Re: Extent of graphic or text interface with LilyPond.

[David Bobroff]

At 22:06 7.4.2004, you wrote:
>      My thanks to those who have given me information about LilyPond.
>
>      Perhaps I just need to clarify one thing.  Several people have told 
> me that
> LilyPond doesn't have a graphic user interface - which I had read on the web
> site anyway.
>      I said that I didn't like graphic user interfaces much anyway, but I'm
> beginning to wonder if I didn't word this statement clearly enough, and 
> whether
> it is being misunderstood a little.  With all the talk about input being
> entirely ASCII text, and having to understand a language, I'm almost 
> (maybe not
> quite - but almost) getting the impression that LilyPond doesn't display the
> music on the screen at all, and that you read the music by reading the text
> you've input, and understanding what notation it is specifying.


I was emphasizing the textual input in order to say that I thought you 
would probably like LilyPond.

>      Maybe I've misunderstood the comments I've received in response.
>      I don't really know that I want a program where I have to work in 
> such an
> abstract way, where I can't see the actual musical notation on screen - 
> and when
> I said I didn't like graphical user interfaces, I didn't mean that I liked 
> this
> way of working; I just meant that I dislike the Macintosh/Windows style of
> program design, where every function is represented by silly childish little
> pictures instead of a brief, clear text description, and where you have to 
> point
> and click to do everything, rather than use the keyboard (as if users were
> expected mainly to be only semi-literate).


You will most definitely be able to view the "printed" music on-screen.  It 
is just that LilyPond itself doesn't to the displaying.  This is done with 
a viewer for postscript or PDFs.  I normally have ghostview (a postscript 
viewer) open  and set to "watch file" so that changes will be updated 
almost immediately.  I edit the file, run LilyPond (this can be done from 
within emacs [and perhaps vim]), and look at the displayed PS file for the 
changes.  If you run LilyPond from within your editor and have enough 
screen space to see both the input file and the displayed "printed" music 
you won't have to touch a mouse at all.

>      But (of course - perhaps it seems obvious) I *do* want the music to be
> displayed on the screen, and to be able to directly work on elements of
> notation: moving them around, changing them, and so on, right before my 
> eyes.  I
> just want to be able to do this mostly (if not entirely) by using the 
> keyboard,
> and not by having to use the mouse hundreds of times an hour.  For example, I
> want to be able to move to the next note by pressing "Right-Arrow", and 
> the next
> bar by pressing "Shift Right-Arrow", and to the next system by pressing "Ctrl
> Right-Arrow" and the next page by pressing "Alt Right-Arrow" - or something of
> that sort - instead of having to use the mouse to do each of these moves.
> (That's only a guess, of course, about the way the keys might work.  But 
> you get
> the idea.)


This is close to how it works.  I think it is common to do one measure to a 
line (I do that mostly) so moving measure to measure is up/down arrow keys.


>      I have nothing against learning a language to work the program, if 
> that is
> efficient.  I am a Turbo Pascal programmer, and am familiar with the main
> concepts of programming languages.  But dealing with such a visual thing as
> music notation *entirely* through a programming language does sound a bit
> cumbersome.


If you are a programmer I suspect that LilyPond will appeal to you even 
more.  I'm not a programmer but when I describe LilyPond to my 
musician/programmer friends they say, "Oh, it's a programming language."

>      I would be grateful if someone could please clarify this point for 
> me.  And
> if the music notation is available for display, is it only in a "Preview" 
> mode,
> such as you find in some MS-DOS-based word-processors, and you have to 
> exit that
> mode to return to doing things?  Or can you work directly on the notation that
> is displayed?


Well, I think  I covered this point above, but to state it again:

The editing is done entirely within a text editor.  The viewing is done via 
an external viewer.  Perhaps to your way of thinking it is a "preview" mode 
but if you are working in a windowing environment (X-windows, 
Windows/cygwin) then it is a trivial matter to have a postscript or PDF 
viewer open to the output file.

The processing chain is:

lilyfile.ly --> lilypond --> lilyfile.ps/lilyfile.pdf --> viewed with 
gv/acrobat-reader etc.

Hope this clears it up for you.

-David