Re: Is method of using LilyPond compatible with creativity?

[Julian Squires]

Hi Michael.

I have no comments on whether Lilypond is right for you -- perhaps it's
better just to try it.  However, I can't resist commenting on the
quasi-philosophical issue you've brought up.  Maybe my comments will
also help you decide some things about lilypond.

On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 12:02:43AM +1000, Michael Edwards wrote:
>      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.

I couldn't disagree more.  I find computer programming (which I do as a
profession) and music composition (which I do as a hobby) tremendously
similar.  Working with music in the same text editor and environment in
which I work on code is very nice for me. 

I look at computer programming as subtle and elusive, with a lot of
creative thought involved.  Music is very logical and structured, and
about as analyzable as any complex program.  I would also say that there
are probably not that many more programmers doing very elegant analysis
of programs as there are musicians doing analysis of music.

Perhaps my main complaint about lilypond is that I am mostly forced to
work on one voice at a time, but this is made up for by being able to
work on the music thinking about its structure separate from its visual
appearance (and its sound in my head separate from its sound in some
hideous MIDI rendition).  For the same reason, I prefer writing essays,
papers, and stories in LaTeX rather than a WYSIWYG word processor,
because it takes my mind away from thinking about visual details when I
am concerned with logical details.  (and, of course, like lilypond, it
allows me to go back and tweak the visual details in nice ways should I
desire it, afterwards)

>      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 like sketching on paper before working with a piece at a macro-level
with lilypond.  I find that the graphical programs are cumbersome for
working with large blocks of music, which are often easier to manipulate
with lilypond's syntax in a good text editor.

For sketching, nothing really compares to the feel of paper, for me, so
I prefer to work on paper, first, and then enter my sketches into
a text file for tweaking and piecing things together.

Some very interesting questions.  Hope my input helps.
Cheers.

-- 
Julian Squires