@end menu
@node The LilyPond story
-@unnumberedsec The LilyPond story
+@section The LilyPond story
Long before LilyPond had been used to engrave beautiful performance
scores, before it could create university course notes or even simple
while the newer edition seems cold and mechanical.
It is hard to immediately see what makes the difference with the newer
-edition. Everything looks neat and tiny, possibly even @qq{better}
-because it looks more computerized and uniform. This really puzzled us
-for quite a while. We wanted to improve computer notation, but we first
+edition. Everything looks neat and tiny, possibly even @qq{better}
+because it looks more computerized and uniform. This really puzzled us
+for quite a while. We wanted to improve computer notation, but we first
had to figure out what was wrong with it.
The answer lies in the precise, mathematical uniformity of the newer
There are other differences as well: in the hand-engraved edition the
vertical lines are all stronger, the slurs lie closer to the note heads,
-and there is more variety in the slopes of the beams. Although such
+and there is more variety in the slopes of the beams. Although such
details may seem like nitpicking, the result is a score that is easier
-to read. In the computer-generated output, each line is nearly identical
+to read. In the computer-generated output, each line is nearly identical
and if the musician looks away for a moment she will be lost on the
page.
@end iftex
@node Engraving details
-@unnumberedsec Engraving details
+@section Engraving details
@cindex engraving
@cindex typography, music
@c mechanical look, which makes them unpleasant to play from.
@menu
-* Music fonts::
-* Optical spacing::
-* Ledger lines::
-* Optical sizing::
-* Why work so hard?::
+* Music fonts::
+* Optical spacing::
+* Ledger lines::
+* Optical sizing::
+* Why work so hard?::
@end menu
@node Music fonts
}
music = {
- c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4 |
+ c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4
\stemDown
b'8[ e'' a' e'']
\stemNeutral
notes. A master engraver would adjust the spacing as needed to please
the eye.
-The spacing algorthims in LilyPond even take the barlines into account,
+The spacing algorithms in LilyPond even take the barlines into account,
which is why the final up-stem in the properly spaced example has been
given a little more space before the barline to keep it from looking
-crowded. A down-stem would not need this adjustment.
+crowded. A down-stem would not need this adjustment.
@node Ledger lines
@unnumberedsubsec Ledger lines
\new Staff \relative c {
\global
\clef "bass"
- << {
- \once \override DynamicText #'X-offset = #-3
- <ees g c>2.~->^\f
- <ees g c>4.~ <ees g c>8
- } \\ {
- <c g c,>2.~
- <c g c,>4.~ <c g c,>8
- } >>
+ <<
+ {
+ \once \override DynamicText #'X-offset = #-3
+ <ees g c>2.~->^\f
+ <ees g c>4.~ <ees g c>8
+ } \\ {
+ <c g c,>2.~
+ <c g c,>4.~ <c g c,>8
+ }
+ >>
r8 r16 <f, c' aes'>16
<f c' aes'>4.-> <c' g'>8 r r
}
@node Automated engraving
-@unnumberedsec Automated engraving
+@section Automated engraving
@cindex engraving, automated
@cindex automated engraving
computer and a lot of detailed comparisons with real engravings.
@menu
-* Beauty contests::
-* Improvement by benchmarking::
-* Getting things right::
+* Beauty contests::
+* Improvement by benchmarking::
+* Getting things right::
@end menu
@node Beauty contests
@lilypond
\relative c {
- \clef bass
- \once \override Slur #'positions = #'(1.5 . 1)
- e8[( f] g[ a b d,)] r4
- \once \override Slur #'positions = #'(2 . 3)
- e8[( f] g[ a b d,)] r4
- e8[( f] g[ a b d,)] r4
+ \clef bass
+ \once \override Slur #'positions = #'(1.5 . 1)
+ e8[( f] g[ a b d,)] r4
+ \once \override Slur #'positions = #'(2 . 3)
+ e8[( f] g[ a b d,)] r4
+ e8[( f] g[ a b d,)] r4
}
@end lilypond
choose the least ugly configuration.
For example, here are three possible slur configurations, and LilyPond
-has given each one a score in @q{ugly points}. The first example gets
+has given each one a score in @q{ugly points}. The first example gets
15.39 points for grazing one of the noteheads:
@lilypond
\relative c {
- \clef bass
- \once \override Slur #'positions = #'(1.5 . 1)
- e8[(_"15.39" f] g[ a b d,)] r4
+ \clef bass
+ \once \override Slur #'positions = #'(1.5 . 1)
+ e8[(_"15.39" f] g[ a b d,)] r4
}
@end lilypond
@lilypond
\relative c {
- \clef bass
- \once \override Slur #'positions = #'(2 . 3)
- e8[(_"13.08" f] g[ a b d,)] r4
+ \clef bass
+ \once \override Slur #'positions = #'(2 . 3)
+ e8[(_"13.08" f] g[ a b d,)] r4
}
@end lilypond
@lilypond
\relative c {
- \clef bass
- e8[(_"12.04" f] g[ a b d,)] r4
+ \clef bass
+ e8[(_"12.04" f] g[ a b d,)] r4
}
@end lilypond
\key d \minor
\time 3/4
\mergeDifferentlyDottedOn
- << {\slurDashed d8.-\flageolet( e16) e4.-\trill( d16 e)}
- \\ {d4_2 a2}
+ <<
+ { \slurDashed d8.-\flageolet( e16) e4.-\trill( d16 e) }
+ \\
+ { d4_2 a2 }
>>
\slurDashed
<f' a, d,>4. e8( d c)
\slurSolid
- bes g' f e16( f g_1 a_2 bes_3 d,_2)
+ bes8 g' f e16( f g_1 a_2 bes_3 d,_2)
\slurDashed
cis4.-\trill b8_3( a g)
- << {\slurDashed d'8.( e16) e4.-\trill( d16 e)}
- \\ {<f, a>4 a2}
+ <<
+ { \slurDashed d'8.( e16) e4.-\trill( d16 e) }
+ \\
+ { <f, a>4 a2 }
>>
}
@end lilypond
the subject returns in a three-part stretto and leads into the closing
section. In the Finale version, we have resisted the temptation to make
any adjustments to the default output because we are trying to show the
-things that each software package gets right without assistance. The
+things that each software package gets right without assistance. The
only major edits that we made were adjusting the page size to match this
essay and forcing the music onto two systems to make the comparison
-easier. By default Finale would have engraved two systems of three
+easier. By default Finale would have engraved two systems of three
measures each and a final, full-width system containing a single
measure.
