(Automated engraving):

[lilypond.git] / Documentation / user / introduction.itely

@c -*-texinfo-*-


@node Introduction
@chapter Introduction


The art of music typography is called @emph{(plate) engraving}. The
term derives from the traditional process of music printing. Only a
few decades ago, sheet music was made by cutting and stamping the
music into zinc or pewter plates in mirror image. The plate would be
inked, and the depressions caused by the cutting and stamping would
hold ink. An image was formed by pressing paper to the plate. The
stamping and cutting was completely done by hand. Making corrections
was cumbersome, so engraving had to be done correctly in one go. Of
course, this was a highly specialized skill, and a craftsman had to
complete around 10 years of practical training before he could be a
master engraver.


Nowadays, all newly printed music is produced on computers. This has
obvious advantages: prints are cheaper to make, and editorial work can
be done over e-mail. Unfortunately, the pervasive use of computers has
also decreased the graphical quality of scores. Computer printouts
have a bland, mechanical look, which makes them unpleasant to play
from.

The images below illustrate the difference between traditional
engraving, typical computer output, and how LilyPond mimicks the
traditional look. The left picture shows a scan of a flat symbol from
a Henle edition published in 2000. In the center show symbol from a
hand engraved B@"{a}renreiter edition of the same music. The left scan
illustrates typical flaws of computer print: the staff line are thin,
the weight of the symbol matches the light lines, and the glyph has a
straight layout with sharp corners. By contrast, the B@"{a}renreiter
has a bold and almost voluptuous rounded look.  Our flat symbol is
designed after, among others, this one.  It is rounded, and its weight
harmonizes with the thickness of our staff lines, which are also much
thicker than Henle's lines.

@multitable @columnfractions  .1 .3 .3 .3
@item @tab
@iftex
@image{henle-flat-bw,4cm}
@end iftex
@html
<img src=henle-flat-bw.png>
@end html

@tab
@iftex
@image{baer-flat-bw,4cm}
@end iftex
@html
<img  src=baer-flat-bw.png>
@end html

@tab
@iftex
@image{lily-flat-bw,4cm}
@end iftex
@html
<img src=lily-flat-bw.png>
@end html

@item @tab
Henle (2000)
@tab
B@"{a}renreiter (1950)
@tab
LilyPond Feta font (2003)

@end multitable


@cindex musical symbols
@cindex font
@cindex blackness
@cindex balance

In spacing, the distribution of space should reflect the durations
between notes.  However, many modern scores adhere to the durations
with mathematical precision, and that leads to a poor result. In the
next example, a motive is printed twice. It is printed using exact
mathematical spacing, and with some corrections. Can you spot which
fragment is which?

@cindex optical spacing
@lilypond[noindent]
    \score { \notes {
      \override Staff.NoteSpacing   #'stem-spacing-correction
     = #0.6
      c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4 |
       \stemDown b'4 e''4 a'4 e''4| \stemBoth
       \bar "||"
      \override Staff.NoteSpacing   #'stem-spacing-correction
   = #0.0
      \override Staff.StaffSpacing   #'stem-spacing-correction
   = #0.0
      c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4 |
      \stemDown b'4 e''4 a'4 e''4|
    }
    \paper { raggedright = ##t } }
@end lilypond

@cindex regular rhythms
@cindex regular spacing

The fragment only uses quarter notes: notes that are played in a
constant rhythm. The spacing should reflect that. Unfortunately, the
eye deceives us a little: not only does it notice the distance between
note heads, it also takes into account the distance between
consecutive stems. As a result, the notes of an up-stem/down-stem
combination should be put farther apart, and the notes of a down-up
combination should be put closer together, all depending on the
combined vertical positions of the notes. The first two measures are
printed with this correction, the last two measures without. The notes
in the last two measures form down-stem/up-stem clumps of notes.

@cindex typography

Musicians are usually more absorbed with performing the music than
with studying its looks, so this nitpicking about typographical
details may seem academical. That is not justified. In larger pieces
with monotonous rhythms, spacing corrections lead to subtle variations
in the layout of every line, giving each one a distinct visual
signature. Without this signature, all lines would look the same, they
become like a labyrinth. If the musician looks away once or has a
lapse in his concentration, he will be lost on the page.

Similarly, the strong visual look of bold symbols on heavy staff lines
stands out better when music is far away from reader, for example, if
it is on a music stand.  A careful distribution of white space allows
music to be set very tightly without cluttering symbols together.  The
result minimizes the number of page turns,

This is a common characteristic of typography. 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.

