13 Mar
2004
13 Mar
'04
5:40 a.m.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 01:22:46AM +0300, Mikhail Ramendik wrote:
Actually, there seems to be a general contention among
many Linux
developers that non-WYSIWYG solutions produce better results (notably
Lilypond).
I found the article fascinating. I never realised that music engravers
went to so much trouble over such minute detail. I am particularly
surprised as in over 40 years of playing music I have seen some quite
dreadful examples of printed music. Some were handwritten and
photocopied, but some of the typeset or otherwise mechanically produced
(pre computer, almost certainly) were almost unreadable too, because of
badly designed symbols and layout.
It has made me reconsider learning Lilypond. My current favourite music
printing utility is abcm2ps which does a very good job for what I need,
and I have always thought looked as professional as typical purcahsed
sheet music. I'll have to try a side-by side comparison to see what I'm
missing :-)
I'm not
that interested in 100% WYSIWYG; I could do with visual notation editing
and tweaking the layout in a Lilypond file.
My experience of WYSIWYG music input a few years ago is that I got mouse
RSI and it was slower that typing abc. No doubt with practice I could
learn to type Lilypond alost as quick.
Come to think of it... if there are coders interested
in starting a
project on notation editing/typesetting, I could involve a really
professional psychologist, and work on design specs
There's a newsgroup uk.music.notation which discusses issues like this.
Might be worth at least posting a poll for interest in such a project,
and you might get some useful discussion or input.
--
Anahata
anahata(a)treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827