@end ifnottex
@lilypond[staffsize=19.5,line-width=14\cm]
-global = {\key g \minor}
+global = { \key g \minor }
partI = \relative c' {
\voiceOne
\new Voice = "voiceI" { \partI }
\new Voice = "voiceII" { \partII }
>>
-
- \new Staff = "LH" <<
+ \new Staff = "LH"
+ <<
\clef "bass"
\global
\new Voice = "voiceIII" { \partIII }
\new Voice = "sample" \relative c''{
\key g \minor
<<
- {\voiceOne g4 \collide g4}
- \new Voice {\voiceTwo bes \collide bes}
+ { \voiceOne g4 \collide g4 }
+ \new Voice { \voiceTwo bes \collide bes }
>>
}
\new Lyrics \lyricsto "sample" \lyricmode { "good " " bad" }
@end itemize
This example is not intended to suggest that Finale cannot be used to
-produce publication-quality output. On the contrary, in the hands of a
-skilled user it can and does, but it requires skill and time. One of the
+produce publication-quality output. On the contrary, in the hands of a
+skilled user it can and does, but it requires skill and time. One of the
fundamental differences between LilyPond and commercial scorewriters is
that LilyPond hopes to reduce the amount of human intervention to an
absolute minimum, while other packages try to provide an attractive
If you are interested in examining these examples in more detail, the
full seven-measure excerpt can be found at the end of this essay along
-with four different published engravings. Close examination reveals that
-there is some acceptible variation among the hand-engravings, but that
-LilyPond compares reasonably well to that acceptible range. There are
+with four different published engravings. Close examination reveals that
+there is some acceptable variation among the hand-engravings, but that
+LilyPond compares reasonably well to that acceptable range. There are
still some shortcomings in the LilyPond output, for example, it appears
-a bit too agressive in shortening some of the stems, so there is room
+a bit too aggressive in shortening some of the stems, so there is room
for further development and fine-tuning.
Of course, typography relies on human judgment of appearance, so people
with that flexibility in mind.
@node Building software
-@unnumberedsec Building software
+@section Building software
This section describes some of the programming decisions that we made
when designing LilyPond.
the source code.
When designing the structures used in LilyPond, we made some different
-decisions than are apparent in other software. Consider the heirarchical
+decisions than are apparent in other software. Consider the hierarchical
nature of music notation:
@lilypond[quote,fragment]
<<
-\new Staff \relative c'' {
- \key g \major
- \time 3/4
- d4 g,8 a b c d4 g, g
-}
-\new Staff \relative c' {
- \clef "bass"
- \key g \major
- <g b d>2 a4 b2.
-}
+ \new Staff \relative c'' {
+ \key g \major
+ \time 3/4
+ d4 g,8 a b c d4 g, g
+ }
+ \new Staff \relative c' {
+ \clef "bass"
+ \key g \major
+ <g b d>2 a4 b2.
+ }
>>
@end lilypond
\new Voice = "I" \relative c''' {
\time 3/4
\voiceOne
- \times 6/7 {g8 g g g g g g}
+ \times 6/7 { g8 g g g g g g }
\oneVoice
r4 <b,, fis' g bes> r4\fermata
}
In this example, staves start and stop at will, voices jump around
between staves, and the staves have different time signatures. Many
-software packages would struggle with reporducing this example because
+software packages would struggle with reproducing this example because
they are built on the nested box structure. With LilyPond, on the other
hand, we have tried to keep the input format and the structure as
-flexbile as possible.
+flexible as possible.
@node What symbols to engrave?
@unnumberedsubsec What symbols to engrave?
@node Putting LilyPond to work
-@unnumberedsec Putting LilyPond to work
+@section Putting LilyPond to work
@cindex simple examples
@cindex examples, simple
for OpenOffice.org, which makes it extremely easy to embed musical
examples in documents.
-For more examples of LilyPond in action, full documentaion, and the
+For more examples of LilyPond in action, full documentation, and the
software itself, see our main website: www.lilypond.org.
@page
@node Engraved examples (BWV 861)
-@unnumberedsec Engraved examples (BWV 861)
+@section Engraved examples (BWV 861)
This section contains four reference engravings and two
software-engraved versions of Bach's Fugue in G minor from the
projects / lilypond.git / blobdiff