Re: The importance of a graphical interface.

[Valentin Villenave]

Hello Trevor,

I thank you for your contribution ; of course here we need a detailed
scientific study and we can't write a general, narrow-minded theory of
music history.

However, the american "chord-based thinking" you focus on could be an
excellent way to approach English/American music writing.

Here in France (I don't know where you come from), we often establish
a distinguo between Italian and German musical thinking from the 17th
century, as far as German and northern-european countries are well
known for being used to counterpoint, due (among others) to their
early religious vocal music (particularly Luther's chorals, as soon as
the Reformation begun, and so on).
Italian music (that is, catholic side of Europe, somehow including
France) tends to be more vertically-thinking (although many exceptions
can be found, for instance with Frescobaldi) ; they use continuo,
figured bass and so on, and it's obviously a very "chord based"
thinking.

You didn't mention the rhythmic question at all, and there would be
quite an interesting comparison too ; to my mind the "simplicity" of
vertical chord-based languages brings more efficient and
understandable rhythms, whereas counterpoint, by somehow breaking the
unity with more or less sophisticated superpositions, tends to make
music less "immediate" (i hope you're following me guys, since it is a
bit harsh for me to put that in english...). That is why, as far as
I'm concerned, I feel definitely closer of the so-called "Italian
way", and therefore I'm don't feel post-serialist or whatever...

As a pianist, I've practiced both jazz and continuo as well, and I've
always been struck by the similarities of those two thinkings. I don't
-and can't- agree with ridiculous far-fetched musicologists theories
like "Baroque is Jazz" or whatever ; I'm juste talking about technical
similarities implying what I would call a "movement-oriented" music,
in which "voices multiplicity" isn't the first preoccupation, and
"fake" counterpoint effects don't play any architectural role, but are
just meant to make movement, or dramatic progression, more efficient.

You could say that as well (in my humble opinion) about all "weaving"
musics, like the repetitive or minimalistic american school, or about
Stravinsky too (for some parts of it), for instance, or about Vivaldi
works... Those musics are not very "lilypond-convenient" ; but as I
said in my previous post, it gives another way of considering them.
Think different, so to say... :)


Thank you. (and so long for the main topic, I'm afraid....)



2006/10/29, Trevor Bača <address@hidden>:
> Warning: off-topic :-)
>
> I think that Valentin's comment here is particularly interesting:
>
> > -You've got to think very _VERY_ horizontally, and not vertically like
> > in Sibelius or Finale. This has been the major difficulty to me. But
> > if you think about it, you'll realize that it helps you indeed by
> > making you work on larger sequences instead of just "fill" your score
> > bar after bar after bar.
>
> Of course there's plenty of horizontal / stratified / contrapuntal
> music written in the Anglo-American world, and there's also plenty of
> veritcal / chord-based music written in continental Europe. However
> (and I know I'm going to get blasted for this, which is OK), there
> seems to me to be something of preference for chord-based thinking in
> the US (and possibly the UK) and something of a similar preference for
> layered thinking in Europe (at least when we're talking about people
> study and teach composition in universities and conservatories).
> Perhaps I'm wrong about this, or perhaps this is kinda the case and
> might have something to do with the emphasis on chordal Roman-numeral
> type analysis in conservatory education in the US (versus counterpoint
> in Europe).
>
> Anyway, it's fun to observe that Finale and Sibelius are American and
> English inventions, respectively, and rather vertical-oriented,
> whereas LilyPond is a much more international invention (and very
> horizontal in orientation, as Valentin points out).
>
> :-)
>
> Trevor.
>
>
> On 10/28/06, Valentin Villenave <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hello César ;
> >
> > Just a few words.
> >
> > I'm using the jEdit editor with the Lilypondtool plugin, which gives
> > the ability to compile, preview and even play your score with simple
> > shortcuts (a bit like the lilypond mac version) ; it is quite useable
> > and very convenient to learn.
> >
> > I've tried denemo ; it's a bit rude but definitely useable to. I'm
> > afraid they are'nt developing it anymore, and it's really a pity since
> > it was the ONLY lilypond-oriented graphical editor.
> >
> > There's still the possibility to use NoteEdit or canorus to input your
> > score and then convert it to lilypond. Or a good MusicXML editor (if
> > anyone knows one....)
> >
> > But : the lilypond language is a quite attractive language. For
> > instance, I've begun learning Lilypond just one month ago ; and now
> > with a /include "italiano.ly" (I'm French moi aussi)  I can read my
> > scores in genuine lilypond code !
> >
> > That's why form now one I'm able to code directly in Lilypond
> > language, without even draw any sketch on a sheet, except for massive
> > and complex orchestral pages.
> >
> > Of course, this implies at least two things.
> > -You've got to get used to "think" your music very globally, there's
> > hardly a way to wonder "oh, what if I put a G instead of a F?", listen
> > to it, revert to your F, and so on.
> > -You've got to think very _VERY_ horizontally, and not vertically like
> > in Sibelius or Finale. This has been the major difficulty to me. But
> > if you think about it, you'll realize that it helps you indeed by
> > making you work on larger sequences instead of just "fill" your score
> > bar after bar after bar.
> >
> > One last thing. Lilypond is actually faster to me than Sibelius, as
> > far as I haven't anymore to correct every little detail by hand to
> > make my score look good. With Lilypond it does look good  in most
> > cases "out of the box" ; until now I've never used the \overwrite
> > command. I'm just way too pleased when I see the work Lilypond has
> > done.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, I've switched to linux in the mean time I've
> > switched to Lilypond... But we can't ask everyone to do so, and
> > therefore I agree it indeed lacks a decent user interface ; especially
> > when you're used to Mac/Windows world, and a bit lost when you find
> > yourself in front of a command line (by the way, I'm under linux and
> > there is definitely no way to run your ABCedit here...)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2006/10/28, Mats Bengtsson <address@hidden>:
> > > I hope you have seen the question on graphical user interfaces at
> > > http://lilypond.org/web/about/faq
> > >
> > >    /Mats
> > >
> > > Quoting César Penagos <address@hidden>:
> > >
> > > > Dears Lilyponders:
> > > > I'm a very in-love user of Lilypond, actually I have installed the 2.9.26
> > > > version. I'm attend to update my preferred music score program.
> > > > For many times i sow  in the user archives, people asking for a graphical
> > > > interface. I thing there is a powerful reason.
> > > > When you are "copying" a score, no matter with the instruments, or 
> instrument
> > > > colors in your orchestral score. Every musician knows what instrument 
> will be
> > > > the  most appropriate for the voice that is writing. As the case as the
> > > > composers that can try every instrument they want.
> > > > The very real problems comes when you want to arrange a piece; and
> > > > you need to
> > > > see the balance of the instrumentation in your score. Every body
> > > > knows that the
> > > > simple way is to assign the first and second voices to the violins I and 
> II,
> > > > the third or tenor voice to the violas and the basses to cellos and
> > > > contrabass.
> > > > It is Ok for very small arrange using the strings, but when you add 
> woods,and
> > > > winds you must be carefully what you are doing if don't want
> > > > undesirable result.
> > > > If you don't take care of the balance in the use of instruments your
> > > > score will
> > > > sound recharged, very dense.
> > > > For this reason you have to be alert whit your instrumentation, and I
> > > > hope that
> > > > in the very close future some of the very smart people in Lilypond team 
> takes
> > > > the time to construct an a graphical interface for your great program.
> > > > When this happens Finale, Sibelius etc, etc, etc. Will have to close their
> > > > companies, because nobody will buy their expensiveness programs.
> > > > I don't know if is the nature of the program that can't permit  an 
> interface,
> > > > but I'm taking the voice of all the people that really needs an interface 
> to
> > > > properly works in a score.
> > > > An example would be the ABCedit editor from Prof.Coolgeem, is very nice 
> and
> > > > usable
> > > > Please!! consider this.
> > > >
> > > > Cheer's
> > > >
> > > > César Penagos.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > lilypond-user mailing list
> > > > address@hidden
> > > > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > lilypond-user mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lilypond-user mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> >
>
>
> --
> Trevor Bača
> address@hidden