Re: "repeat" slashes and the nature of lilypond

[Graham King]

As a mere new user, I'm not qualified to comment on most of your points,
but there are two I'd like to pick up on:

On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 07:24, address@hidden wrote:
> Lilypond makes many assumptions about musical symbols, and notation in
> general, that are very rigidly tied to classical conceptions of music.
> A music notation program should be flexible about this sort of thing,
> since most people using it will probably be typesetting contemporary
> forms of music rather than classical scores.
I'm not arguing against excellence in the engraving of contemporary 
notation, but I would not like to see that at the expense of more 
traditional forms.
Please be careful about your assumptions.  There is a huge repertoire of
"classical" (in my case, mostly sixteenth century polyphonic) music that
has either never been published or that has been published only many
years ago in obscure and inaccessible volumes.  Lilypond is a great gift
to us musical fuddy-duddies also!  I hope we can co-exist happily with
the avant-garde.

<snip>
> The same thing goes for jazz articulations and such. There exists
> hacks to get certain symbols that don't exist in the font set. Why
> can't those "hacks" be made part of Lilypond for the time being, so we
> don't have to dig through many pages to try to figure how to get that
> little thing we want? I understand Lilypond is a program by
> programmers for programmers, and like most FOSS projects disdains such
> things as "ease of use" and "accessibility", but these are small
> matters that could be easily implemented.
> 
There is hope for you here.  You might wish to contribute to Han-Wen's
offer in the long thread at
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2005-02/msg00174.html
<snip>