I mentioned about a week ago that I was considering whether I might start
using LilyPond. I will need to get a new hard disk before I have enough room to
use LilyPond, so perhaps there is not much point in asking any detailed
questions yet about how the program works. (I'm sure I will need to do that one
day if I start using it.)
But I would like a few opinions on the following quasi-philosophical issue,
please.
From responses to my previous posts (7 and 8 April), I got the impression
that using LilyPond is a lot more like computer programming than is entering
music notation visually as you would do in Finale or Sibelius or Igor.
That's probably okay in itself, from my point of view. I learned Turbo
Pascal about 15 years ago, and I probably have an aptitude for computer
programming, as I tend to have a logical sort of mind that does well at this
kind of thing.
However, it occurs to me that you use very different mental processes in
computer programming than you do when composing music. In fact, I can scarcely
think of two mental activities that are more different from each other - they
seem to be at very opposite ends of a spectrum: programming is totally logical
and structured, with everything in its place, and everything totally analyzable;
composing music is subtle and elusive, and (apart from the basics of music
theory) quite unanalyzable, as far as I can see.
The people who promote Sibelius make a lot of the graphical style of
Sibelius, and point out how intuitive it is, so that it is almost an extension
of your own creative processes, and doesn't get in the way; it is claimed that
Sibelius really understands the way composers think and work, and it's almost
like writing directly onto music paper, but with all the advantages of computer
notation.
I'm not sure if anyone makes similar claims for Finale - but it is at least
roughly in a similar graphic style.
LilyPond is (I've learned in the last week or so) based on text input, and
seems rather similar to computer programming (unless I've read people's comments
wrongly). What I'm wondering is this: if using it requires one to think more
like a computer programmer, is it suitable for using while composing music,
working out ideas, and so on? Might having to think in this analytical way
actually get in the way of one's creative processes, and prove a stumbling
block? In using it, do you have to think about what codes and parameters to
enter, instead of what notes, harmonies, and rhythms you want to write? Does
this make LilyPond unsuitable for composing with, or for working out ideas,
varying them, experimenting with them, and the like?
I have always found the sheer laboriousness of writing onto paper a real
obstacle to composing music: I find it painful and tiring, and it's especially
difficult if I want to change something (which seems to happen all the time).
Avoiding this cumbersome manuscript-writing process is one of my main reasons
for wishing to use a notation program; so, for this reason, if I use a music
program, I want to use it for actually composing with - not merely for entering
music that's already completely written on paper.
There do seem to be advantages to the graphic style found in Sibelius or
Igor or Finale - what I was objecting to before was not this in itself, but the
need to use the mouse all the time instead of the keyboard. But, if I could do
almost everything from the keyboard (which, as a touch-typist, I can use fast
and efficiently), this graphical style does seem to make sense for music
notation - and this does seem to be at odds with the way LilyPond works.
I was taken aback a bit when I learned how LilyPond works. I shouldn't
rule it out, just because it was rather different from what I expected. But I
do wonder about this question of compatibility with the creative processes of
composing music.
I'd be interested to hear any opinions on this.
Thank you.
Regards,
Michael Edwards.
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user