Slashdot Mirror
Linuxmusician.com Interviews LilyPond Authors
jcn writes "Chris Cannam talks to
the authors of
one of the best-known and most ambitious music programs for Linux, the LilyPond score engraving system. Unlike other typesetting software like Finale or Sibelius, LilyPond is not a score editor, it aims to use simple textual description of the music and turn it into the highest possible quality output, automatically.
Han-Wen says: In my opinion, any file format that claims to be universal should have two properties: it should have an expressive structure, so other formats can be expressed in it, and it should be as lean as possible, so that converting from other formats amounts to removing information. I think that MusicXML fits neither. Ouch."
Why is it that so many Unix/Linux programs (and everything else, for that matter) do not provide simple screenshots on their products websites?
If I'm going to download your program and install it (and in many cases, take time to compile it...) I want to know that it's going to look halfway decent when I'm done.
Why is this so hard for some programmers to understand?
While I know that this is more of a compositing program--at least from what I read so far...as I have shamefully not RTFA--I'm going to take this opportunity to bitch about the one thing that has been keeping me from making the switch to Linux for all these years:
Audio Apps
I'm no industry elitist that demands ProTools. in fact, I hate protools. The interface leaves much to be desires...granted, i'll buffer that (admittedly harsh) opinion: I'm a huge fan of CoolEditPro.....("eww, PC audio"...I can hear it already),
The underlying audio subsystems are a far cry from what windows offers. And what I experienced with in my limiting dealings with aRTS leaves much to be desired. (Think: latency) And I'm sure that has a lot to do with it....(why hasn't ASIO or an equiv been implemented yet?)
Aside from that all I ask for is a simple audio production suite where i can record something, and then playback and record something else. Simple full-duplex operation. I've been doing it in Windows for over 7 years now.....hell, I did it in DOS with my GUS 11 years ago.
Toss in a little simple single-track editing, some simple effects (Chorus/Flange, Dynamics processing, simple verb and delay, etc) and maintain development of the project and you've won yourself a full-fledged permenent windows convert.....and i'm willing to bet I'm not the only one.
Am I just out of touch? Is there already software out there that does this?
~Dan
Guys, I am a professional musician who occasionaly makes a few hundred bucks setting out of print scores to finale or sibeleus. I also use linux, and like the open source model.
The problem is that programmers arent creative in this department... those coders all work at apple.
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 developers seem to be focusing on making things "right" and in a description language. 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. Most of my musician friends cant even use finale well, so how can one expect the same of this program.
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.
As it stands now, this software is like enlightenment 17... by the time it gets ready, all the interested people and developers will have gone elsewhere or vanished in disgust.
Formatting textual output &/c, in TeX is a little more adaptable for a human being, as TeX and the actual, literal, written text are pretty much close.
However, for music, most musicians are most comfortable with writing music down in conventional music notation. Conventional music notation, in comparison, compared with LilyPond input are far apart. It's somewhat comparable to painting with a typewriter.
I don't really find much wrong with Lilypond itself, but I don't think it'd work too well for manual input. But coupled with a decent GUI input mechanism, it would work well.
As a musician, and someone who publishes their own work, why would I go through the effort to use this program? Using Finale with TgTools gives me just about everything I could want in a music notation program.......
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
I was reading this, and it basically summed up how good ideas can go horribly wrong. Basically, the authors are trying to make a tool that matches their ideal of music engraving. 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.
Because most musicians just want to make readable scores quickly and effectively. They aren't looking to make works of art. Those people that want engraving, will probably pay an engraver to do so. And engravers have their own tools.
The whole thing seemed to be "we make better printouts that anybody else" seems awfully subjective and not really the main point.
A 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. A tool that bangs out pretty nice scores fast, that's a good use of software.
Ok, everybody seems to knocking LilyPond so far, so I thought I'd put out my initial opinion. I've been learning LaTeX recently, and in spite of the waves of horror you feel the first time you look at it, it is actually extremely good at what it does. Revelation, I know, but the point is it ISN'T made for high schoolers writing their history reports. Same thing with LilyPond here. It doesn't look easy, but then, typesetting music isn't easy. LilyPond and LaTeX are an order of magnitude less complex, even if the coefficient is higher than, say, MS Word or Finale. I know I would die if I had to write a book in Word. :) I thought, "If someone did it for typesetting, can't it be done for music?"
