Engraving essay questions and RFC

[Andrew Hawryluk-2]

Hi everyone, I'm working on the LilyPond essay, and I'm ready to ask
you some questions.

You can read my current draft at http://www.musicbyandrew.ca/essay.pdf
(this is identical to a doc build with my latest patch, except that I
have only updated the pages containing the new essay, leaving out the
original, the GPL stuff, and the index.) The source file in question
is Documentation/essay/engraving.itely

Questions:

1. Multiple staff sizes and optical line weights. I have a piano +
violin excerpt on page 4 (PDF page 6). If I modify the staff-space and
thickness by the same number then I don't get the relatively heavier
lines that I would naturally get using "set-global-staff-size". I am
currently using this:

  \new Staff \with {
      fontSize = #-4
      \override StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep -4)
      \override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #(magstep -3)
    }

This gives me staff lines that I like, but they may not match the
carefully tunes weights of "set-global-staff-size". Also, I think I
should be thickening up the barlines and stems as well.
- Any suggestions on the tweaks I should do to match the
"set-global-staff-size" appearance?

(A previous discussion suggested magstep = 3.5 for these cases, but I
am trying to increase the contrast a bit.)

2. Something is wrong with my beaming on page 6 (PDF 8). Any guesses?
The source is
\relative c {
  \clef "bass"
  \key d \minor
  \time 3/4
  \mergeDifferentlyDottedOn
  << {\slurDashed d8.-\flageolet( e16) e4.-\trill( d16 e)}
     \\ {d4_2 a2}
  >>
  \slurDashed
  <f' a, d,>4. e8( d c)
  \slurSolid
  bes g' f e16( f g_1 a_2 bes_3 d,_2)
  \slurDashed
  cis4.-\trill b8_3( a g)
  << {\slurDashed d'8.( e16) e4.-\trill( d16 e)}
     \\ {<f, a>4 a2}
  >>
}

3. As you can see, I have started a comparison of Finale / LilyPond /
real engravings. The scores are on the last 3 pages. (Note that the
Finale example has been clipped just a bit to close on the right hand
side. I will fix this.) My preliminary observations are

- Finale rests are always at the same heights (in v1/v2 situations).
- Finale doesn’t interlock notes nicely (mm. 28–29).
- Finale misses the B-flat in mm. 33!
- Finale’s beamed stems are almost always too long when they extend
off the staff.
- LilyPond 2.13.5 currently has a vertical spacing problem (no padding
between staves).
- LilyPond could use a little more space before the first note of mm. 30, 33–34.
- LilyPond’s ties to beat 1 of mm. 31 are shorter than any of the
reference scores, and Finale’s are even worse.
- LilyPond’s stems are often shorter than any of the references,
especially RH mm. 31.

Have I missed anything?
Please discuss?
Maybe a couple of those items should be bug reports? Although I want
to be fair in this essay, I also don't want to

4. I believe that I have now incorporated the most valuable elements
of the original essay into the nicer structure that Trevor began. Do
you agree or did I miss something? (There are probably still things to
add, but I don't think they will come from the old essay.)

5. Any other thoughts? The essay has been a prominent piece of
LilyPond 'marketing' and I want to know that community is getting the
upgraded essay that they want.

Thanks,
Andrew


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen-2]

Op woensdag 07-10-2009 om 22:18 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Andrew
Hawryluk:

> Have I missed anything?
> Please discuss?

What about the bland look of the henle 666 edition of the solo cello
suites compared with baerenreiter's?

For me, this grasps the essence of

   * what is wrong with computer notated music

ie: why the graham's mao did we start this insane job of building
lilypond? [and why should the reader junk the piece of sh*t she's
using now to enrgave her scores?], so it sets the stage for

   * why should I care and learn about/use lilypond

It is kind of hard to immediately see what's wrong with the henle
edition.  Everything looks neat and okay.  Possibly even "better",
more computerized and thus possibly unescapably more sterile than
the hand-engraved version.  It really puzzled Han-Wen and me for
quite a while why computer music notation is bad.  We really wanted
to fix that, but we first had to find why it's bad.

