From:
Leonid Hrabovsky <lhrabovsky@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:58 AM
To: Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org>
Cc: "kieren@kierenmacmillan.info" <kieren@kierenmacmillan.info>, "jean@abou-samra.fr" <jean@abou-samra.fr>, "lilypond-user@gnu.org" <lilypond-user@gnu.org>, Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Help
Agreed! Nevetheless, in my modest opinion, the easiness of modern notation in LilyPond would be greatly upgraded if one might take the book of Edgard Karkoschka
on the XX century notation and check out most common features used by all composers discussed in this very informative book - it will turn out that there are 5-6 such common features (like frame or proportional notation, some few lines and symbols) that might
be easily added to the whole pool. In comparison to enormously rich resources devoted in documentation to ancient and medieval notation (circa 100 noteheads only!), it looks like the needs of modern composers are somehow overlooked...
Lilypond’s stated goal is to be able to replicate the high-quality 19th century engraving. That’s why all the resources are there.
‘
Lilypond’s goal is not to serve the needs of modern composers.
But those who are interested in modern composers’ needs are welcome to contribute function to LilyPond.
Thanks,
Carl
Леонід - Leonid
|
|
Virus-free.
www.avast.com |
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:08 AM Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> wrote:
>> there is a significant reason related to the nature of contemporary
>> notation: it is usually nonstandard. Every composer has their own
>> systems. Given that, it's hard to know what is relevant for
>> putting in the core.
>
> That is true to a great extent… but there are things (like the
> aleatoric box/frame engraver!) that [with a few parameters] are
> arguably "universal", and thus obvious candidates for inclusion.
I agree. IMHO, it would be a very valuable contribution to add this
snippet directly to LilyPond, together with proper documentation that
also demonstrates how to use it.
Werner