Also note that this is not intended to be a replacement for Finale, but rather an entirely different way of getting the job done. They've taken to engraving what TeX took to typesetting.
The coolest thing about this project to me is that I was wondering earlier if anything existed.
Think of music as a language. Now consider how much better you can communicate in, say, English, because you are able to read and write it. The same is true for music - you find much richer possibilities available to you as a result of being able to read and write music. This will, in turn, improve your ability to express yourself musically. I am not arguing against having a well-developed ear, rather pointing out that a musician that can also read and write music will have wider access to more ideas.
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.
LilyPond is not intended for people like me. If you're less serious than I am, LilyPond is definitely not intended for you.
The most popular music notation software is Finale. Finale is buggier than Windows ME and twice as bloated, but once you learn how to use it, it gets the job done. You can enter your notes relatively quickly, tweak them a little, print, and go. 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.
How's the output? Pretty crappy if you don't spend any time playing with it. But if you spend a little bit of time fixing the glaring errors, the result is readable by most musicians.
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. 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, by itself, is only of use to professional engravers, and only those who are willing to learn how to use it. 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.
Don't get me wrong - I think that LilyPond is great. 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.
No, LilyPond is not ready to replace all of the other music notation software out there. But it's one of the best tools for professional music engraving already, and maybe someday it can also be an appropriate tool for the casual user, too.
Because this is the Unix way. It does one useful thing, and does it well. The problem of recording (e.g. from MIDI input) and creating nice printed output can be broken down quite naturally into at least two parts. Separating out the typography part makes it simpler to implement and more reliable, and offers flexibility by not binding it tightly to particular solutions to other problems. The apparent convenience of one big monolithic software package can often be outweighed by its disadvantages.
I think it's meant around the other way. They're saying that our format is so expressive that it can be used to represent data from any other inferior format. Then they're also saying that because every other format is inferior to our one, converting from ours to something else might cause you to lose some detail that the particular inferior format can't represent.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
I think the people who will most benefit from a tool like this are performers and composers in the academic vein. Someone who's studied theory much isn't going to look at .ly source and freak -- they've already spent years learning how to describe music in an abstract form. After doing Figured bass analysis on chord progressions and learning how to cut up a piece into it's atomic parts, something like this will probably make more sense than any other solution out there.
On the other hand, if someone is just looking for a program that they can play music into from a keyboard, or punch a few notes into without having to know much about how notation is structured, then of course Lilypond isn't the program for them.
Maybe some of you are getting 'ease' confused with 'instant gratification'. The only easy thing about Finale in my mind is that you can start the new score wizard set to 'Piano' and enter in notes within seconds. I won't deny this is an attractive feature. Any point past that though, and you have to learn the program and all it's quirks(and believe me if you're uninitiated, there are a few billion of them). Once you go beyond the first steps, the balance shifts considerably. Where Finale fails is in the ease of getting right all the minor details of a complex score, wheras Lilypond is remarkably consistent and structured.
And since the input language to Lily is open, non proprietary plain Ascii, I imagine usable graphical frontends will become available for those who are vehemently opposed to having to write out scores in a description language. Much like there are tools like Dreamweaver for HTML. But I think if I showed Lily in it's raw form to my old Theory and Orchestration teacher from my undergrad years, he'd fall right in love.
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.
I agree with Han-Wen's criticisms of MusicXML, (some of which he voiced previously in a response to the short article I submitted in January). I readily admit that the blurb had some errors in it; and especially after witnessing the prevailing confusion over the issues involved, I wish I had written a full-length article on the state of free music score publishing and interchange.
MusicXML fails in many ways, but neither Lilypond's native format nor the various binary formats fits the bill, either. My intention in submitting the article was to make people aware that there is currently no open, editable, universal, web-renderable music notation format. Please bear in mind that MIDI is not a music notation format, and is inadequate for the purposes described above. LilyPond is a great program and a high caliber open-source development project which I admire and endorse--this is a lot more than I can say for MusicXML (regardless of the apples and oranges comparison). But I don't think it will thrive until it has a GUI and expands into the markets ruled by Sibelius, Finale, and (to a lesser extent) Encore. In other words, I think that to become a major player, LilyPond must eventually must, in addition to being the superb typesetting program that it is, it must also reach those who want an intuitive score editor.
I'm very please that open source music typesetting and publishing are topics of ongoing discussion (and controversy). Finally, I should mention that I'm affiliated with neither Recordaire nor LilyPond in any way.