--- /dev/null
+@c -*- coding: utf-8; mode: texinfo; -*-
+
+@ignore
+ Translation of GIT committish: FILL-IN-HEAD-COMMITTISH
+
+ When revising a translation, copy the HEAD committish of the
+ version that you are working on. For details, see the Contributors'
+ Guide, node Updating translation committishes..
+@end ignore
+
+@c \version "2.14.0"
+
+@node Music engraving
+@chapter Music engraving
+
+This essay describes why LilyPond was created and how it can produce
+such beautiful sheet music.
+
+@c TODO:
+@c remove 3mm eps bounding box left padding for Sarabande (This will
+@c require adding a new snippet option to lilypond-book.py
+@c check formatting of HTML output
+
+@menu
+* The LilyPond story::
+* Engraving details::
+* Automated engraving::
+* Building software::
+* Putting LilyPond to work::
+* Engraved examples (BWV 861)::
+@end menu
+
+@node 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
+melodies, before there was a community of users around the world or even
+an essay on music engraving, LilyPond began with a question:
+
+@quotation
+Why does most computer output fail to achieve the beauty and balance of
+a hand-engraved score?
+@end quotation
+
+@noindent
+Some of the answers can be found by examining the two scores
+@ifnottex
+below.
+@end ifnottex
+@iftex
+on the following pages.
+@end iftex
+The first score is a beautiful hand-engraved score from 1950 and the
+second is a modern, computer-engraved edition.
+
+@ifnottex
+@quotation
+@noindent
+Bärenreiter BA 320, @copyright{}1950:
+
+@sourceimage{baer-suite1-fullpage,,,png}
+@end quotation
+
+@quotation
+@noindent
+Henle no. 666, @copyright{}2000:
+
+@sourceimage{henle-suite1-fullpage,,,png}
+@end quotation
+@end ifnottex
+
+The notes here are identical, taken from Bach's first Suite for solo
+cello, but the appearance is different, especially if you print them out
+and view them from a distance.
+@ifnottex
+(The PDF version of this manual has high-resolution images suitable for
+printing.)
+@end ifnottex
+Try reading or playing from each of the scores and you will find that
+the hand-engraved score is more enjoyable to use. It has flowing lines
+and movement, and it feels like a living, breathing piece of music,
+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
+had to figure out what was wrong with it.
+
+The answer lies in the precise, mathematical uniformity of the newer
+edition. Find the bar line in the middle of each line: in the
+hand-engraved score the position of these bar lines has some
+natural variation, while in the newer version they line up almost
+perfectly. This is shown in these simplified page layout diagrams,
+traced from the hand-engraved (left) and computer-generated music
+(right):
+
+@quotation
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{pdf/page-layout-comparison,,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{page-layout-comparison,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+@end quotation
+@noindent
+
+In the computer-generated output, even the individual note heads are
+aligned in vertical columns, making the contour of the melody disappear
+into a rigid grid of musical markings.
+
+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
+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
+and if the musician looks away for a moment she will be lost on the
+page.
+
+LilyPond was designed to solve the problems we found in existing
+software and to create beautiful music that mimics the finest
+hand-engraved scores.
+
+@iftex
+@page
+@noindent
+Bärenreiter BA 320, @copyright{}1950:
+
+@sourceimage{baer-suite1-fullpage-hires,16cm,,}
+@page
+@noindent
+Henle no. 666, @copyright{}2000:
+@sp 3
+@sourceimage{henle-suite1-fullpage-hires,16cm,,}
+@page
+@end iftex
+
+@node Engraving details
+@section Engraving details
+
+@cindex engraving
+@cindex typography, music
+@cindex music typography
+@cindex plate engraving
+@cindex music engraving
+
+The art of music typography is called @emph{(plate) engraving}, a term
+that derives from the manual process of music printing@footnote{Early
+European printers explored several processes, including hand-carved
+wooden blocks, movable type, and engraved sheets of thin metal.
+Typesetting had the advantage of being more easily corrected and
+facilitating the inclusion of text and lyrics, but only engraving
+offered the ability to do unimpeded layout and unanticipated notation.
+In the end, hand-engraved scores became the standard for all printed
+music, with the exception of some hymnals and songbooks where
+typesetting was justified by its ease and economy, even into the
+twentieth century.}. Just a few decades ago, sheet music was made by
+cutting and stamping the music into a zinc or pewter plate 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 done completely by hand
+and making a correction was cumbersome, so the engraving had to be
+nearly perfect in one go. Engraving was a highly specialized skill; a
+craftsman had to complete around five years of training before earning
+the title of master engraver, and another five years of experience were
+necessary to become truly skilled.
+
+@quotation
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{hader-slaan,,7cm,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{hader-slaan,,,jpg}
+@end ifnottex
+@end quotation
+
+LilyPond is inspired by traditional manual engravings published by
+European music publishers in and towards the end of the first half of
+the twentieth century, including Bärenreiter, Duhem, Durand,
+Hofmeister, Peters, and Schott. This is sometimes regarded as the peak
+of traditional musical engraving practice. As we have studied these
+editions we have learned a great deal about what goes into a
+well-engraved score, and the aspects that we wanted to imitate in
+LilyPond.