Hopefully, these examples also demonstrate that music typography is an
art that is subtle and complex, and to produce it requires
considerable expertise, which musicians usually do not have.  LilyPond
is our effort to bring the graphical excellence of hand-engraved music
to the computer age, and make it available to normal musicians.  We
have tuned our algorithms, font-designs, and program settings to
produce prints that match the quality of the old editions we love to
see and love to play from.



@menu
* Automated engraving::         
* What symbols to engrave?::    
* Music representation::        
* Example applications::        
* About this manual::           
@end menu

@node Automated engraving
@section Automated engraving

How do we go about implementing typography?  If craftsmen need over
ten years to become true masters, how could we simple hackers ever
write a program to take over their jobs?

The answer is: we cannot. Typography relies on human judgement of
appearance, so people cannot be replaced ultimately. However, much of
the dull work can be automated. If LilyPond solves most of the common
situations correctly, then this will be a huge improvement over
existing software. The remaining cases can be tuned by hand. Over the
course of years, the software can be refined to do more and more
automatically, so manual overrides are less and less necessary.

When we started, we wrote the program in C++. With this design, the
program functionality was set in stone stone by us developers. That
proved to be unsatisfactory:


@itemize @bullet
@item When LilyPond makes mistakes,
 users need to override formatting decisions.  Therefore, the user
must access to the formatting engine. Hence, rules and settings cannot
be fixed by us at compile time, but they must be accessible for users
at run-time.

@item Engraving is a matter of visual judgement, and therefore a matter of
taste. As knowledgeable as we are, users can disagree with our
personal decisions. Therefore, the definitions of typographical style
must also be accessible to the user.

@item  Finally, we continually refine the formatting algorithms, so we
need a flexible approach to rules. The C++ language forces a certain
method of grouping rules that do not match well with how music
notation works.

@end itemize

The formatting architecture of LilyPond addresses these needs.  It is
built around the notion graphical objects, carrying variables.  The
architecture encompasses formatting rules, typographical style and
individual formatting decisions.

Variables control layout decisions. For example, many objects have a
direction variable that encodes the choice between up and down (or
left and right). Here you see two chords, with accents and
arpeggio. In the first chord, the objects have all directions down (or
left). The second chord has all directions up (right).

@lilypond[raggedright,relative=1]
\new Score \with {
         \override SpacingSpanner #'spacing-increment = #3
         \override TimeSignature #'transparent = ##t 
} {
        \stemDown 
        <e g b>4_>-\arpeggio

        \override Arpeggio #'direction = #RIGHT
        \stemUp
        <e g b>4^>-\arpeggio
}
@end lilypond

The process of formatting a score consists of reading and
writing object variables.

Some variables have a preset value. For example, the thickness of many
lines ---a characteristic of typographical style--are preset
variables. Changing them gives a different typographical impression:

@lilypond[]
frag= \notes {
    \clef bass f8 as8
    c'4-~ c'16 as g f e16 g bes c' des'4
    }
\paper { raggedright = ##t }

\score {\frag}
\score { \frag
        \paper {
        linethickness = 1.5 \pt
        \translator {
        \ScoreContext
        \override Beam #'thickness = #0.3
        \override Stem #'thickness = #0.5
        \override Bar #'thickness = #3.6
        \override Tie  #'thickness = #2.2

        %% yes, this dirty.
        \override Tie #'extra-offset = #'(0 . 0.3)
        }
}}
@end lilypond

Formatting rules are also preset variables: each object has variables
containing procedures. These procedure perform the actual formatting,
and by substituting different ones, we can change behavior. In the
following example, the rule that note head objects use to produce
their symbol is changed during the music fragment:


@lilypond[raggedright]
#(define  (mc-squared gr org cur)
  (let*
      ((ifs (ly:grob-property gr 'interfaces))
       (sp (ly:grob-property gr 'staff-position)) )
  (if (and (memq 'note-head-interface ifs)
           (memq sp '(-2 -3 -5)))
      (begin
        (ly:grob-set-property! gr 'print-function brew-new-markup-stencil)
        (ly:grob-set-property! gr 'font-family 'roman)
        (ly:grob-set-property!
         gr 'text
         (make-raise-markup -0.5
                            (case sp
                              ((-5) (make-simple-markup "m"))
                              ((-3) (make-simple-markup "c "))
                              ((-2) (make-smaller-markup (make-bold-markup "2")))
                              (else (make-simple-markup "bla"))
                              ))))
      )))

\score {
       \notes \context Voice \relative  c'
       {
       \stemUp
       \set autoBeaming = ##f
       \time 2/4 
          { <d f g>4
     \once \override NoteHead #'print-function 
       = #Note_head::brew_ez_stencil
     <d f g>
     \once \override NoteHead #'style
       = #'cross
     <d f g>
     \applyoutput #mc-squared
     <d f g>
     << { d8[ es-( fis^^ g] fis2-) }
       \repeat unfold 5 { \applyoutput #mc-squared s8 }  >>

   }
              
   }
}
@end lilypond



@node What symbols to engrave?
@section What symbols to engrave?

