) (for-each (lambda # #) files) ...)
598: 2* [for-each # ("chopin-op-25-01.ly")]
In /usr/share/guile/1.6/srfi/srfi-1.scm:
661: 3 (if (null? rest) (letrec ((lp #)) (lp list1)) ...) ...
665: 4 (begin (f (car l)) (lp (cdr l)))
666: 5* [# "chopin-op-25-01.ly"]
In /usr/local/share/lilypond/2.4.1/scm/lily.scm:
600: 6 [catch ly-file-failed # #]
In unknown file:
?: 7* [#]
In /usr/local/share/lilypond/2.4.1/scm/lily.scm:
600: 8* [ly:parse-file "chopin-op-25-01.ly"]
In chopin-op-25-01.ly:
205: 9* (paper-set-staff-size (* 6 mm))

chopin-op-25-01.ly:205:26: In expression (paper-set-staff-size (* 6 mm)):
chopin-op-25-01.ly:205:26: Unbound variable: paper-set-staff-size

Here's the error for compiling 2.4.1
rm -f ./out/volta-engraver.dep; DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT="./out/volta-engraver.dep ./out/volta-engraver.o" g++ -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSTRING_UTILS_INLINED -Iinclude -I./out -I../flower/include -I../flower/./out -I../flower/include -O2 -finline-functions -g -pipe -I/usr/share/texmf/include/ -I/usr/include/python2.3 -O2 -finline-functions -g -pipe -I/usr/share/texmf/include/ -I/usr/include/python2.3 -W -Wall -Wconversion -o out/volta-engraver.o volta-engraver.cc
flex -Cfe -p -p -oout/lexer.cc lexer.ll
"lexer.ll", line 638: warning, -s option given but default rule can be matched
rm -f ./out/lexer.dep; DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT="./out/lexer.dep ./out/lexer.o" g++ -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSTRING_UTILS_INLINED -Iinclude -I./out -I../flower/include -I../flower/./out -I../flower/include -O2 -finline-functions -g -pipe -I/usr/share/texmf/include/ -I/usr/include/python2.3 -O2 -finline-functions -g -pipe -I/usr/share/texmf/include/ -I/usr/include/python2.3 -W -Wall -Wconversion -o out/lexer.o out/lexer.cc
out/lexer.cc:3457: warning: 'yy_start_stack_ptr' defined but not used
out/lexer.cc:3458: warning: 'yy_start_stack_depth' defined but not used
out/lexer.cc:3459: warning: 'yy_start_stack' defined but not used
out/lexer.cc:3461: warning: 'void yy_push_state(int)' declared `static' but never defined
out/lexer.cc:3464: warning: 'void yy_pop_state()' declared `static' but never defined
out/lexer.cc:3467: warning: 'int yy_top_state()' declared `static' but never defined
bison -o out/parser.cc parser.yy
mv -f parser.yy.tab.c out/parser.cc # bison 1.30
mv: cannot stat `parser.yy.tab.c': No such file or directory
make[1]: [out/parser.cc] Error 1 (ignored)
rm -f ./out/parser.dep; DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT="./out/parser.dep ./out/parser.o" g++ -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSTRING_UTILS_INLINED -Iinclude -I./out -I../flower/include -I../flower/./out -I../flower/include -O2 -finline-functions -g -pipe -I/usr/share/texmf/include/ -I/usr/include/python2.3 -O2 -finline-functions -g -pipe -I/usr/share/texmf/include/ -I/usr/include/python2.3 -W -Wall -Wconversion -o out/parser.o out/parser.cc
out/parser.cc: In function `int yyparse(void*)':
out/parser.cc:5540: error: expected primary-expression before "__attribute__"
out/parser.cc:5540: error: expected `

Rosegarden's notation and typesetting is good enough for a lot of single stave and 2-stave classical music. The What's wrong with music notation software section you cited gives only one serious typographical flaw -- the misplaced accidental -- in the output of Finale. The other flaws are really just nit-picking.

Looks like Rosegarden can export to Lilypond, which is by far the best music notation program AFAIAC. For years in our choir there were sheets made using Finale, and when I remade one using Lilypond people were asking me where is the book that this came from, it just looks so professional. They have a great paper on this .

The best places to get sheet music for free are The Choral Public Domain Library, the Mutopia Project, Gutenberg Music, the Sheet Music Archive, and the Werner Icking Music Archive. And while we're at it, the best way to engrave (typeset) music is with Lilypond.

Have you looked at Lilypond?

Also, if you're interested in printing scores, Lilypond is the Best Thing Ever.

The only downside is that you've got to be a printing/typesetting geek, not necessarily a musician; Not shy away from the fact that you can't just mouse the notes to their places, but rather you have to use an interpreted language to produce printable score. It's for people who want *great* output and get the notes to *exactly* where they should be with minimum hassle, and care to spend afternoons tweaking the output to get it *perfect*. It's not necessarily for those who want easy and simple way to enter it.

That said, it's still usable by average users, it just needs some understanding and caring to use. Rosegarden can export the MIDI scores to Lilypond format as well, if you want an usable interface, but trust me, entering stuff works really nicely with plain old text editor.

Han-Wen Nienhuys and Jan Nieuwenhuizen

Bet you don't know what they did. They wanted good software for producing high quality music notation layouts. So they wrote it. And, thankfully, they made it free software to share with the world, so the next person who wanted good software for producing high quality music notation layouts could use what they had and improve on it instead of starting over.

The result is GNU Lilypond. Currently it performs better than proprietary alternatives like Finale, but the interface is still text-based. But musicians tend to feel it does a superior layout job.

If the guy who I had an email conversation with awhile back manages to get the Aiken 7-shape shaped note system implemented for Lilypond, I'll sing his name, too.

Lilypond is a program, IMHO, generates scores & sheet music that aesthetically look better than anything that Finale can do. Though the format used isn't too user friendly. However, there are plenty of front-ends and programs capable of exporting to the lilypond format. One such program, Rosegarden, which not only is a music notation program, but a full suite of music editing funness (does audio recording). But like a brother post simply stated, linux-sound.org is a very usefull site with many many FOSS projects regarding audio.

Seriously, no one's claiming that the GIMP is no good to anyone. Nor that it's not a decent achievement, nor that it might not be the best value-for-money for many folks.

But if open source software is to live up to some of the hype that its own community generates, then it should also stand some comparison on merit, regardless of cost.

In some cases, it does -- LilyPond, for example, delivers the best-quality music engraving I've seen on any consumer package, better than what I've seen of Sibelius, and certainly better than my copy of Cubase (which excels at other things, of course). And of course, we all know how well it does at OS-level and similar software. In other cases, it's near enough for many people.

But if we're going to take the attitude that "It's free, so it doesn't need to be much good", then we're falling far, far short of our potential.

From the website FAQ:

I don't want to learn another syntax. Now what?

There are other options: it is possible to create the music in another format. Supported formats include

* MIDI: LilyPond includes midi2ly, a program that translates a MIDI file to LilyPond.
* ETF: LilyPond includes etf2ly, a convertor for the Finale ETF format (about ETF)
* ABC: LilyPond includes abc2ly, a convertor for the popular ABC format (about ABC)
* MusicXML. Guido Amoruso's xml2ly will convert MusicXML to LilyPond. (About MusicXML.).

I want to have an Graphical User Interface!

We have no time to also make a graphical user interface. Luckily, other people have filled the gap. The following programs have competent LilyPond export functions and are actively being developed.

* NoteEdit
* RoseGarden

There are also different, non-graphical interfaces:

* RUMOR is an interface to generate LilyPond input with a MIDI keyboard.
* LyQI provides a piano-like keyboard interface using the normal keyboard in emacs. It can also use RUMOR.

Bottom line is, lilypond is a base layer to build up on, see the Unix Philosophy.

Yes. The other things you mention are also possible.

anyone want to write a finale->lilypond convertor? :)

It's included with the LilyPond distribution. Check out the etf2ly manual section.

Yes. The other things you mention are also possible.

anyone want to write a finale->lilypond convertor? :)

It's included with the LilyPond distribution. Check out the etf2ly manual section.

it is possible to play a tune directly from the abc notation without having to process and print it out.

Right. So Lilypond is definitely NOT something that you want to use as a composition tool. It's a tool for a typesetter to use in an attempt to reproduce the quality of old-style, hand-engraved music scores.

To get an idea of what they're trying to address, take a look at this page.

I'm kinda surprised to see this article here. It's an ambitious project, I guess; but since the target audience of the product itself is so small (typesetters, rather than musicians), it seems of extremely limited interest.

lilypond test.ly
GNU LilyPond 1.8.0
Now processing: `/home/fred/ly/test.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...[1]

PDF output to `test.pdf'...
DVI output to `test.dvi'...

Ask, and ye shall receive screenshots

Cheers,

Tels

Why is it that so many Unix/Linux programs (and everything else, for that matter) do not provide simple screenshots on their products websites?

Lilypond not only has screenshots, but a very comprehensive tour. Well, these aren't really screenshots, but rather the final output - it's a command-line program, after all. They do have some interesting examples with proper screenshots, too.

Why is it that so many Unix/Linux programs (and everything else, for that matter) do not provide simple screenshots on their products websites?

Lilypond not only has screenshots, but a very comprehensive tour. Well, these aren't really screenshots, but rather the final output - it's a command-line program, after all. They do have some interesting examples with proper screenshots, too.

Admittedly, they don't have a link called Screenshots on their main page, but in two clicks you can get to this page, which leads you on a complete tour of the program, including a page of screenshots.

Admittedly, they don't have a link called Screenshots on their main page, but in two clicks you can get to this page, which leads you on a complete tour of the program, including a page of screenshots.

It looks pretty easy acutally. Check here. Basically, you just enter each voice as a separate sequence, and then combine them by enclosing the whole thing in double angled brackets. Pretty easy on the eyes all in all.

You can see their howto pages to see it in action. You probably want to check out some sample outputs. And this project also uses LilyPond. Check that out.

You can see their howto pages to see it in action. You probably want to check out some sample outputs. And this project also uses LilyPond. Check that out.

Obviously you didn't bother to read past the first of these FAQs, which is a bit sad. It's exactly as if you said "Why bother using TeX when I can typeset mathematics in Word?"

Well, you can. But no journal will accept your output, because the quality just isn't up to snuff. Likewise, Finale's output is not up to the time-honored standards of music publishing. To musicians who sight-read at a professional level, the difference matters. In the long run, they can't stand it any more than Knuth could stand the piss-poor, headache-inducing math typesetting that enraged him into writing TeX. Quote:

Layout should be pretty, not only for its own sake, but especially because it helps the reader in his task. For performance material like sheet music, this is doubly important: musicians have a limited amount of attention. The less attention they need for reading, the more they can focus on playing itself. In other words, better typography translates to better performances.

Obviously you didn't bother to read past the first of these FAQs, which is a bit sad. It's exactly as if you said "Why bother using TeX when I can typeset mathematics in Word?"

Well, you can. But no journal will accept your output, because the quality just isn't up to snuff. Likewise, Finale's output is not up to the time-honored standards of music publishing. To musicians who sight-read at a professional level, the difference matters. In the long run, they can't stand it any more than Knuth could stand the piss-poor, headache-inducing math typesetting that enraged him into writing TeX. Quote:

Layout should be pretty, not only for its own sake, but especially because it helps the reader in his task. For performance material like sheet music, this is doubly important: musicians have a limited amount of attention. The less attention they need for reading, the more they can focus on playing itself. In other words, better typography translates to better performances.

Free or not. Typesetting or not. This program has a long ways to go......

Why is it that so many Unix/Linux programs (and everything else, for that matter) do not provide simple screenshots on their products websites?

Well, here's what appears to be a screenshot of LilyPond in use.

I'd like to be able to play music into it. According to the FAQ:

"Automatic notation, so that means I can play the music, and then it rolls out of the printer?

No. Our system assumes that the input data is available in an exact, abstract form. Printing music is difficult enough as it is, so we do not wish to add another problem. Translating what a human plays to exact form is hard. Even if you get the correct pitch data from a MIDI keyboard (as opposed to a sound recording), one has to get the rhythms correct. For example, how is a computer supposed to distinguish between a staccato quarter note and an eighth note? Moreover, how would you print a piece that you cannot play in such a system?"

I'd like to be able to play music into it. According to the FAQ:

"Automatic notation, so that means I can play the music, and then it rolls out of the printer?

No. Our system assumes that the input data is available in an exact, abstract form. Printing music is difficult enough as it is, so we do not wish to add another problem. Translating what a human plays to exact form is hard. Even if you get the correct pitch data from a MIDI keyboard (as opposed to a sound recording), one has to get the rhythms correct. For example, how is a computer supposed to distinguish between a staccato quarter note and an eighth note? Moreover, how would you print a piece that you cannot play in such a system?"

Lilypond: A great open source music notation program.

Cinepaint: Painting and retouching.

CDex: CD Ripper and converter.

Panda 3d: 3D rendering engine.

Mambo: Content management

Gordian Knot:DivX/XviD encoding

Helix: Media player

7 Zip: Zip

The others are flinging around other cool Linux audio apps, allow me to mention one more.