+
+@c Now all newly printed music is produced with computers. This has
+@c obvious advantages: prints are cheaper to make, editorial work can be
+@c delivered by email, and the original data can be easily stored.
+@c Unfortunately, computer-generated scores rarely match the quality of
+@c hand-engraved scores. Instead, computer printouts have a bland,
+@c mechanical look, which makes them unpleasant to play from.
+
+@menu
+* Music fonts::
+* Optical spacing::
+* Ledger lines::
+* Optical sizing::
+* Why work so hard?::
+@end menu
+
+@node Music fonts
+@unnumberedsubsec Music fonts
+
+The images below illustrate some differences between traditional
+engraving and typical computer output. The left picture shows a scan of
+a flat symbol from a hand-engraved Bärenreiter edition, while the right
+picture depicts a symbol from an edition of the same music published in
+2000. Although both images are printed in the same shade of ink, the
+earlier version looks darker: the staff lines are heavier, and the
+Bärenreiter flat has a bold, almost voluptuous rounded look. The right
+scan, on the other hand, has thinner lines and a straight layout with
+sharp corners.
+
+@multitable @columnfractions .25 .25 .25 .25
+@item @tab
+@ifnotinfo
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{baer-flat-gray,,4cm,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{baer-flat-gray,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@tab
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{henle-flat-gray,,4cm,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{henle-flat-gray,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@end ifnotinfo
+@ifinfo
+@sourceimage{henle-flat-bw,,,png}
+@sourceimage{baer-flat-bw,,,png}
+@sourceimage{lily-flat-bw,,,png}
+@end ifinfo
+
+
+@item @tab
+Bärenreiter (1950)
+@tab
+Henle (2000)
+
+@end multitable
+
+@cindex musical symbols
+@cindex font
+@cindex blackness
+@cindex balance
+
+When we wanted to write a computer program to create music typography,
+there were no musical fonts freely available that could match the
+elegance of our favorite scores. Undeterred, we created a font of
+musical symbols, relying on nice printouts of hand-engraved music. The
+experience helped develop a typographical taste, and it made us
+appreciate subtle design details. Without that experience, we would not
+have realized how ugly the fonts were that we admired at first.
+
+Below is a sample of two music fonts: the upper set is the default font
+in the Sibelius software (the @emph{Opus} font), and the lower set is
+our own LilyPond font.
+
+@quotation
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{pdf/OpusAndFeta,,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{OpusAndFeta,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+@end quotation
+
+The LilyPond symbols are heavier and their weight is more consistent,
+which makes them easier to read. Fine endings, such as the ones on the
+sides of the quarter rest, should not end in sharp points, but rather
+in rounded shapes. This is because sharp corners of the punching dies
+are fragile and quickly wear out when stamping in metal. Taken together,
+the blackness of the font must be carefully tuned together with the
+thickness of lines, beams and slurs to give a strong yet balanced
+overall impression.
+
+Also, notice that our half-note head is not elliptic but slightly diamond
+shaped. The vertical stem of a flat symbol is slightly brushed, becoming
+wider at the top. The sharp and the natural are easier to distinguish
+from a distance because their angled lines have different slopes and the
+vertical strokes are heavier.
+
+@node Optical spacing
+@unnumberedsubsec Optical spacing
+
+In spacing, the distribution of space should reflect the durations
+between notes. However, as we saw in the Bach Suite above, many modern
+scores adhere to the durations with mathematical precision, which leads
+to poor results. In the next example a motive is printed twice: the
+first time using exact mathematical spacing, and the second with
+corrections. Which do you prefer?
+
+@cindex optical spacing
+
+@lilypond
+\paper {
+ ragged-right = ##t
+ indent = #0.0
+}
+
+music = {
+ c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4
+ \stemDown
+ b'8[ e'' a' e'']
+ \stemNeutral
+ e'8[ e'8 e'8 e'8]
+}
+\score
+{
+ \music
+ \layout {
+ \context {
+ \Staff
+ \override NoteSpacing #'stem-spacing-correction = #0.0
+ \override NoteSpacing #'same-direction-correction = #0.0
+ \override StaffSpacing #'stem-spacing-correction = #0.0
+ }
+ }
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+@lilypond
+\paper {
+ ragged-right = ##t
+ indent = #0.0
+}
+
+music = {
+ c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4 |
+ \stemDown
+ b'8[ e'' a' e'']
+ \stemNeutral
+ e'8[ e'8 e'8 e'8]
+}
+
+\score
+{
+ \music
+ \layout {
+ \context {
+ \Staff
+ \override NoteSpacing #'stem-spacing-correction = #0.6
+ }
+ }
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+@cindex regular rhythms
+@cindex regular spacing
+@cindex spacing, regular
+
+Each bar in the fragment only uses 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-stem/@/up-stem combination should
+be put closer together, all depending on the combined vertical positions
+of the notes. The lower two measures are printed with this correction,
+the upper two measures, however, form down-stem/@/up-stem clumps of
+notes. A master engraver would adjust the spacing as needed to please
+the eye.
+
+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.
+
+@node Ledger lines
+@unnumberedsubsec Ledger lines
+
+@cindex ledger lines
+@cindex collisions
+
+Ledger lines present a typographical challenge: they make it more
+difficult to space musical symbols close together and they must be clear
+enough to identify the pitch at a glance. In the example below, we see
+that ledger lines should be thicker than normal staff lines and that an
+expert engraver will shorten a ledger line to allow closer spacing with
+accidentals. We have included this feature in LilyPond's engraving.