@cindex engraving
@cindex typography

The formatting process in LilyPond decides where to place
symbols. However, this can only be done once it is decided @emph{what}
symbols should be printed, in other words what notation to use.

Common music notation is a system of recording music that has evolved
over the past 1000 years. The form that is now in common use, dates
from the early renaissance. Although, the basic form (i.e. note heads on a
5-line staff) has not changed, the details still change to express the
innovations of contemporary notation.  Hence, it encompasses some 500
years of music. Its applications range from monophonic melodies to
monstrous counterpoint for large orchestras.

How can we get a grip on such a many-headed beast, and force it into
the confines of a computer program?  We have broken up the problem of
notation (as opposed to engraving, i.e. typography) into digestible
and programmable chunks: every type of symbol is handled by a separate
module, a so-called plug-in.  Each plug-in is completely modular and
independent, so each can be developed and improved separately.  People
that translate musical ideas to graphic symbols are called copyists or
engravers, so by analogy, each plug-in is called @code{engraver}.

In the following example, we see how we start out with a plug-in for
note heads, the @code{Note_heads_engraver}.

@lilypond[]
\include "engraver-example.lyinc"

\score { \topVoice
\paper {
       \translator { \VoiceContext
       \remove "Stem_engraver"
       \remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
       \remove "Slur_engraver"
       \remove "Script_engraver"
       \remove "Beam_engraver"
       \remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
       
       }
       \translator { \StaffContext
       \remove "Accidental_engraver"
       \remove "Key_engraver"
       \remove "Clef_engraver"
       \remove "Bar_engraver"
       \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
       \remove "Staff_symbol_engraver"
       \consists "Pitch_squash_engraver"
        }
       
} 
}
@end lilypond

Then a @code{Staff_symbol_engraver} adds the staff:

@lilypond[]
\include "engraver-example.lyinc"

\score { \topVoice
\paper {
       \translator { \VoiceContext
       \remove "Stem_engraver"
       \remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
       \remove "Slur_engraver"
       \remove "Script_engraver"
       \remove "Beam_engraver"
       \remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
       
       }
       \translator { \StaffContext
       \remove "Accidental_engraver"
       \remove "Key_engraver"
       \remove "Clef_engraver"
       \remove "Bar_engraver"
       \consists "Pitch_squash_engraver"
       \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
        }
       
} 
}
@end lilypond

 The @code{Clef_engraver} defines a reference point for the staff:

@lilypond[]
\include "engraver-example.lyinc"

\score { \topVoice
\paper {
       \translator { \VoiceContext
       \remove "Stem_engraver"
       \remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
       \remove "Slur_engraver"
       \remove "Script_engraver"
       \remove "Beam_engraver"
       \remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
       }
       \translator { \StaffContext
       \remove "Accidental_engraver"
       \remove "Key_engraver"
       \remove "Bar_engraver"
       \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
        }
       
} 
}
@end lilypond

And the @code{Stem_engraver} adds stems:

@lilypond[]
\include "engraver-example.lyinc"

\score { \topVoice
\paper {
       \translator { \VoiceContext
       \remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
       \remove "Slur_engraver"
       \remove "Script_engraver"
       \remove "Beam_engraver"
       \remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
       }
       \translator { \StaffContext
       \remove "Accidental_engraver"
       \remove "Key_engraver"
       \remove "Bar_engraver"
       \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
        }
} 
}
@end lilypond

The @code{Stem_engraver} is notified of any note head coming along.
Every time one (or more, for a chord) note head is seen, a stem
object is created and connected to the note head.

By adding engravers for beams, slurs, accents, accidentals, bar lines,
time signature, and key signature, we get a complete piece of
notation.

@lilypond[]
\include "engraver-example.lyinc"

\score { \topVoice }
@end lilypond



This system works well for monophonic music, but what about
polyphony? In polyphonic notation, many voices can share a staff.

