@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.
\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
}
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
@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
@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" }
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
+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
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.
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
projects / lilypond.git / commitdiff