+
+@multitable @columnfractions .25 .25 .25 .25
+@item @tab
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{baer-ledger,3cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{baer-ledger,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@tab
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{lily-ledger,3cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{lily-ledger,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@end multitable
+
+
+@node Optical sizing
+@unnumberedsubsec Optical sizing
+
+Music may need to be printed in a range of sizes. Originally, this was
+accomplished by creating punching dies in each of the required sizes,
+which meant that each die was designed to look its best at that size.
+With the advent of digital fonts, a single outline can be mathematically
+scaled to any size, which is very convenient, but at the smaller sizes
+the glyphs will appear very light.
+
+In LilyPond, we have created fonts in a range of weights, corresponding
+to a range of music sizes. This is a LilyPond engraving at staff size
+26:
+
+@quotation
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{pdf/size26,,23mm,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{size26,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+@end quotation
+
+@noindent
+and this is the same engraving set at staff size 11, then
+magnified by 236% to print at the same size as the previous example:
+
+@quotation
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{pdf/size11,,23mm,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{size11,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+@end quotation
+
+@noindent
+At smaller sizes, LilyPond uses proportionally heavier lines so the
+music will still read well.
+
+@ignore
+This also allows staves of different sizes to coexist peacefully when
+used together on the same page:
+
+@c TODO: are the stems in this example the right thickness? How should
+@c line weights be scaled for small staves?
+
+@c Grieg's Violin Sonata Op. 45
+@lilypond[indent=1.5cm]
+global = {
+ \time 6/8
+ \key c \minor
+}
+
+\score {
+ <<
+ \new Staff \with {
+ fontSize = #-4
+ \override StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep -4)
+ \override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #(magstep -3)
+ }
+ \relative c' {
+ \global
+ \set Staff.instrumentName = #"Violin"
+ c8.(\f^> b16 c d) ees8.(^> d16 c b)
+ g8.(^> b16 c ees) g8-.^> r r
+ R2.
+ }
+ \new PianoStaff <<
+ \set PianoStaff.instrumentName = #"Piano"
+ \new Staff \relative c' {
+ \global
+ s2.
+ s4. s8 r8 r16 <c f aes c>
+ <c f aes c>4.^> <c ees g>8 r r
+ }
+ \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
+ }
+ >>
+ r8 r16 <f, c' aes'>16
+ <f c' aes'>4.-> <c' g'>8 r r
+ }
+ >>
+ >>
+}
+@end lilypond
+@end ignore
+
+@node Why work so hard?
+@unnumberedsubsec Why work so hard?
+
+Musicians are usually more absorbed with performing than with studying
+the looks of a piece of music, so nitpicking typographical details may
+seem academic. But it is not. Sheet music is performance material:
+everything is done to aid the musician in letting her perform better,
+and anything that is unclear or unpleasant to read is a hindrance.
+
+Traditionally engraved music uses bold symbols on heavy staff to create
+a strong, well-balanced look that stands out well when the music is far
+away from the reader: for example, if it is on a music stand. A careful
+distribution of white space allows music to be set very tightly without
+crowding symbols together. The result minimizes the number of page
+turns, which is a great advantage.
+
+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 sheet music this is of double importance because musicians
+have a limited amount of attention. The less attention they need for
+reading, the more they can focus on playing the music. In other words,
+better typography translates to better performances.
+
+These examples demonstrate that music typography is an art that is
+subtle and complex, and that producing 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.
+
+
+@node Automated engraving
+@section Automated engraving
+
+@cindex engraving, automated
+@cindex automated engraving
+
+Here we describe what is required to create software that can mimic the
+layout of engraved scores: a method of describing good layouts to the
+computer and a lot of detailed comparisons with real engravings.
+
+@menu
+* Beauty contests::
+* Improvement by benchmarking::
+* Getting things right::
+@end menu
+
+@node Beauty contests
+@unnumberedsubsec Beauty contests
+
+How do we actually make formatting decisions? In other words, which
+of the three configurations should we choose for the following slur?
+
+@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
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+There are a few books on the art of music engraving
+available. Unfortunately, they contain simple rules of thumb and some
+examples. Such rules can be instructive, but they are a far cry from
+an algorithm that we could readily implement in a computer. Following
+the instructions from literature leads to algorithms with lots of
+hand-coded exceptions. Doing all this case analysis is a lot of work,
+and often not all cases are covered completely:
+
+@quotation
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{ross-beam-scan,7cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{ross-beam-scan,,,.jpg}
+@end ifnottex
+@end quotation
+
+(Image source: Ted Ross, @emph{The Art of Music Engraving})
+
+Rather than trying to write detailed layout rules for every possible
+scenario, we only have to describe the objectives well enough that
+LilyPond can judge the attractiveness of several alternatives. Then,
+for each possible configuration we compute an ugliness score and we
+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
+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
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+The
+second one is nicer, but the slur doesn't start or end on the note heads.
