@node Introduction
@chapter Introduction
-There are a lot of programs that let you print sheet music with a
-computer. Unfortunately, most of them do not do good job. Most
-computer printouts have a bland, mechanical look, and are unpleasant
-to play from. If you agree with us on that, then you will like
-LilyPond: we have tried to capture the original look of hand-engraved
-music in a program: we have tuned our algorithms, font-designs, and
-program settings to make the output match that of the old editions
-that we love to see and love to play from.
-
-
-@menu
-* Music notation and engraving::
-* Notation and engraving in LilyPond::
-* Typography and program architecture::
-* Music representation::
-* Example applications::
-* About this manual::
-@end menu
-
-@node Music notation and engraving
-@section Music notation and engraving
-
-
-
-@cindex engraving
-@cindex typography
-
-@c eerste zin beetje deur in huis
-Making sheet music may seem trivial, ``you print 5 lines, and then put
-in the notes at different heights'', but as you learn more of it, the
-opposite turns out to be true. One has to master two difficult
-tasks. First, one has to master music notation: the science of knowing
-which symbols to use for what. Second, one has to master music
-engraving: the art of placing symbols such that the result looks
-pleasing.
-
-
-
-@lilypondfile[notexidoc]{puer-fragment.ly}
-
-@center A fragment of neume notation
-
-
-Common music notation has its roots in the medieval time. In this
-time, monks started to write down hints that indicated how their
-sacred music was sung. These hints, neumes, gradually became simpler,
-and at some point became the note heads. Lines were added to the
-neumes, to indicate a reference pitch, which later became the staff.
-Over many centuries, improvements and extensions were added, while
-other concepts disappeared. For example, the neume notation did not
-have an explicit notion of rhythm, but it did have @emph{custodes},
-symbols at the end of the line to indicate the starting pitch of the
-next line. Mensural notation, a notation where each note head takes a
-fixed amount of time, came into being together with the rise of
-counterpoint in the early renaissance. The graphic language of
-notation is still under development; the innovations of contemporary
-music require still newer and more complex notations.
-
-
-
-The term music engraving 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, much more so
-than the traditional process of printing books.
-@cindex craftsmanship
-@cindex master
-In the traditional German system of craftsmanship six years of full-time
-training, more than any other craft, were required before a student
-could call himself a master of the art. After that many more years of
-practical experience were needed to become an established music
-engraver. Even today, with the use of high-speed computers and
-advanced software, music requires lots of manual fine tuning before it
-is acceptable for publication.
-
-Sheet music is performance material: everything is done to aid the
-musician in letting him perform better. Music often is far away from
-its reader---it might be on a music stand. To make it clearly
-readable, traditionally printed sheet music always uses bold symbols,
-on heavy staff lines, and is printed on large sheets of paper. This
-``strong'' look is also present in the horizontal spacing. To
-minimize the number of page breaks, (hand-engraved) sheet music is
-spaced very tightly. Yet, by a careful distribution of white space,
-the feeling of balance is retained, and a clutter of symbols is
-avoided.
-
-
-@node Notation and engraving in LilyPond
-@section Notation and engraving in LilyPond
-
-Common music notation encompasses such a wide scope of music, and
-therefore inherently is complex: there are many rules, and for every
-rule there are exceptional situations where they do not apply. The
-result is that LilyPond cannot support each and every form of notation
-in existence. Rather, we focus on a specific style and idiom: we take
-inspiration from late-romantic music printed at the beginning of the
-20th century. Most of the contemporary music after that, and most of
-the music going back to 17th century can be written in this
-idiom. That is not a fundamental limit, though. There is support for
-some modern notation like clusters, and older notation, such as white
-mensural and gregorian notation, is being worked on.