@lilypond[]
\include "engraver-example.lyinc"
\score { \context Staff << \topVoice \\ \botVoice >> }
@end lilypond

In this situation, the accidentals and staff are shared, but the
stems, slurs, beams, etc. are private to each voice. Hence, engravers
should be grouped. The engravers for note heads, stems, slurs, etc. go
into a group called ``Voice context,'' while the engravers for key,
accidental, bar, etc. go into a group called ``Staff context.'' In the
case of polyphony, a single Staff context contains more than one Voice
context.  In polyphonic notation, many voices can share a staff:
Similarly, more Staff contexts can be put into a single Score context.

@lilypond[]
\include "engraver-example.lyinc"
\score {
<< \new Staff << \topVoice \\ \botVoice >>
\new Staff << \pah \\ \hoom >>
  >>
}
@end lilypond

@node Music representation
@section Music representation

Ideally, the input format for any high-level formatting system is an
abstract description of the content. In this case, that would be the
music itself. This poses a formidable problem: how can we define what
music really is? Instead of trying to find an answer, we have reversed
the question.  We write a program capable of producing sheet music,
and adjust the format to be as lean as possible. When the format can
no longer be trimmed down, by definition we are left with content
itself.  Our program serves as a formal definition of a music
document.


The syntax is also the user-interface for LilyPond, hence it is easily typable, e.g.,
@example
  c'4 d'8
@end example
Are a quarter note C (the central C) and eighth note D1 (the D above
central C), as in this example:

@lilypond[fragment]
  c'4 d'8
@end lilypond

On a microscopic scale, such syntax is easy to use. On a larger scale,
syntax also needs structure. How else can you enter complex pieces
like symphonies and operas? The structure is formed by the concept of
music expressions: by combining small fragments of music into larger
ones, more complex music can be expressed. For example,

@lilypond[verbatim,fragment]
c4
@end lilypond

Combine this simultaneously with two other notes by enclosing in << and >>.


@lilypond[verbatim,fragment]
  <<c4 d4 e4>>
@end lilypond


        
This expression is put in sequence by enclosing it in braces, i.e.,

@verbatim
   { <<c4 d4 e4>> f4  }
@end verbatim

@lilypond[]
   \new Voice { <<c4 d4 e4>> f4  }
@end lilypond
        
The above is another expression, and therefore, it many combined again
with a simultaneous expression (in this case, a half note).

@verbatim
  << { <<c4 d4 e4>> f4 } g2 >> 
@end verbatim
@lilypond[fragment]
<< g2 \\ { <c d e>4 f4 }  >> 
@end lilypond
        

Such recursive structures can be specified neatly and formally in a
context-free grammar. The parsing code is also generated from this
grammar. In other words, the syntax of LilyPond is clearly and
unambiguously defined.

User-interfaces and syntax are what people see and deal with
most. They are partly a matter of taste, and also subject of much
discussion. Although discussions on taste do have their merit, they
are not very productive. In the larger picture of LilyPond, the
importance of input syntax is small: inventing neat syntax is easy,
writing decent formatting code is much harder. This is also
illustrated by the line-counts for the respective components: parsing
and representation take up less than 10% of the code.


@node Example applications
@section Example applications

We have written LilyPond as an experiment of how to condense the art
of music engraving into a computer program. Thanks to all that hard
work, the program can now be used to perform useful tasks.  The
simplest application is printing notes:

@lilypond[relative=1]
  \time 2/4 c4 c g'4 g a4 a g2  
@end lilypond

By adding chord names and lyrics we obtain a lead sheet:

@lilypond[raggedright]
\score { <<
  \context ChordNames \chords  { c2 c f2 c }
  \new Staff \notes \relative c' { \time 2/4 c4 c g'4 g a4 a g2 }
  \context Lyrics \lyrics  { twin4 kle twin kle lit tle star2 } >> }
@end lilypond

Polyphonic notation and piano music can also be printed. The following
example combines some more exotic constructs:

@lilypondfile{screech-boink.ly}

The fragments shown above have all been written by hand, but that is
not a requirement. Since the formatting engine is mostly automatic, it
can serve as an output means for other programs that manipulate
music. For example, it can also be used to convert databases of
musical fragments to images for use on websites and multimedia
presentations.

This manual also shows an application: the input format is plain text,
and can therefore be easily embedded in other text-based formats, such
as La@TeX{}, HTML or in the case of this manual, Texinfo.  By means of a
special program, the input fragments can be replaced by music images in
the resulting PostScript or HTML output files. This makes it easy to
mix music and text in documents.



@node About this manual
@section About this manual

The manual is divided into the following chapters:
@itemize @bullet
@item
@ifhtml The 
@end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{Tutorial}}
gives a  gentle introduction to typesetting music.
First time users should start here. 
@item
@ifhtml
The
@end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{Notation manual}}
discusses topics grouped by notation construct. Once you master the
basics, this is the place to look up details.
@item
@ifhtml
The
@end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{Literature list}}
 contains a set of useful reference books, for those who wish to know
 more  on notation and engraving. 
@item
@ifhtml
 The
 @end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{Technical manual}}
@c
discusses the general design of the program, and how to extend its
functionality.
@item
@ifhtml
The chapter
@end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{Invoking LilyPond}}  explains how to run LilyPond and its helper
programs.

@item
@ifhtml
The 
@end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{lilypond-book manual}}
explains  the details behind creating documents with in-line music
examples (like this manual).


@item
@ifhtml
The chapter 
@end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{Converting from other formats}}
explains how to run the conversion programs. These programs
are supplied with the LilyPond package, and convert a variety of music
formats to the @code{.ly}  format. In addition, this section explains
how to upgrade input files from previous versions of LilyPond.

@end itemize

Once you are an experienced user, you can use the manual as reference:
there is an extensive index@footnote{If you are looking for something,
and you cannot find it in the manual, that is considered a bug.  In
that case, please file a bug report.}, but the document is also
available in
@ifnothtml
a big HTML page,
@end ifnothtml 
@ifhtml
@uref{../lilypond.html, a big HTML page}
@end ifhtml
which can be searched easily using the search facility of a web
browser.
@cindex search in manual
@cindex using the manual


If you are not familiar with music notation or music terminology
(especially if you are a non-native English speaker), then it is
advisable to consult the glossary as well. The glossary explains
musical terms, and includes translations to various languages. It is a
@ifhtml
@uref{../music-glossary.html,separate document}.
@end ifhtml
@ifnothtml
separate document, available in HTML and PDF.
@end ifnothtml
@cindex idiom
@cindex jargon
@cindex terminology
@cindex foreign languages
@cindex language


This manual is not complete without a number of other documents. They
are not available in print, but should be included with the
documentation package for your platform:

@itemize @bullet
@item
Program reference
@ifhtml
(available @uref{../lilypond-internals/lilypond-internals.html,here})
@end ifhtml

The program reference is a set of heavily cross linked HTML pages,
which documents the nit-gritty details of each and every LilyPond
class, object and function.  It is produced directly from the
formatting definitions used.

Almost all formatting functionality that is used internally, is
available directly to the user. For example, all variables that
control thicknesses, distances, etc, can be changed in input
files. There are a huge number of formatting options, and all of them
are described in the generated documentation.  Each section of the
notation manual has a @b{See also} subsection, which refers to the
the generated documentation.  In the HTML document, these subsections
have clickable links.

@item
  Templates
@ifhtml
(available @uref{../../../input/template/out-www/collated-files.html,here})
@end ifhtml

After you have gone through the tutorial, you should be able to write
input files. In practice, writing files from scratch turns out to be
intimidating.  To give you a head start, we have collected a number of
often-used formats in example files.  These files can be used as a
start: simply copy the template, and add notes in the appropriate
places.

@item
  Various input examples
@ifhtml
(available @uref{../../../../input/test/out-www/collated-files.html,here})
@end ifhtml
@cindex snippets

These small files show various tips and tricks, and are available as a
big HTML document, with pictures and explanatory texts included.


@item
  The regression tests
@ifhtml
(available @uref{../../../input/regression/out-www/collated-files.html,here})
@end ifhtml

This collection of files tests each notation and engraving feature of
LilyPond in one file. The collection is primarily there to help us
debug problems, but it can be instructive to see how we exercise the
program. The format is like the tips and tricks document.

@end itemize


In all HTML documents that have music fragments embedded, the LilyPond
input that was used to produce that image can be viewed by clicking
the image.

The location of the documentation files that are mentioned here can
vary from system to system.  On occasion, this manual refers to
initialization and example files.  Throughout this manual, we refer to
input files relative to the top-directory of the source archive. For
example, @file{input/test/bla.ly} may refer to the file
@file{lilypond-1.7.19/input/test/bla.ly}.  On binary packages for the
Unix platform, the documentation and examples can typically be found
somewhere below @file{/usr/share/doc/lilypond/}. Initialization files,
for example @file{scm/lily.scm}, or @file{ly/engraver-init.ly}, are
usually found in the directory @file{/usr/share/lilypond/}.

@cindex adjusting output
@cindex variables
@cindex properties
@cindex lilypond-internals
@cindex internal documentation
@cindex Scheme
@cindex extending lilypond
@cindex bug report
@cindex index

Finally, this and all other manuals, are available online both as PDF
files and HTML from the web site, which can be found at
@uref{http://www.lilypond.org/}.

@cindex website 
@cindex URL