+It gets 1.71 points for the left side and 9.37 points for the right
+side, plus another 2 points because the slur ascends while the melody
+descends for a total of 13.08 ugly points:
+
+@lilypond
+\relative c {
+ \clef bass
+ \once \override Slur #'positions = #'(2 . 3)
+ e8[(_"13.08" f] g[ a b d,)] r4
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+The final slur gets 10.04
+points for the gap on the right and 2 points for the upward slope, but
+it is the most attractive of the three configurations, so LilyPond
+selects this one:
+
+@lilypond
+\relative c {
+ \clef bass
+ e8[(_"12.04" f] g[ a b d,)] r4
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+This technique is quite general, and is used to make optimal decisions
+for beam configurations, ties and dots in chords, line breaks, and page
+breaks. The results of these decisions can be judged by comparison to
+real engravings.
+
+@node Improvement by benchmarking
+@unnumberedsubsec Improvement by benchmarking
+
+LilyPond's output has improved gradually over time, and it continues to
+improve by comparing its output to hand-engraved scores.
+
+For example, here is one line of a benchmark piece from a
+hand-engraved edition (Bärenreiter BA320):
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{baer-sarabande-hires,16cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{baer-sarabande,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@noindent
+and the same quotation as engraved by a very old version of LilyPond
+(version 1.4, May 2001):
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{pdf/lily14-sarabande,16cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{lily14-sarabande,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@noindent The LilyPond 1.4 output is certainly readable, but close
+comparison with the hand-engraved score showed a lot of errors in the
+formatting details:
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{lily14-sarabande-annotated-hires,16cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{lily14-sarabande-annotated,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@itemize @bullet
+@item there is too much space before the time signature
+@item the stems of the beamed notes are too long
+@item the second and fourth measures are too narrow
+@item the slur is awkward-looking
+@item the trill marks are too big
+@item the stems are too thin
+@end itemize
+
+@noindent
+(There were also two missing note heads, several missing editorial
+annotations, and an incorrect pitch!)
+
+By adjusting the layout rules and font design, the output has improved
+considerably. Compare the same reference score and the output
+from the current version of LilyPond (@version{}):
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{baer-sarabande-hires,16cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{baer-sarabande,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@lilypond[staffsize=17.5,line-width=15.9\cm]
+\relative c {
+ \clef "bass"
+ \key d \minor
+ \time 3/4
+ \mergeDifferentlyDottedOn
+ <<
+ { \slurDashed d8.-\flageolet( e16) e4.-\trill( d16 e) }
+ \\
+ { d4_2 a2 }
+ >>
+ \slurDashed
+ <f' a, d,>4. e8( d c)
+ \slurSolid
+ 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 }
+ >>
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+@noindent
+The current output is not a clone of the reference edition, but it is
+much closer to publication quality that the earlier output.
+
+@node Getting things right
+@unnumberedsubsec Getting things right
+
+We can also measure LilyPond's ability to make music engraving decisions
+automatically by comparing LilyPond's output to the output of a
+commercial software product. In this case we have chosen Finale 2008,
+which is one of the most popular commercial score writers, particularly
+in North America. Sibelius is their major rival and they appear to be
+especially strong in the European market.
+
+For our comparison we selected Bach's Fugue in G minor from the
+Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I, BWV 861, whose opening subject is
+
+@lilypond
+\relative c' {
+ \key g \minor
+ \clef "treble_8"
+ r8 d ees g, fis4 g
+ r8 a16 bes c8 bes16 a bes8
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+@noindent
+
+We made our comparison by engraving the last seven measures of the piece
+(28--34) in Finale and LilyPond. This is the point in the piece where
+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
+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
+measures each and a final, full-width system containing a single
+measure.
+
+Many of the differences between the two engravings are visible in
+measures 28--29, as shown here with Finale first and LilyPond second:
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{pdf/bwv861mm28-29,14cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{bwv861mm28-29,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@lilypond[staffsize=19.5,line-width=14\cm]
+global = { \key g \minor }
+
+partI = \relative c' {
+ \voiceOne
+ fis8 d' ees g, fis4 g
+ r8 a16 bes c8 bes16 a d8 r r4
+}
+
+partII = \relative c' {
+ \voiceTwo
+ d4 r4 r8 d'16 c bes8 c16 d
+ ees8 d c ees a, r r4
+}
+
+partIII = \relative c' {
+ \voiceOne
+ r2 r8 d ees g, fis4 g r8 a16 bes c8 bes16 a
+}
+
+partIV = \relative c {
+ \voiceTwo
+ d4 r r2
+ r8 d ees g, fis4 a
+}
+
+\score {
+ <<
+ % \set Score.barNumberVisibility = #all-bar-numbers-visible
+ % required in 2.13
+ \set Score.currentBarNumber = #28
+ \bar ""
+ \new PianoStaff <<
+ \new Staff = "RH" <<
+ \global
+ \new Voice = "voiceI" { \partI }
+ \new Voice = "voiceII" { \partII }
+ >>
+ \new Staff = "LH"
+ <<
+ \clef "bass"
+ \global
+ \new Voice = "voiceIII" { \partIII }
+ \new Voice = "voiceIV" { \partIV }
+ >>
+ >>
+ >>
+ \layout {
+ \context {
+ \Staff
+ \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
+ }
+ \context {
+ \PianoStaff
+ \override StaffGrouper #'staff-staff-spacing #'padding = #1
+ }
+ }
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+Some shortcomings in the unedited Finale output include:
+@itemize @bullet
+@item Most of the beams extend too far off the staff. A beam that points
+towards the center of the staff should have a length of about one
+octave, but engravers shorten this when the beam points away from the
+staff in multi-voice music. The Finale beaming can be easily improved
+with their Patterson Beams plug-in, but we elected to skip that step for
+this example.
+@item Finale doesn't adjust the positions of interlocking note heads,
+which makes the music extremely difficult to read when the upper and
+lower voices exchange positions temporarily:
+
+@lilypond
+collide = \once \override NoteColumn #'force-hshift = #0
+
+\score {
+ <<
+ \new Voice = "sample" \relative c''{
+ \key g \minor
+ <<
+ { \voiceOne g4 \collide g4 }
+ \new Voice { \voiceTwo bes \collide bes }
+ >>
+ }
+ \new Lyrics \lyricsto "sample" \lyricmode { "good " " bad" }
+ >>
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+@item Finale has placed all of the rests at fixed heights on the staff.
+The user is free to adjust them as needed, but the software makes no
+attempt to consider the content of the other voice. As luck would have
+it, there are no true collisions between notes and rests in this example,
+but that has more to do with the positions of the notes than the rest.
+In other words, Bach deserves more credit for avoiding a complete
+collision than Finale does.
+
+@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
+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
+interface in which to make these types of edits.
+
+One particularly glaring omission we found from Finale is a missing flat
+in measure 33:
+
+@quotation
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{pdf/bwv861mm33-34-annotate,7.93cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{bwv861mm33-34-annotate,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+@end quotation
+
+@noindent
+The flat symbol is required to cancel out the natural in the same
+measure, but Finale misses it because it occurred in a different voice.
+So in addition to running a beaming plug-in and checking the spacing on
+the noteheads and rests, the user must also check each measure for
+cross-voice accidentals to avoid interrupting a rehearsal over an
+engraving error.
+
+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 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 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
+cannot be replaced completely. However, much of the dull work can be
+automated. If LilyPond solves most of the common situations correctly,
+this will be a huge improvement over existing software. Over the course
+of years, the software can be refined to do more and more things
+automatically, so manual overrides are less and less necessary. Where
+manual adjustments are needed, LilyPond's structure has been designed
+with that flexibility in mind.
+
+@node Building software
+@section Building software
+
+This section describes some of the programming decisions that we made
+when designing LilyPond.
+
+@menu
+* Music representation::
+* What symbols to engrave?::
+* Flexible architecture::
+@end menu
+
+
+@node Music representation
+@unnumberedsubsec Music representation
+
+@cindex syntax
+@cindex recursive structures
+
+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
+easy to type:
+
+@example
+@{
+ c'4 d'8
+@}
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+to create a quarter note on middle C (C1) and an eighth note on
+the D above middle C (D1).
+
+@lilypond[quote]
+{
+ 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[quote,verbatim,fragment,relative=1]
+f4
+@end lilypond
+
+@noindent
+Simultaneous notes can be constructed by enclosing them with
+@code{<<} and @code{>>}:
+
+@example
+<<c4 d4 e4>>
+@end example
+
+@lilypond[quote,fragment,relative=1]
+\new Voice { <<c4 d4 e>> }
+@end lilypond
+
+@noindent
+This expression is put in sequence by enclosing it in curly braces
+@code{@{@tie{}@dots{}@tie{}@}}:
+
+@example
+@{ f4 <<c4 d4 e4>> @}
+@end example
+
+@lilypond[quote,relative=1,fragment]
+{ f4 <<c d e4>> }
+@end lilypond
+
+@noindent
+The above is also an expression, and so it may be combined again
+with another simultaneous expression (a half note) using
+@code{<<}, @code{\\}, and @code{>>}:
+
+@example
+<< g2 \\ @{ f4 <<c4 d4 e4>> @} >>
+@end example
+
+@lilypond[quote,fragment,relative=2]
+\new Voice { << g2 \\ { f4 <<c d e>> } >> }
+@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 the 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, while 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 source code.
+
+When designing the structures used in LilyPond, we made some different
+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.
+ }
+>>
+@end lilypond
+
+In this case, there are pitches grouped into chords that belong to
+measures, which belong to staves. This resembles a tidy structure of
+nested boxes:
+
+@quotation
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{pdf/nestedboxes,,4cm,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{nestedboxes,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+@end quotation
+
+Unfortunately, the structure is tidy because it is based on some
+excessively restrictive assumptions. This becomes apparent if we
+consider a more complicated musical example:
+
+@lilypond[quote]
+\layout {
+ \context {
+ \Score
+ \remove "Timing_translator"
+ \remove "Default_bar_line_engraver"
+ }
+ \context {
+ \Staff
+ \consists "Timing_translator"
+ \consists "Default_bar_line_engraver"
+ }
+}
+
+\new PianoStaff <<
+ \new Staff = "RH" <<
+ \new Voice = "I" \relative c''' {
+ \time 3/4
+ \voiceOne
+ \times 6/7 { g8 g g g g g g }
+ \oneVoice
+ r4 <b,, fis' g bes> r4\fermata
+ }
+ \new Voice = "II" \relative c' {
+ \voiceTwo
+ c4
+ \times 4/5 {
+ <c ees>8 f g
+ \change Staff = "LH" \oneVoice
+ \stemUp g,( c}
+ r4
+ \override Stem #'cross-staff = ##t
+ \override Stem #'length = #12
+ <fis, b>) r\fermata
+ }
+ >>
+ \new Staff = "LH" <<
+ \new Voice = "III" \relative c' {
+ \time 2/4
+ \clef "bass"
+ g4 \stopStaff s
+ \startStaff s2*2
+ }
+ >>
+>>
+@end lilypond
+
+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 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
+flexible as possible.