-
-We have used these observations in designing LilyPond. The images
-below show the flat symbol. On the left, a scan from a Henle edition,
-which was made by a computer, and in the center is the flat from a
-hand engraved B@"{a}renreiter edition of the same music. The left scan
-illustrates typical flaws of computer print: the symbol is much
-lighter, the staff lines are thinner, 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 tuned it to harmonize with the
-thickness of our staff lines, which are also much thicker than Henle's
-lines.
+[TODO: should have introduction of 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 and typical computer output, and the third picture shows 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
+@item @tab
+@ifnotinfo
@iftex
@image{henle-flat-bw,4cm}
@end iftex
-@html
-<img src=henle-flat-bw.png>
-@end html
+@ifnottex
+@image{henle-flat-bw,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
@tab
@iftex
@image{baer-flat-bw,4cm}
@end iftex
-@html
-<img src=baer-flat-bw.png>
-@end html
+@ifnottex
+@image{baer-flat-bw,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
@tab
@iftex
@image{lily-flat-bw,4cm}
@end iftex
-@html
-<img src=lily-flat-bw.png>
-@end html
-
-@item
+@ifnottex
+@image{lily-flat-bw,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+@end ifnotinfo
+@ifinfo
+@c workaround for makeinfo-4.6: line breaks and multi-column cookies
+@image{henle-flat-bw,,,png} @image{baer-flat-bw,,,png} @image{lily-flat-bw,,,png}
+@end ifinfo
+
+@item @tab
Henle (2000)
@tab
B@"{a}renreiter (1950)
@cindex balance
In spacing, the distribution of space should reflect the durations
-between notes. However, adhering with mathematical precision to the
-duration will lead to a poor result. Shown here is an example of a
-motive, printed twice. It is printed using exact mathematical spacing,
-and with some corrections. Can you spot which fragment is which?
+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 {
- \property Staff.NoteSpacing \set #'stem-spacing-correction
- = #0.6
+ \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 "||"
- \property Staff.NoteSpacing \override #'stem-spacing-correction
- = #0.0
- \property Staff.StaffSpacing \override #'stem-spacing-correction
- = #0.0
+ \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|
}
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-stems clumps of notes.
-
-@node Typography and program architecture
-@section Typography and program architecture
-
-Producing good engraving requires skill and knowledge. As the
-previous examples show, there is a lot of subtlety involved in music
-engraving, and unfortunately, only a small fraction of these details
-are documented. Master engraver must learn all these details from
-experience or from other engravers, which is why it takes so long to
-become a master. As an engraver gets older and wiser, he will be able
-to produce better and more complex pieces. A similar situation is
-present when putting typographical knowledge into a computer program.
-It is not possible to come up with a definitive solution for a problem
-at the first try. Instead, we start out with simple solution that
-might cover 75% of the cases, and gradually refine that solution over
-the course of months or years, so 90 or 95 % of the cases are
-handled.
-
-This has an important implication for the design of the program: at
-any time, almost every piece of formatting code must be considered as
-temporary. When the need arises, it is to be replaced a solution that
-will cover even more cases. is A ``plug-in'' architecture is a clean
-way to accomplish this. This is an architecture where new pieces of
-code can be inserted in the program dynamically. In such a program, a
-new solution can be developed along-side the existing code. For
-testing, it is plugged in, but for production use, the old solution is
-used. The new module can be perfected separately until it is better
-than the existing solution, at which point it replaces the old one.
-
-Until that time, users must have a way to deal with imperfections:
-these 25%, 10% or 5% of the cases that are not handled
-automatically. In these cases, a user must be able to override
-formatting decisions. A way to accomplish this, is to store decisions
-in generic variables, and let the user manipulate these variables.
