On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 14:03 +0200, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 20.07.2013 17:57, schrieb Richard Shann:
I have been compiling some examples of LilyPond's typesetting compared
with those of well-known alternatives:
http://denemo.org/CompareScorewriters
If anyone can provide better examples - these are just taken from
published work that I could find with a quick search - then please let
me know - especially if I am not doing LilyPond justice.
My examples have a common origin in MusicXML files, but there may be
some other way of standardizing the comparisons (short of re-typing
music examples...).
Richard
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
What about the LilyPond and Finale renderings on that page:
http://lilypond.ursliska.de/notensatz/lilypond-tutorials/tackle-complex-tasks/part-2-improving-the-output.html?
Reading this page I see you refer to "the model" but it is not so clear
what this is
: a musicXML file could provide a fixed point of reference,
though its rag-bag specification does not help. And worse, the musicXML
format is capable of holding descriptions of where to break lines etc;
we really want to compare the ability to generate this sort of thing.
Could we arrive at a definition of what a minimal specification of a
piece of music notation that described some conventional Western music
but not how it is to be typeset? I'm not sure. Even having added
"conventional Western" to that sentence.
Richard
Unfortunately TYPO3 scrambled the links to the full-size images, but
it already gives you an idea.
I like this example because it displays a task LilyPond does _not_
manage - but then shows that Finale behaves much worse with it.
(But to be honest: it's Finale 2008 and should maybe rerendered with a
current version).
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user