+
+@node What symbols to engrave?
+@unnumberedsubsec What symbols to engrave?
+
+@cindex engraving
+@cindex typography
+@cindex engraver
+@cindex plug-in
+
+The formatting process 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 evolve to express the innovations of contemporary notation.
+Hence, common music notation encompasses some 500 years of music.
+Its applications range from monophonic melodies to monstrous
+counterpoints for a large orchestra.
+
+How can we get a grip on such a seven-headed beast, and force it
+into the confines of a computer program? Our solution is to break
+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. Such plug-ins are called
+@code{engraver}s, by analogy with craftsmen who translate musical
+ideas to graphic symbols.
+
+In the following example, we start out with a plug-in for note
+heads, the @code{Note_heads_engraver}.
+
+@lilypond[quote,ragged-right]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
+
+\score {
+ \topVoice
+ \layout {
+ \context {
+ \Voice
+ \remove "Stem_engraver"
+ \remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
+ \remove "Slur_engraver"
+ \remove "Script_engraver"
+ \remove "Beam_engraver"
+ \remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
+ }
+ \context {
+ \Staff
+ \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
+
+@noindent
+Then a @code{Staff_symbol_engraver} adds the staff,
+
+@lilypond[quote,ragged-right]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
+
+\score {
+ \topVoice
+ \layout {
+ \context {
+ \Voice
+ \remove "Stem_engraver"
+ \remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
+ \remove "Slur_engraver"
+ \remove "Script_engraver"
+ \remove "Beam_engraver"
+ \remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
+ }
+ \context {
+ \Staff
+ \remove "Accidental_engraver"
+ \remove "Key_engraver"
+ \remove "Clef_engraver"
+ \remove "Bar_engraver"
+ \consists "Pitch_squash_engraver"
+ \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
+ }
+ }
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+@noindent
+the @code{Clef_engraver} defines a reference point for the staff,
+
+@lilypond[quote,ragged-right]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
+
+\score {
+ \topVoice
+ \layout {
+ \context {
+ \Voice
+ \remove "Stem_engraver"
+ \remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
+ \remove "Slur_engraver"
+ \remove "Script_engraver"
+ \remove "Beam_engraver"
+ \remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
+ }
+ \context {
+ \Staff
+ \remove "Accidental_engraver"
+ \remove "Key_engraver"
+ \remove "Bar_engraver"
+ \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
+ }
+ }
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+@noindent
+and the @code{Stem_engraver} adds stems.
+
+@lilypond[quote,ragged-right]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
+
+\score {
+ \topVoice
+ \layout {
+ \context {
+ \Voice
+ \remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
+ \remove "Slur_engraver"
+ \remove "Script_engraver"
+ \remove "Beam_engraver"
+ \remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
+ }
+ \context {
+ \Staff
+ \remove "Accidental_engraver"
+ \remove "Key_engraver"
+ \remove "Bar_engraver"
+ \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
+ }
+ }
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+@noindent
+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[quote,ragged-right]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
+\score { \topVoice }
+@end lilypond
+
+@cindex polyphony
+@cindex engraving multiple voices
+@cindex contexts
+
+This system works well for monophonic music, but what about
+polyphony? In polyphonic notation, many voices can share a staff.
+
+@lilypond[quote,ragged-right]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
+\new 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 @q{Voice context}, while the
+engravers for key, accidental, bar, etc., go into a group called
+@q{Staff context}. In the case of polyphony, a single Staff
+context contains more than one Voice context. Similarly, multiple
+Staff contexts can be put into a single Score context. The Score
+context is the top level notation context.
+
+@lilypond[quote,ragged-right]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
+\score {
+ <<
+ \new Staff << \topVoice \\ \botVoice >>
+ \new Staff << \pah \\ \hoom >>
+ >>
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+@seealso
+Internals Reference: @rinternals{Contexts}.
+
+@node Flexible architecture
+@unnumberedsubsec Flexible architecture
+
+When we started, we wrote the LilyPond program entirely in the C++
+programming language; the program's functionality was set in stone
+by the developers. That proved to be unsatisfactory for a number
+of reasons:
+
+@itemize
+
+@item When LilyPond makes mistakes, users need to override
+formatting decisions. Therefore, the user must have access to the
+formatting engine. Hence, rules and settings cannot be fixed by
+us at compile-time but must be accessible for users at run-time.
+
+@item Engraving is a matter of visual judgment, 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 cannot readily be applied to
+formatting music notation.