This intriguing quest[ion] could make someone want to read the rest
of the essay too.  It now starts off with a nice history of [plate]
engraving, but why would I want to know or read about that?

This start was part of the talk that Han-Wen and I gave for a while.
You'll have to note the exact vertical lines (grid-lines, almost)
that the barlines and individual notes are on.  That's the most
noticable clue here, which leads to the small note+accidental spacing
differences and the optical note spacing corrections, that give
a score a much more lively/alive look, making it also more readable
and less awkward (esp. the optical spacing).

I'm not sure if you'd want to visually annotate any typography
errors.  It was possibly a bit awkwardly done, but visual marks
do make errors immediately clear; much easier than reading text
and then comparing it to a picture?

I also like the lyrics benchmarking bit :-)

Jan.


--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@...> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
Avatar®: http://AvatarAcademy.nl    | http://lilypond.org



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[jancsika]

> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 22:18:12 -0600
> From: Andrew Hawryluk <ahawryluk@...>
> Subject: Engraving essay questions and RFC
> To: lilypond-devel <lilypond-devel@...>
> Message-ID:
>     <11cc7c4f0910072118p562a3e4fj2d167172fcb88a04@...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>

Hi Andrew,
     This looks great to me- I like seeing Lilypond compared to several
other editions of the same piece at the end.
     I just have one comment about the following:

> - Finale’s beamed stems are almost always too long when
> they extend
> off the staff.

Your benchmarking method currently takes the default output and compares it to classic engravings.  But this means you're considering things
like the "Patterson Beams" plugin in Finale a tweak; yet it is an
automated tool that takes two or three mouse-clicks and is a standard part
of the engraving process for any serious Finale user.

Also, I really think it would be helpful to additionally show fully
tweaked versions of both the Finale and Lilypond scores, to give an idea
of the techniques/time necessary to get optimal output in both pieces of
software.  I think I can get a copyist to do this on the Finale
side if you're interested.

-Jonathan

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Andrew Hawryluk-2]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen
<janneke-list@...> wrote:

> Op woensdag 07-10-2009 om 22:18 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Andrew
> Hawryluk:
>
>> Have I missed anything?
>> Please discuss?
>
> What about the bland look of the henle 666 edition of the solo cello
> suites compared with baerenreiter's?
>
> For me, this grasps the essence of
>
>   * what is wrong with computer notated music
>
> ie: why the graham's mao did we start this insane job of building
> lilypond? [and why should the reader junk the piece of sh*t she's
> using now to enrgave her scores?], so it sets the stage for
>
>   * why should I care and learn about/use lilypond
>
> It is kind of hard to immediately see what's wrong with the henle
> edition.  Everything looks neat and okay.  Possibly even "better",
> more computerized and thus possibly unescapably more sterile than
> the hand-engraved version.  It really puzzled Han-Wen and me for
> quite a while why computer music notation is bad.  We really wanted
> to fix that, but we first had to find why it's bad.
>
> This intriguing quest[ion] could make someone want to read the rest
> of the essay too.  It now starts off with a nice history of [plate]
> engraving, but why would I want to know or read about that?
>
> This start was part of the talk that Han-Wen and I gave for a while.
> You'll have to note the exact vertical lines (grid-lines, almost)
> that the barlines and individual notes are on.  That's the most
> noticable clue here, which leads to the small note+accidental spacing
> differences and the optical note spacing corrections, that give
> a score a much more lively/alive look, making it also more readable
> and less awkward (esp. the optical spacing).

Thanks, those are good points. Do you have copies of the scores in
question? For the PDF version I'd love to get some scans at 300 or 600
dpi so they could be reproduced at (nearly) full size.

> I'm not sure if you'd want to visually annotate any typography
> errors.  It was possibly a bit awkwardly done, but visual marks
> do make errors immediately clear; much easier than reading text
> and then comparing it to a picture?

Yes, the annotations speed up the reader's job a lot. I also like
seeing the 'unmarked' version to see the effect of those details on
the total impression, so I will play around with that.