-For example, consider the following fragment of notation:
-
-@lilypond
-\score { \notes \relative c'' {
-\stemUp
- a4^\f f8
- }
-\paper { raggedright = ##t }
- }
+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
-@noindent
-The position of the forte symbol is slightly awkward, because it is
-next to the low note, whereas dynamics should be below notes in
-general. This may be remedied by inserting extra space between the
-high note and the `f', as shown in this example:
-
-@lilypond
-\score { \notes \relative c'' {
-\stemUp
- \once\property Voice. DynamicLineSpanner \override #'padding = #4.0
- a4^\f f8
- }
+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 {
+<< \new Staff \frag
+ \new Staff \with {
+ \override Beam #'thickness = #0.3
+ \override Stem #'thickness = #0.5
+ \override Bar #'thickness = #3.6
+ \override Tie #'thickness = #2.2
+ \override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #3.0
+ \override Tie #'extra-offset = #'(0 . 0.3)
+ } \frag
+ >>
+}
@end lilypond
-This was achieved with the following input statement:
-@example
- \once \property Voice. DynamicLineSpanner \override #'padding = #4.0
-@end example
-It increases the amount of space (@code{padding}) between the note and
-the dynamic symbol to 4.0 (which is measured in staff space, so 4.0
-equals the height of a staff). The keyword @code{\once} indicates that
-this is a tweak: it is only done one time.
-
-Both design aspects, a plug-in architecture, and formatting variables,
-are built on top of GUILE, an interpreter for the programming language
-Scheme, which is a member of the LISP family. Variables are stored as
-Scheme objects, and attached to graphical objects such as note heads
-and stems. The variables are a means to adjust formatting details in
-individual cases, but they are used in a more general manner.
-
-Consider the case of a publisher that is not satisfied with the in the
-default layout, and wants heavier stems. Normally, they are @code{1.3}
-times the thickness of staff lines, but suppose that their editions
-require them to be twice the thickness of the staff lines. The same
-mechanism can be used to adjust a setting globally. By issuing the
-following command, the entire piece is now formatted with thicker stems:
-@example
- \property Score.Stem \override #'thickness = #2.0
-@end example
+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
-\score { \notes \relative c'' {
- \property Score.Stem \override #'thickness = #2.0
- \once\property Voice. DynamicLineSpanner \override #'padding = #4.0
-\stemUp
- a4^\f f8
- }
-\paper { raggedright = ##t }
- }
+
+@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
-@noindent
-In effect, by setting these variables, users can define their own
-layout styles.
-
-``Plug-ins'' are also implemented using Scheme. A formatting
-``plug-in'' takes the form of a function written in Scheme (or a C++
-function made available as a Scheme function), and it is also stored
-in a variable. For example, the placement of the forte symbol in the
-example above is calculated by the function
-@code{Side_position_interface::aligned_side}. If we want to replace
-this function by a more advanced one, we could issue
-@example
- \property Voice.DynamicLineSpanner \override #'Y-offset-callbacks
- = #`(,gee-whiz-gadget)
-@end example
-@noindent
-Now, the formatting process will trigger a call to our new
-@code{gee-whiz-gadget} function when the position of the f symbol has
-to be determined.
-The full scope of this functionality certainly is intimidating, but
-there is no need to fear: normally, it is not necessary to define
-style-sheets or rewrite formatting functions. In fact, LilyPond gets a
-lot of formatting right automatically, so adjusting individual layout
-situations is not needed often at all.
+@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 middle C) and eighth note D1 (the D above
+middle 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,relative=1]
+c4
+@end lilypond
+
+Combine this simultaneously with two other notes by enclosing in << and >>.
+
+
+@lilypond[verbatim,fragment,relative=1]
+ <<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[relative=1]
+ \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,relative=1]
+<< 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.
-Our premise is that LilyPond is a system that does music formatting
-completely automatically. Under this assumption, the output does not
-have to be touched up. Consequently, an interactive display of the
-output, where it is possible to reposition notation elements, is
-superfluous. This implies that the program should be a batch program:
-the input is entered in a file, which then is @emph{compiled}, i.e.
-put through the program. The final output is produced as a file ready
-to view or print. The compiler fills in all the details of the
-notation, those details should be left out of the input file. In other
-words, the input should mirror the content as closely as possible. In
-the case of music notation the content is the music itself, so that is
-what the input should consist of.