+
+@end itemize
+
+@cindex Scheme programming language
+
+These problems have been addressed by integrating an interpreter
+for the Scheme programming language and rewriting parts of
+LilyPond in Scheme. The current formatting architecture is built
+around the notion of graphical objects, described by Scheme
+variables and functions. This architecture encompasses formatting
+rules, typographical style and individual formatting decisions.
+The user has direct access to most of these controls.
+
+Scheme variables control layout decisions. For example, many
+graphical 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 arpeggios. In the first chord, the
+graphical objects have all directions down (or left). The second
+chord has all directions up (right).
+
+@lilypond[quote,ragged-right]
+\score {
+ \relative c' {
+ \stemDown <e g b>4_>-\arpeggio
+ \override Arpeggio #'direction = #RIGHT
+ \stemUp <e g b>4^>-\arpeggio
+ }
+ \layout {
+ \context {
+ \Score
+ \override SpacingSpanner #'spacing-increment = #3
+ \override TimeSignature #'transparent = ##t
+ }
+ }
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+@cindex score formatting
+@cindex formatting a score
+@cindex formatting rules
+
+@noindent
+The process of formatting a score consists of reading and writing
+the variables of graphical objects. Some variables have a preset
+value. For example, the thickness of many lines -- a
+characteristic of typographical style -- is a variable with a
+preset value. You are free to alter this value, giving your score
+a different typographical impression.
+
+@lilypond[quote,ragged-right]
+fragment = {
+ \clef bass f8 as8
+ c'4-~ c'16 as g f e16 g bes c' des'4
+}
+<<
+ \new Staff \fragment
+ \new Staff \with {
+ \override Beam #'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)
+ }
+ \fragment
+>>
+@end lilypond
+
+Formatting rules are also preset variables: each object has
+variables containing procedures. These procedures perform the
+actual formatting, and by substituting different ones, we can
+change the appearance of objects. In the following example, the
+rule governing which note head objects are used to produce the
+note head symbol is changed during the music fragment.
+
+@lilypond[quote,ragged-right]
+#(set-global-staff-size 30)
+
+#(define (mc-squared grob orig current)
+ (let* ((interfaces (ly:grob-interfaces grob))
+ (pos (ly:grob-property grob 'staff-position)))
+ (if (memq 'note-head-interface interfaces)
+ (begin
+ (ly:grob-set-property! grob 'stencil
+ (grob-interpret-markup grob
+ (make-lower-markup 0.5
+ (case pos
+ ((-5) "m")
+ ((-3) "c ")
+ ((-2) (make-smaller-markup (make-bold-markup "2")))
+ (else "bla")))))))))
+
+\new Voice \relative c' {
+ \stemUp
+ \set autoBeaming = ##f
+ \time 2/4
+ <d f g>4
+ \once \override NoteHead #'stencil = #note-head::brew-ez-stencil
+ \once \override NoteHead #'font-size = #-7
+ \once \override NoteHead #'font-family = #'sans
+ \once \override NoteHead #'font-series = #'bold
+ <d f g>4
+ \once \override NoteHead #'style = #'cross
+ <d f g>4
+ \applyOutput #'Voice #mc-squared
+ <d f g>4
+ <<
+ { d8[ es-( fis^^ g] fis2-) }
+ \repeat unfold 5 { \applyOutput #'Voice #mc-squared s8 }
+ >>
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+
+
+@node Putting LilyPond to work
+@section Putting LilyPond to work
+
+@cindex simple examples
+@cindex examples, simple
+
+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[quote,relative=1]
+{
+ \time 2/4
+ c4 c g'4 g a4 a g2
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+@noindent
+By adding chord names and lyrics we obtain a lead sheet.
+
+@lilypond[quote,ragged-right]
+<<
+ \chords { c2 c f2 c }
+ \new Staff
+ \relative c' {
+ \time 2/4
+ c4 c g' g a a g2
+ }
+ \addlyrics { twin -- kle twin -- kle lit -- tle star }
+>>
+@end lilypond
+
+Polyphonic notation and piano music can also be printed. The
+following example combines some more exotic constructs.
+
+@lilypond[quote,line-width=15.9\cm]
+\header {
+ title = "Screech and boink"
+ subtitle = "Random complex notation"
+ composer = "Han-Wen Nienhuys"
+}
+
+\score {
+ \context PianoStaff <<
+ \new Staff = "up" {
+ \time 4/8
+ \key c \minor
+ << {
+ \revert Stem #'direction
+ \change Staff = down
+ \set subdivideBeams = ##t
+ g16.[
+ \change Staff = up
+ c'''32
+ \change Staff = down
+ g32
+ \change Staff = up
+ c'''32
+ \change Staff = down
+ g16]
+ \change Staff = up
+ \stemUp
+ \set followVoice = ##t
+ c'''32([ b''16 a''16 gis''16 g''32)]
+ } \\ {
+ s4 \times 2/3 { d'16[ f' g'] } as'32[ b''32 e'' d'']
+ } \\ {
+ s4 \autoBeamOff d''8.. f''32
+ } \\ {
+ s4 es''4
+ } >>
+ }
+
+ \new Staff = "down" {
+ \clef bass
+ \key c \minor
+ \set subdivideBeams = ##f
+ \override Stem #'french-beaming = ##t
+ \override Beam #'beam-thickness = #0.3
+ \override Stem #'thickness = #4.0
+ g'16[ b16 fis16 g16]
+ << \makeClusters {
+ as16 <as b>
+ <g b>
+ <g cis>
+ } \\ {
+ \override Staff.Arpeggio #'arpeggio-direction =#down
+ <cis, e, gis, b, cis>4\arpeggio
+ }
+ >> }
+ >>
+ \midi {
+ \context {
+ \Score
+ tempoWholesPerMinute = #(ly:make-moment 60 8)
+ }
+ }
+ \layout {
+ \context {
+ \Staff
+ \consists Horizontal_bracket_engraver
+ }
+ }
+}
+@end lilypond
+
+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 text, and can
+therefore be easily embedded in other text-based formats such as
+@LaTeX{}, HTML, or in the case of this manual, Texinfo. Using the
+@command{lilypond-book} program, included with LilyPond, the input
+fragments can be replaced by music images in the resulting PDF or HTML
+output files. Another example is the third-party OOoLilyPond extension
+for OpenOffice.org, which makes it extremely easy to embed musical
+examples in documents.