GNU Lilypond, simply the sweetest music typesetting package ever made. It is very very amazing.

It's not technically latex, AFAIAA. It uses Tex for output, but the syntax of the lilypond markup language is different. That said, yes, the output is simply gorgeous. This example was the clincher. It's so jaw droppingly better looking than Finale, I don't even want to try to joke about it. Of course, I always felt like the key benefit of lilypond was not paying $600 for a license.

Here is some gregorian chant, or polymetric stuff.

nonstandard key signatures,

See this example

cutout scores, feathered beaming, ossia measures, etc.

These are not supported, although feathered beaming would not be difficult to implement. However, I have played in a ensemble that plays 20th and 21st century music exclusively for the past five years, and I have rarely seen the contraptions that you mention in modern music; most of it is notated with traditional notation, with a lot of time-sig changes. In fact, publishers nowadays will not engrave such funky scores, but have them written by hand, or they will reproduce the manuscript (Unless you happen to be called Xenakis or Berio.)

I had a copy job that I originally tried to do in Lilypond via the text interface and copying one part from the score took almot nine hours of typing, rendering it, fixing it, and re-rendering it to ensure that it came out right.

YMMV; I have recently produced parts & score (4 pages for the 2nd part). It took me approximately 30 minutes. Granted, it was a straightforward piece, but the speed depends much on how well-versed you are with the software. Finally, LilyPond has progressed very much in usability over the last year. If the last time you tried it was more than a year ago, you might want to give it another go.

Lilypond would need to have a nicer MIDI-compatible interface thrown on top of it to compete.

Have you seen RoseGarden and NoteEdit.

Here is some gregorian chant, or polymetric stuff.

nonstandard key signatures,

See this example

cutout scores, feathered beaming, ossia measures, etc.

These are not supported, although feathered beaming would not be difficult to implement. However, I have played in a ensemble that plays 20th and 21st century music exclusively for the past five years, and I have rarely seen the contraptions that you mention in modern music; most of it is notated with traditional notation, with a lot of time-sig changes. In fact, publishers nowadays will not engrave such funky scores, but have them written by hand, or they will reproduce the manuscript (Unless you happen to be called Xenakis or Berio.)

I had a copy job that I originally tried to do in Lilypond via the text interface and copying one part from the score took almot nine hours of typing, rendering it, fixing it, and re-rendering it to ensure that it came out right.

YMMV; I have recently produced parts & score (4 pages for the 2nd part). It took me approximately 30 minutes. Granted, it was a straightforward piece, but the speed depends much on how well-versed you are with the software. Finally, LilyPond has progressed very much in usability over the last year. If the last time you tried it was more than a year ago, you might want to give it another go.

Lilypond would need to have a nicer MIDI-compatible interface thrown on top of it to compete.

Have you seen RoseGarden and NoteEdit.

Here is some gregorian chant, or polymetric stuff.

nonstandard key signatures,

See this example

cutout scores, feathered beaming, ossia measures, etc.

These are not supported, although feathered beaming would not be difficult to implement. However, I have played in a ensemble that plays 20th and 21st century music exclusively for the past five years, and I have rarely seen the contraptions that you mention in modern music; most of it is notated with traditional notation, with a lot of time-sig changes. In fact, publishers nowadays will not engrave such funky scores, but have them written by hand, or they will reproduce the manuscript (Unless you happen to be called Xenakis or Berio.)

I had a copy job that I originally tried to do in Lilypond via the text interface and copying one part from the score took almot nine hours of typing, rendering it, fixing it, and re-rendering it to ensure that it came out right.

YMMV; I have recently produced parts & score (4 pages for the 2nd part). It took me approximately 30 minutes. Granted, it was a straightforward piece, but the speed depends much on how well-versed you are with the software. Finally, LilyPond has progressed very much in usability over the last year. If the last time you tried it was more than a year ago, you might want to give it another go.

Lilypond would need to have a nicer MIDI-compatible interface thrown on top of it to compete.

Have you seen RoseGarden and NoteEdit.

Lilypond is free, and runs on Linux, but is unlikely to become much of an interchange standard because the UI isn't accessible to the vast majority of musicians, who are as a rule not experts on writing something according to a context-free grammar. Besides, Lilypond is best for typesetting-quality layout, at which it does indeed excel.

I'm not a musician, but I'm definitely a printer (or that's my heart's calling, or some other lame explanation like that). From my point of view, Lilypond rules. It's so far the greatest music app I've ever tried on Linux. Even if there's no "easy" GUI, I'm pretty convinced that it's far easier to work with than any GUI app (If I want that G there, I type "g4" and I'm done with it - I don't want to squint at the screen, wave around with mouse and hope for the best as I hit mouse button!) and it's also very powerful (One piece's guitar arpeggios got a whole lot easier to typeset when I noted that hey, I could just define macros...).

As for convincing musicians, or at least music publishers, to use Lilypond, I recommend everyone to check out Lilypond's "switch" page, and the automated engraving essay. These are so far the most convincing open-source "marketing materials" that I've seen - very interesting and in-depth.

I just yesterday received a book with all of Scott Joplin's piano music in it -- all written before 1915 -- and guess what? It says right on the front page that it is against the law to copy them!

Heh, copyright on modern editions is pain, yes, but I suppose it's the only motivation why old music still gets reprinted. If you spend hours and hours and hours trying to produce the perfect, good-looking reprint of an old piece of music, possibly "interpreting" the original, you deserve some credit for the work and get the reward. Still, the current world-wide copyright system is more than a bit odd anyway, but that's another topic.

Lilypond is free, and runs on Linux, but is unlikely to become much of an interchange standard because the UI isn't accessible to the vast majority of musicians, who are as a rule not experts on writing something according to a context-free grammar. Besides, Lilypond is best for typesetting-quality layout, at which it does indeed excel.

I'm not a musician, but I'm definitely a printer (or that's my heart's calling, or some other lame explanation like that). From my point of view, Lilypond rules. It's so far the greatest music app I've ever tried on Linux. Even if there's no "easy" GUI, I'm pretty convinced that it's far easier to work with than any GUI app (If I want that G there, I type "g4" and I'm done with it - I don't want to squint at the screen, wave around with mouse and hope for the best as I hit mouse button!) and it's also very powerful (One piece's guitar arpeggios got a whole lot easier to typeset when I noted that hey, I could just define macros...).

As for convincing musicians, or at least music publishers, to use Lilypond, I recommend everyone to check out Lilypond's "switch" page, and the automated engraving essay. These are so far the most convincing open-source "marketing materials" that I've seen - very interesting and in-depth.

I just yesterday received a book with all of Scott Joplin's piano music in it -- all written before 1915 -- and guess what? It says right on the front page that it is against the law to copy them!

Heh, copyright on modern editions is pain, yes, but I suppose it's the only motivation why old music still gets reprinted. If you spend hours and hours and hours trying to produce the perfect, good-looking reprint of an old piece of music, possibly "interpreting" the original, you deserve some credit for the work and get the reward. Still, the current world-wide copyright system is more than a bit odd anyway, but that's another topic.

Good point. How about using GNU Lilypond to draw all those obscure symbols? It does a great job, and it's free.

I've been working on LilyPond for the past eight years, and we're now finally reaching a stage where the output can be taken seriously. I estimate that it took over 4 man-years of work to develop the current source code (60k lines of C++, 10k Scheme, and 10k python). Of all that source, less than 10 % is concerned with the file format, and they form the easy bits. When it comes to notation, file formats are not the problem.

If you want to read more in-depth information on notation vs. music representation , I recommend to read the essay at lilypond.org.

Regarding buzzword compliancy: have a look at our XML format, but like I said: the format is besides the point. Han-Wen (LilyPond author)

I've been working on LilyPond for the past eight years, and we're now finally reaching a stage where the output can be taken seriously. I estimate that it took over 4 man-years of work to develop the current source code (60k lines of C++, 10k Scheme, and 10k python). Of all that source, less than 10 % is concerned with the file format, and they form the easy bits. When it comes to notation, file formats are not the problem.

If you want to read more in-depth information on notation vs. music representation , I recommend to read the essay at lilypond.org.

Regarding buzzword compliancy: have a look at our XML format, but like I said: the format is besides the point. Han-Wen (LilyPond author)

MIDI, MOD and like are good for storing events. In other words, they're excellent formats for storing music data intended to be interpreted and played back by computer.

However, they're very bad formats for storing notation, musical information that is intended to be human-readable. It's enough for computers to know "Pause of 0.3 seconds; C-4 note duration 0.6 seconds", but human performers have problems deciphering such notes. And as everyone who has messed around with conversion tools, MIDI-to-notation tools are inferior compared to hand-tweaked notation.