-
-On paper this theory sounds very good. In practice, it opens a can of
-worms. What really @emph{is} music? Many philosophical treatises must
-have been written on the subject. Instead of losing ourselves in
-philosophical arguments over the essence of music, we have reversed
-the question to yield a more practical approach. Our assumption is
-that the printed score contains all of the music of piece. We build a
-program that uses some input format to produce such a score. Over the
-course of time, the program evolves. While this happens, we can remove
-more and more elements of the input format: as the program improves,
-it can fill in irrelevant details of the input by itself. At some
-(hypothetical) point, the program is finished: there is no possibility
-to remove any more elements from the syntax. What we have left is by
-definition exactly the musical meaning of the score.
-
-There are also more practical concerns. Our users have to key in the
-music into the file directly, so the input format should have a
-friendly syntax: a quarter note C is entered as @code{c4}, the code
-@code{r8.} signifies a dotted eighth rest. Notes and rests form the
-simplest musical expressions in the input syntax. More complex
-constructs are produced by combining them into compound
-structures. This is done in much the same way that complex
-mathematical formulas are built from simple expressions such as
-numbers and operators.
-
-In effect, the input format is a language, and the rules of that
-language can be specified succinctly with a so-called context-free
-grammar. The grammar formally specificies what types of input form
-valid `sentences'. Reading such languages, and splitting them into
-grammatical structures is a problem with standard solutions.
-Moreover, they make the format easier to understand: a concise
-formal definition permits a simple informal description.
-
-The user-interface of LilyPond is its syntax. That part is what users
-see most. As a results, some users think that music representation is
-a very important or interesting problem. In reality, less than 10% of
-the source code of the program handles reading and representing the
-input, and they form the easy bits of the program. In our opinion,
-producing music notation, and formatting it prettily are much more
-interesting and important than music representation: solving
-these problems takes up most of the bulk of the code, and they are the
-most difficult things to get right.
@node Example applications
@section Example applications
By adding chord names and lyrics we obtain a lead sheet:
@lilypond[raggedright]
-\score { <
+\score { <<
\context ChordNames \chords { c2 c f2 c }
- \notes \relative c' { \time 2/4 c4 c g'4 g a4 a g2 }
- \context Lyrics \lyrics { twin4 kle twin kle lit tle star2 } > }
+ \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
@ifhtml The
@end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{Tutorial}}
-gives a gentle introduction into typesetting music.
+gives a gentle introduction to typesetting music.
First time users should start here.
@item
@ifhtml
@end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{Notation manual}}
discusses topics grouped by notation construct. Once you master the
-basics, this is the place to lookup details.
+basics, this is the place to look up details.
@item
@ifhtml
The
@end ifhtml
-@emph{@ref{Literature}}
-chapter lists useful reference books on notation and engraving.
+@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{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 by using the index, that is considered a bug.
-In that case, please file a bug report.}, but the document is also
+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,
@cindex using the manual
-If you are not familiar with music notation, or music terminology
+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
(available @uref{../lilypond-internals/lilypond-internals.html,here})
@end ifhtml
-The program reference is a set of heavily crosslinked HTML pages,
+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.
(available @uref{../../../input/template/out-www/collated-files.html,here})
@end ifhtml
-After you have gone through the tutorial, in theory you should be able
-to write input files. In practice, writing files from scratch turns
-out to be intimidating. To give you a headstart, we have collected a
-number of often-used formats in example files. These files can be
-used as a start, by copying the template, and adding notes in the
-appropriate places.
+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
@item
- The regression test
+ 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 excercise the
+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
@cindex internal documentation
@cindex Scheme
@cindex extending lilypond
-@cindex bugreport
+@cindex bug report
@cindex index
Finally, this and all other manuals, are available online both as PDF
projects / lilypond.git / blobdiff