+
+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)
+@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
+Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I, BWV 861 (the last seven measures).
+
+@noindent
+Bärenreiter BA5070 (Neue Ausgabe Sämtlicher Werke, Serie V, Band 6.1,
+1989):
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{bwv861-baer,16cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{bwv861-baer-small,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@noindent
+Bärenreiter BA5070 (Neue Ausgabe Sämtlicher Werke, Serie V, Band 6.1,
+1989), an alternate musical source. Aside from the textual differences,
+this demonstrates slight variations in the engraving decisions, even
+from the same publisher and edition:
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{bwv861-baer-alt,16cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{bwv861-baer-alt-small,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@noindent
+Breitkopf & Härtel, edited by Ferruccio Busoni (Wiesbaden, 1894), also
+available from the Petrucci Music Library (IMSLP #22081). The editorial
+markings (fingerings, articulations, etc.) have been removed for clearer
+comparison with the other editions here:
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{bwv861-breitkopf,16cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{bwv861-breitkopf-small,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@noindent
+Bach-Gesellschaft edition (Leipzig, 1866), available from the Petrucci
+Music Library (IMSPL #02221):
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{bwv861-gessellschaft,16cm,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{bwv861-gessellschaft-small,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@noindent
+Finale 2008:
+
+@iftex
+@sourceimage{pdf/bwv861-finale2008a,,,}
+@end iftex
+@ifnottex
+@sourceimage{bwv861-finale2008a,,,png}
+@end ifnottex
+
+@sp 4
+@noindent
+LilyPond, version @version{}:
+
+@lilypond[staffsize=14.3,line-width=15.9\cm]
+global = {\key g \minor}
+
+partI = \relative c' {
+ \voiceOne
+ fis8 d' ees g, fis4 g
+ r8 a16 bes c8 bes16 a d8 r r4
+ r2 r8 d16 ees f8 ees16 d
+ ees4 ~ ees16 d c bes a4 r8 ees'16 d
+ c8 d16 ees d8 e16 fis g8 fis16 g a4 ~
+ a8 d, g f ees d c bes
+ a2 g\fermata \bar "|."
+}
+
+partII = \relative c' {
+ \voiceTwo
+ d4 r4 r8 d'16 c bes8 c16 d
+ ees8 d c ees a, r r4
+ r8 fis16 g a8 g16 fis g2 ~
+ g2 r8 d' ees g,
+ fis4 g r8 a16 bes c8 bes16 a
+ bes4. <g b>8 <a c> r <d, g> r
+ <ees g>4 <d fis> d2
+}
+partIII = \relative c' {
+ \voiceOne
+ r2 r8 d ees g, fis4 g r8 a16 bes c8 bes16 a
+ bes2 ~ bes8 b16 a g8 a16 b
+ c4 r r2
+ R1
+ r8 d ees g, fis4 g
+ r8 a16 bes c8 bes16 a b2
+}
+partIV = \relative c {
+ \voiceTwo
+ d4 r r2
+ r8 d ees g, fis4 a
+ d,8 d'16 c bes8 c16 d ees2 ~
+ ees8 ees16 d c8 d16 ees fis,8 a16 g fis8 g16 a
+ d,8 d'16 c bes8 c16 d ees8 c a fis'
+ g f ees d c bes a g
+ c a d d, g2\fermata
+}
+
+\score {
+ <<
+ % \set Score.barNumberVisibility = #all-bar-numbers-visible
+ % required in 2.13
+ \set Score.currentBarNumber = #28
+ \bar ""
+ \new PianoStaff <<
+ \new Staff = "RH" <<
+ \global
+ \new Voice = "voiceI" { \partI }
+ \new Voice = "voiceII" { \partII }
+ >>
+
+ \new Staff = "LH" <<
+ \clef "bass"
+ \global
+ \new Voice = "voiceIII" { \partIII }
+ \new Voice = "voiceIV" { \partIV }
+ >>
+ >>
+ >>
+ \layout {
+ \context {
+ \Staff
+ \remove "Time_signature_engraver"
+ }
+ \context {
+ \PianoStaff
+ \override StaffGrouper #'staff-staff-spacing #'padding = #1
+ }
+ }
+}
+@end lilypond
projects / lilypond.git / blobdiff