As for "bloat" of storing music in text formats, you can store a single note in GNU Lilypond in three bytes (or, in optimal cases, two, or one); can your MIDI or MOD files do the same? =)

Nay, Lilypond is the true king of open notation formats, even if it isn't XML-based and otherwise buzzword-compliant =)

And what was wrong with Lilypond's format? I know it's not that pretty but it works and is unencumbered. Was it because it wasn't buzzword compliant?

And what was wrong with Lilypond's format? I know it's not that pretty but it works and is unencumbered. Was it because it wasn't buzzword compliant?

So it looks like now I could take Finale-produced XML output, run it through xml2ly and get my Lilypond sheet music. Has anyone tried it?

Also, has anyone got LilyPond working on OS X 10.2(.8)? It looks like an interesting idea -- completely automated notation, done right so that it doesn't need any tweaking, with no GUI and input from a text file (with optional translation from MIDI files &c) -- but installation was a pig. It needs fink, so after spending 800MB of my HD and many hours downloading and compiling that, I try LilyPond and get a compiler error! I don't have time right now to try to find out why...

You have to be joking, or you've proved my point.

LilyPond doesn't do 1/10000th of what Finale does.

Ask any serious musician who prepares real scores for a living, and they will laugh...

if they even knew what it is.

Does lilypond have a UI?

Lilypond's "interface" it looks like the files that Finale saves.

Can Lilypond play back my score via MIDI for aural proofreading, the fastest way to catch mistakes before they hit the orchestra?

Can it automatically prepare parts from a 25-line score?

Can it automatically transpose an entire song to a different key? Can it cut and paste music between different instruments, automatically transposing for different instruments

Can it take a five-part harmonized line and split it out into five separate staves?

Currently, free software does not fill this niche, and seems likely never to.

You have to be joking, or you've proved my point.

LilyPond doesn't do 1/10000th of what Finale does.

Ask any serious musician who prepares real scores for a living, and they will laugh...

if they even knew what it is.

Does lilypond have a UI?

Lilypond's "interface" it looks like the files that Finale saves.

Can Lilypond play back my score via MIDI for aural proofreading, the fastest way to catch mistakes before they hit the orchestra?

Can it automatically prepare parts from a 25-line score?

Can it automatically transpose an entire song to a different key? Can it cut and paste music between different instruments, automatically transposing for different instruments

Can it take a five-part harmonized line and split it out into five separate staves?

Currently, free software does not fill this niche, and seems likely never to.

You have to be joking, or you've proved my point.

LilyPond doesn't do 1/10000th of what Finale does.

Ask any serious musician who prepares real scores for a living, and they will laugh...

if they even knew what it is.

Does lilypond have a UI?

Lilypond's "interface" it looks like the files that Finale saves.

Can Lilypond play back my score via MIDI for aural proofreading, the fastest way to catch mistakes before they hit the orchestra?

Can it automatically prepare parts from a 25-line score?

Can it automatically transpose an entire song to a different key? Can it cut and paste music between different instruments, automatically transposing for different instruments

Can it take a five-part harmonized line and split it out into five separate staves?

Currently, free software does not fill this niche, and seems likely never to.

You have to be joking, or you've proved my point.

LilyPond doesn't do 1/10000th of what Finale does.

Ask any serious musician who prepares real scores for a living, and they will laugh...

if they even knew what it is.

Does lilypond have a UI?

Lilypond's "interface" it looks like the files that Finale saves.

Can Lilypond play back my score via MIDI for aural proofreading, the fastest way to catch mistakes before they hit the orchestra?

Can it automatically prepare parts from a 25-line score?

Can it automatically transpose an entire song to a different key? Can it cut and paste music between different instruments, automatically transposing for different instruments

Can it take a five-part harmonized line and split it out into five separate staves?

Currently, free software does not fill this niche, and seems likely never to.

You have to be joking, or you've proved my point.

LilyPond doesn't do 1/10000th of what Finale does.

Ask any serious musician who prepares real scores for a living, and they will laugh...

if they even knew what it is.

Does lilypond have a UI?

Lilypond's "interface" it looks like the files that Finale saves.

Can Lilypond play back my score via MIDI for aural proofreading, the fastest way to catch mistakes before they hit the orchestra?

Can it automatically prepare parts from a 25-line score?

Can it automatically transpose an entire song to a different key? Can it cut and paste music between different instruments, automatically transposing for different instruments

Can it take a five-part harmonized line and split it out into five separate staves?

Currently, free software does not fill this niche, and seems likely never to.