"David Powers" cyborgk@gmail.com writes:
resistant to using it when I was in college. But I think the interface improved somewhat, and I suppose I just got used to it as well.
You mean, you don't have to click through several dialog boxes in order to get to some specific feature?
It took me a while, to quit notating everything by hand, but it certainly helps not having to recopy parts when you change a line an hour before rehearsal! I've never tried Lilypond though, so I can't compare.
in lilypond you work backwards. You set up one document which contains the full score and you define parts/instruments in (usually) a sperate file(s).
Now, on the other hand, I have a specific notational need, that I don't know any way of meeting currently: I want to write scores that contain noteheads, but no stems or time signatures, with one line being relative.
It should be fairly straight-forward with lilypond in the /cadenzaOn context (and of course setting up the staff with one line and hiding various engraver elements (such as stems, beams, rests, whatever) globally.
I'd also like said program to be able to give an approximate performance of said notation, with each line lasting duration X.
lilypond probably can't do this but maybe there'd be a way to hack something up with guile.
I've actually considered, whether I could use Gem, and capture the output as images, to create my score! If anyone thinks there's a way that PD could help .... let me know!
How about scoring the music in PD (or Pd) (and performing it via MIDI or whatnot) and transcribing it into a lilypond score.
Well, until there is an open source Ableton, and Reaktor, Kontakt and Intakt, I'm stuck doing many things on WinXP (or Mac, but PC's are cheaper).
except for Ableton, which I tried for a few days some years ago, I don't even know what we're talking about (I've heard of Reaktor but never used/seen it). But I see what you mean.
A lot of my musical needs ARE in the mainstream. About 10-20% of the time, I need things more experimental.
I really don't see the correlation between mainstream music and commercial software. It's not like you cannot write 4/4 music in C major, using I-IV-V chord progressions using existing open-source software (in linux on top of that).
When I'm being experimental and don't have as well-defined needs, it's easier to try open source stuff.
Actually, there are 2 applications that I miss from my mac days: thonk and Argeïphontes Lyre. So good for experimental stuff. Nothing like that exists in the open-source world.
But for some things, the commercial stuff just works. For the record, I hate Cubase. I'd love to replace it. But I don't know of any realistic alternative...
Sorry, can't help you with that. The last time I used Cubase was in 1995. It's true, it was useless.
./MiS