> I also like the lyrics benchmarking bit :-)

Do you mean the Schubert (Sängers Morgenlied)?

Speaking of the benchmarking examples, do you (or anyone else) have
PDF versions of the old LilyPond output? (e.g. version 1.4 or 2.1.5?)
I know the odds are low, but if they were easy to find I would use
them.

Thanks again,
Andrew


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Andrew Hawryluk-2]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@...> wrote:

>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 22:18:12 -0600
>> From: Andrew Hawryluk <ahawryluk@...>
>> Subject: Engraving essay questions and RFC
>> To: lilypond-devel <lilypond-devel@...>
>> Message-ID:
>>     <11cc7c4f0910072118p562a3e4fj2d167172fcb88a04@...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>     This looks great to me- I like seeing Lilypond compared to several
> other editions of the same piece at the end.
>     I just have one comment about the following:
>
>> - Finale’s beamed stems are almost always too long when
>> they extend
>> off the staff.
>
> Your benchmarking method currently takes the default output and compares it to classic engravings.  But this means you're considering things
> like the "Patterson Beams" plugin in Finale a tweak; yet it is an
> automated tool that takes two or three mouse-clicks and is a standard part
> of the engraving process for any serious Finale user.

Yes, I do consider "Patterson Beams" a tweak, but it would be worth
stating this explicitly in the text. My reasoning is that the plugin
is an additional step I have to remember before I print the score, and
if I do any additional note editing, the edited regions revert to
Finale's default beams (IIRC). The same thing is certainly true about
horizontal note-spacing adjustments, and it drives me nuts (I refer to
"beat spacing" with the measure tool). When working in Finale, I have
to always follow an optimum order of operations, e.g. "Oh, that alto
stem collides with the lyrics, but I don't want to fix it now because
I haven't selected the best line breaks yet and I can't choose the
best inter-stave spacing until then. I hope I'll still remember this
collision is there before I upload it."

> Also, I really think it would be helpful to additionally show fully
> tweaked versions of both the Finale and Lilypond scores, to give an idea
> of the techniques/time necessary to get optimal output in both pieces of
> software.  I think I can get a copyist to do this on the Finale
> side if you're interested.

I was going to remark that some fine-tuning can bring either score
into conformance with the engraved editions, but actually doing it
would be more convincing, no? I have a tiny adjustment to make on the
Finale score, but once I've done it I can send you the file.

Thanks for your input,
Andrew

> -Jonathan
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-devel@...
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
>

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Peter Chubb-4]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Hawryluk <ahawryluk@...> writes:

Andrew> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Andrew> <janneke-list@...> wrote:

Andrew> Speaking of the benchmarking examples, do you (or anyone else)
Andrew> have PDF versions of the old LilyPond output? (e.g. version
Andrew> 1.4 or 2.1.5?)  I know the odds are low, but if they were easy
Andrew> to find I would use them.

Check out the Mutopia project.  They have stuff there for lots of
different Lilypond versions, source together with PDFs.

--
Dr Peter Chubb                                  peter DOT chubb AT nicta.com.au
http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au               ERTOS within National ICT Australia
All things shall perish from under the sky/Music alone shall live, never to die


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen-2]

Op donderdag 08-10-2009 om 19:08 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Andrew
Hawryluk:

> Thanks, those are good points. Do you have copies of the scores in
> question? For the PDF version I'd love to get some scans at 300 or 600
> dpi so they could be reproduced at (nearly) full size.

I've put up some stuff at

    http://lilypond.org/~janneke/essay/

> Yes, the annotations speed up the reader's job a lot. I also like
> seeing the 'unmarked' version

Yes, that's right.

> Do you mean the Schubert (Sängers Morgenlied)?

Yes.

Jan.




_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Trevor Daniels]

Hi Andrew

Generally looking good.  A few comments, mostly minor:

a) Page 2 has the phrase "Not let down, we created a font of musical
symbols"
"Not to be deterred," or "Undiscouraged," would be better.

b) Where you compare the shapes of the quarter rests on page 2 it
might be better to draw attention to the three sharp points in the
middle, as the one at the bottom seems to exhibit the point :) being
made the least.

c) Page 3:  the last para of the text immediately below the first
music example has the references to the two examples the wrong way
round - the _lower_ measures contain the correction.

d) Page 5, where you compare Lily 1.4 output, I suggest you make it
clear when 1.4 is first mentioned that this is a very old version.
This would not be immediately obvious to someone coming to LilyPond
for the first time.

Trevor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Hawryluk" <ahawryluk@...>
To: "lilypond-devel" <lilypond-devel@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:18 AM
Subject: Engraving essay questions and RFC


Hi everyone, I'm working on the LilyPond essay, and I'm ready to ask
you some questions.

You can read my current draft at
http://www.musicbyandrew.ca/essay.pdf
(this is identical to a doc build with my latest patch, except that
I
have only updated the pages containing the new essay, leaving out
the
original, the GPL stuff, and the index.) The source file in question
is Documentation/essay/engraving.itely

Questions:

1. Multiple staff sizes and optical line weights. I have a piano +
violin excerpt on page 4 (PDF page 6). If I modify the staff-space
and
thickness by the same number then I don't get the relatively heavier
lines that I would naturally get using "set-global-staff-size". I am
currently using this:

  \new Staff \with {
      fontSize = #-4
      \override StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep -4)
      \override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #(magstep -3)
    }

This gives me staff lines that I like, but they may not match the
carefully tunes weights of "set-global-staff-size". Also, I think I
should be thickening up the barlines and stems as well.
- Any suggestions on the tweaks I should do to match the
"set-global-staff-size" appearance?

(A previous discussion suggested magstep = 3.5 for these cases, but
I
am trying to increase the contrast a bit.)

2. Something is wrong with my beaming on page 6 (PDF 8). Any
guesses?
The source is
\relative c {
  \clef "bass"
  \key d \minor
  \time 3/4
  \mergeDifferentlyDottedOn
  << {\slurDashed d8.-\flageolet( e16) e4.-\trill( d16 e)}
     \\ {d4_2 a2}
  >>
  \slurDashed
  <f' a, d,>4. e8( d c)
  \slurSolid
  bes g' f e16( f g_1 a_2 bes_3 d,_2)
  \slurDashed
  cis4.-\trill b8_3( a g)
  << {\slurDashed d'8.( e16) e4.-\trill( d16 e)}
     \\ {<f, a>4 a2}
  >>
}

3. As you can see, I have started a comparison of Finale / LilyPond
/
real engravings. The scores are on the last 3 pages. (Note that the
Finale example has been clipped just a bit to close on the right
hand
side. I will fix this.) My preliminary observations are

- Finale rests are always at the same heights (in v1/v2 situations).
- Finale doesn’t interlock notes nicely (mm. 28–29).
- Finale misses the B-flat in mm. 33!
- Finale’s beamed stems are almost always too long when they extend
off the staff.
- LilyPond 2.13.5 currently has a vertical spacing problem (no
padding
between staves).
- LilyPond could use a little more space before the first note of
mm. 30, 33–34.
- LilyPond’s ties to beat 1 of mm. 31 are shorter than any of the
reference scores, and Finale’s are even worse.
- LilyPond’s stems are often shorter than any of the references,
especially RH mm. 31.

Have I missed anything?
Please discuss?
Maybe a couple of those items should be bug reports? Although I want
to be fair in this essay, I also don't want to

4. I believe that I have now incorporated the most valuable elements
of the original essay into the nicer structure that Trevor began. Do
you agree or did I miss something? (There are probably still things
to
add, but I don't think they will come from the old essay.)

5. Any other thoughts? The essay has been a prominent piece of
LilyPond 'marketing' and I want to know that community is getting
the
upgraded essay that they want.

Thanks,
Andrew


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Joe Neeman-2]

On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 22:18 -0600, Andrew Hawryluk wrote:
> - LilyPond 2.13.5 currently has a vertical spacing problem (no padding
> between staves).

how about this:
\layout {
  \context {
    \PianoStaff
    \override StaffGrouper #'between-staff-spacing #'padding = #0.5
  }
}

If you find a good value, I'll make it the default.

Cheers,
Joe




_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Andrew,

> Hi everyone, I'm working on the LilyPond essay

That's great! Thanks.
I'm definitely going to use whatever version you have by October 31st  
in my upcoming lecture series (3-5 November).

> - LilyPond’s stems are often shorter than any of the references,
> especially RH mm. 31.
>
> Please discuss?

I have found Lilypond's stem defaults to be too short for quite a  
while now (I can't remember when the big change was, but it's been at  
least since v2.8)...
I'm glad to see concrete evidence from the "holy grail" (Barenreiter,  
etc.) to back up my intuition.  =)

> Maybe a couple of those items should be bug reports?

+1

Best,
Kieren.

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Andrew Hawryluk-2]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Trevor Daniels <t.daniels@...> wrote:

> Hi Andrew
>
> Generally looking good.  A few comments, mostly minor:
>
> a) Page 2 has the phrase "Not let down, we created a font of musical
> symbols"
> "Not to be deterred," or "Undiscouraged," would be better.
>
> b) Where you compare the shapes of the quarter rests on page 2 it might be
> better to draw attention to the three sharp points in the middle, as the one
> at the bottom seems to exhibit the point :) being made the least.
>
> c) Page 3:  the last para of the text immediately below the first music
> example has the references to the two examples the wrong way round - the
> _lower_ measures contain the correction.
>
> d) Page 5, where you compare Lily 1.4 output, I suggest you make it clear
> when 1.4 is first mentioned that this is a very old version. This would not
> be immediately obvious to someone coming to LilyPond for the first time.
>
> Trevor

Thanks for the detailed proofreading! The changes will appear in my next patch.

Andrew


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Andrew Hawryluk-2]

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Joe Neeman <joeneeman@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 22:18 -0600, Andrew Hawryluk wrote:
>> - LilyPond 2.13.5 currently has a vertical spacing problem (no padding
>> between staves).
>
> how about this:
> \layout {
>  \context {
>    \PianoStaff
>    \override StaffGrouper #'between-staff-spacing #'padding = #0.5
>  }
> }
>
> If you find a good value, I'll make it the default.
>
> Cheers,
> Joe

I propose #'padding = #1 as the default value for PianoStaff.

Are there other default values in the new spacing engine that need to
be selected, perhaps by referencing good published scores? Overall,
I'm very impressed with the new layout algorithms, and I'd be happy to
pitch in a bit of score measuring if it will help to get the constants
right.

Andrew


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Joe Neeman-2]

On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 14:01 -0600, Andrew Hawryluk wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Joe Neeman <joeneeman@...> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 22:18 -0600, Andrew Hawryluk wrote:
> >> - LilyPond 2.13.5 currently has a vertical spacing problem (no padding
> >> between staves).
> >
> > how about this:
> > \layout {
> >  \context {
> >    \PianoStaff
> >    \override StaffGrouper #'between-staff-spacing #'padding = #0.5
> >  }
> > }
> >
> > If you find a good value, I'll make it the default.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Joe
>
> I propose #'padding = #1 as the default value for PianoStaff.

Thanks, pushed.

> Are there other default values in the new spacing engine that need to
> be selected, perhaps by referencing good published scores? Overall,
> I'm very impressed with the new layout algorithms, and I'd be happy to
> pitch in a bit of score measuring if it will help to get the constants
> right.

Basically, almost all of the default values for the new spacing engine
were chosen almost arbitrarily by me. This includes stretchable space,
stretchability, padding and minimum distance for a lot of different
situations (between staves in the same staff group, between staves in
different staff groups, between systems, from systems to titles, etc).
Some of these values could be established by examining scores (padding,
for example, and maybe minimum distance). For others (like stretchable
space), it's harder because you can't measure them directly from
finished scores.

Perhaps some benchmarking is in order. If you, or someone else, has an
example of a score that gets bad spacing together with a well typeset
reference copy of the score then it could be used to fine-tune
parameters.

Cheers,
Joe




_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel