Re: time lapse / will pay ...

[Alexander Deubelbeiss]

(replying to a bug-lilypond digest message into lilypond-user -- the problem 
seems to be more appropriate for this list)

> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:18:10 -0500
> From: Alexander De Sina <address@hidden>
> Subject: time lapse
> To: <address@hidden>
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 
> Can anyone explain why it takes almost a minute for my three month-old,
> windows vista dell running the latest lilypond almost a minute to convert
> files as simple as:
>  
> { c d e f g a b c }{ a1 a2 a4 a8 a16 a32 a64 a128 }{ r2 r4 r8 r16 r32 r64
> }{ a2. a4 r8 a8 }
> { \clef treble \time 6/8 c d e f g a b c }

Lilypond can't work while you are working: since input and processing are going 
on in separate programs, Lilypond has to do all the processing while you wait 
and stare at your desktop background. A system that integrates data entry and 
graphical output in the same program can do some of the work "behind the 
scenes", while you're still writing the latter parts of the file. But Lilypond 
is designed differently, so its score layout machinery isn't even running while 
you're working on a file.

For longer files, you can reduce your wait by only processing the part you're 
currently working on; see "Skipping corrected music" in the manual (section 
10.5 in the manual for version 2.10).

The first file you (successfully) process on any computer will take even longer 
because the first time Lilypond runs it prepares the fonts it will use. This 
should only happen once; later runs will be faster because they use the cached 
font information which was generated that first time.

> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:48:27 -0500
> From: Alexander De Sina <address@hidden>
> Subject: will pay for lilypond lessons in the New York City area
> To: <address@hidden>
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 
> Dear All,
>  
> I am a Schenkerian theorist and wanting to use lilypad for use in
> illustrating graphs. The software is touted as being perfect for
> this function,

I can't really help you with Schenker graphs -- never used one, can't read 
them. Note however that Lilypond is NOT good at Schenkerian graphs. In fact, 
Lilypond doesn't do Schenker at all. But Lilypond is good at Plain Old 
Notation, and P.O.N. can be hammered into Schenker graphs by overriding 
Lilypond's ideas about e.g. what noteheads to use, where to put beams, whether 
to print stems etc.

This is what Kris Shaffer did and wrote about in that article two years ago. In 
his opinion, twisting Lilypond's arm until it produces Schenker is easier (or 
at least more straightforward) than trying the same with any graphical music 
typesetter which, like Lilypond, is made for Plain Old Notation and doesn't 
know about Schenkerian analysis.

In other words, you can't write a Lilypond input file that describes a Schenker 
graph and have that processed into a graphical file. You have to write a file 
that describes the "ordinary" notation, then add in all the ways in which the 
Schenker graph differs from that.

This is why the first replies to your questions about Schenker graphs said 
little more than "learn to do ordinary notation first" -- Schenker is not a 
function of the software, it's an advanced step you can take once you are at 
least slightly familiar with the software.


Hope this clarifies a thing or two. With solstice-related greetings

Xander Deubelbeiss
-- 
Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten 
Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser