Why SCORE is so good, an opinion
Why SCORE is so good, an opinion
Interesting discussion of notation strategies:
http://www.jeffreygrossman.com/engraving.html
I wonder how much of his discussion applies to LilyPond.
http://www.jeffreygrossman.com/engraving.html
I wonder how much of his discussion applies to LilyPond.
John Rethorst
Re: Why SCORE is so good, an opinion
This is a great explanation of what really does make SCORE so nice, to name just a few reasons. No doubt there are more.jrethorst wrote:Interesting discussion of notation strategies:
http://www.jeffreygrossman.com/engraving.html
I wonder how much of his discussion applies to LilyPond.
How does his discussion relate to LilyPond? Quite similarly, actually. LP's horizontal AND vertical spacing algorithms are excellent and flexible. Each element (called graphical objects, or "grobs" for short) has numerous position properties, all available to the user. Changing some values may allow LP to adjust its calculations (like X-offset, Y-offset, etc.), others are taken into account after LP does its magic (i.e., extra-offset), causing the manual adjustments to have no change whatsoever on any other element on the page except the one the user wanted to change.
1) Note Spacing. Normally, LP uses optical spacing so that consecutive notes "appear" the same distance apart, even if they might not actually be. This aids readability, of course. You can turn this off to make the spacing more uniform. You can also force the spacing to be exactly proportional to its duration (i.e. the horizontal space given to a whole note is the exactly the same as four quarter notes).
2) Space Allotment. If an added accidental doesn't barge into the allotted "space" of other elements, then the horizontal spacing is not disturbed. This also means that various music elements are "kerned" where possible.
There are only two things I can think of that really could use some improvement:
1) Vertical flexibility of spanners within a system. For example, in a system of piano music, it is common to put the dynamics between the two staves. In LP, this is most easily done with a dedicated dynamics line. However, this forces the dynamics to remain at the same vertical height which can cause the staves to be farther apart than necessary when part of the dynamics line can move up and the other down. This can be adjusted manually, but that's the only way if done with a dedicated dynamics line. I would love to see an implementation that allows for this flexibility automatically, just as there already is between staves, systems, etc.
2) Lyric horizontal positioning. LP already does a pretty good job with this, but, like the vertical rigidity of a dedicated dynamics line, each lyric syllable is quite rigid in its horizontal placement. I think that if Lyrics could "flex" horizontally to favor the original note spacing, then this would be a tremendous leap forward. Again, you can manually adjust a syllable's horizontal placement, both with or without affecting other syllables.
So, the takeaway to all this is that I believe that under the hands of a knowledgeable user, LP is more than capable of beautifully handling challenging scores and giving the engraver a better starting place when manual edits are necessary.
P.S. Just for fun, here's LilyPond's default output of the complex tuplet spacing example on Jeffrey Grossman's site:
Music Typeface Designer & Engraver - LilyPond | Sibelius | Finale | MuseScore | Dorico | SMuFL | Inkscape | FontForge
-
- Posts: 192
- Joined: 19 Jan 2016, 17:30
Re: Why SCORE is so good, an opinion
This is a fabulous response. Thanks for it!tisimst wrote:This is a great explanation of what really does make SCORE so nice, to name just a few reasons. No doubt there are more.jrethorst wrote:Interesting discussion of notation strategies:
http://www.jeffreygrossman.com/engraving.html
I wonder how much of his discussion applies to LilyPond.
How does his discussion relate to LilyPond? Quite similarly, actually. LP's horizontal AND vertical spacing algorithms are excellent and flexible. Each element (called graphical objects, or "grobs" for short) has numerous position properties, all available to the user. Changing some values may allow LP to adjust its calculations (like X-offset, Y-offset, etc.), others are taken into account after LP does its magic (i.e., extra-offset), causing the manual adjustments to have no change whatsoever on any other element on the page except the one the user wanted to change.
1) Note Spacing. Normally, LP uses optical spacing so that consecutive notes "appear" the same distance apart, even if they might not actually be. This aids readability, of course. You can turn this off to make the spacing more uniform. You can also force the spacing to be exactly proportional to its duration (i.e. the horizontal space given to a whole note is the exactly the same as four quarter notes).
2) Space Allotment. If an added accidental doesn't barge into the allotted "space" of other elements, then the horizontal spacing is not disturbed. This also means that various music elements are "kerned" where possible.
There are only two things I can think of that really could use some improvement:
1) Vertical flexibility of spanners within a system. For example, in a system of piano music, it is common to put the dynamics between the two staves. In LP, this is most easily done with a dedicated dynamics line. However, this forces the dynamics to remain at the same vertical height which can cause the staves to be farther apart than necessary when part of the dynamics line can move up and the other down. This can be adjusted manually, but that's the only way if done with a dedicated dynamics line. I would love to see an implementation that allows for this flexibility automatically, just as there already is between staves, systems, etc.
2) Lyric horizontal positioning. LP already does a pretty good job with this, but, like the vertical rigidity of a dedicated dynamics line, each lyric syllable is quite rigid in its horizontal placement. I think that if Lyrics could "flex" horizontally to favor the original note spacing, then this would be a tremendous leap forward. Again, you can manually adjust a syllable's horizontal placement, both with or without affecting other syllables.
So, the takeaway to all this is that I believe that under the hands of a knowledgeable user, LP is more than capable of beautifully handling challenging scores and giving the engraver a better starting place when manual edits are necessary.
P.S. Just for fun, here's LilyPond's default output of the complex tuplet spacing example on Jeffrey Grossman's site:
tuplets-LP-2.19.36.png
Also, @jrethorst, I've been looking for that website for a while.
LilyPond Lover
Composer and Transcriber
Teacher and Performer
Composer and Transcriber
Teacher and Performer
-
- Posts: 192
- Joined: 19 Jan 2016, 17:30
Re: Why SCORE is so good, an opinion
To add my own comment to your link: They are very similar. What differences there are boils down to the editing process. LilyPond loves it when you enjoy its default output, but doesn't care so much for customizing the final look down to a tee. The tweaks are obtuse and clunky, and you are required to learn a fair amount of coding in order to do any heavy customization yourself (without pre-written tweaks).
That being said, I'll take LilyPond's default (and all the musicians that work with me and my scores) over Finale without a heartbeat or eyelash past.
That being said, I'll take LilyPond's default (and all the musicians that work with me and my scores) over Finale without a heartbeat or eyelash past.
LilyPond Lover
Composer and Transcriber
Teacher and Performer
Composer and Transcriber
Teacher and Performer
Why SCORE is so good, an opinion
Thanks! It's MTF-Cadence.jrethorst wrote:Very nice engraving, Abraham. What font is that?
Music Typeface Designer & Engraver - LilyPond | Sibelius | Finale | MuseScore | Dorico | SMuFL | Inkscape | FontForge
Re: Why SCORE is so good, an opinion
Yes yes..SCORE allows absolutely unparalleled, complete control over every item on the musical page.
What to say more?you can manipulate all 19 of SCORE's slur parameters
Finale? Sibelius?When I see a slur colliding with an accidental, I can just adjust exactly the part of the slur that needs to be changed
What to add more?The other part of SCORE... is that nothing changes unless you want it to.
No fonts. There is a very little chance that your output will be a messy PDF or collide with printer. Just outlines. And for all outlines you can adjust their size.
IMO, the biggest problem of F and S is that they are sequencers, and everything must be adjusted vertically. People like to play what they engrave (sometimes it is very reasonable), but for me this is A BIG HANDICAP of those programs.
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 27.5 • Sibelius 2024.3• MuseScore 4+ • Logic Pro X+ • Ableton Live 11+ • Digital Performer 11 /// MacOS Monterey (secondary in use systems: Fedora 35, Windows 10)
Finale 27.5 • Sibelius 2024.3• MuseScore 4+ • Logic Pro X+ • Ableton Live 11+ • Digital Performer 11 /// MacOS Monterey (secondary in use systems: Fedora 35, Windows 10)
Re: Why SCORE is so good, an opinion
As info, I asked the author about WinScore -- whether it was simply a port to Windows, or whether functionality had been changed or added. He said:
WinScore is, in my opinion, not suitable for production work -- it is filled with bugs, missing functionality, and generally a disaster -- though technically it is the "latest version" of the software. The general symbols and mathematics of the program (spacing, etc.) did not change, though, so it really only matters to those working in the program. I still use DOS SCORE for all of my work.
John Rethorst
-
- Posts: 192
- Joined: 19 Jan 2016, 17:30
Re: Why SCORE is so good, an opinion
Couldn't agree more.OCTO wrote:Yes yes..SCORE allows absolutely unparalleled, complete control over every item on the musical page.What to say more?you can manipulate all 19 of SCORE's slur parametersFinale? Sibelius?When I see a slur colliding with an accidental, I can just adjust exactly the part of the slur that needs to be changedWhat to add more?The other part of SCORE... is that nothing changes unless you want it to.
No fonts. There is a very little chance that your output will be a messy PDF or collide with printer. Just outlines. And for all outlines you can adjust their size.
IMO, the biggest problem of F and S is that they are sequencers, and everything must be adjusted vertically. People like to play what they engrave (sometimes it is very reasonable), but for me this is A BIG HANDICAP of those programs.
LilyPond Lover
Composer and Transcriber
Teacher and Performer
Composer and Transcriber
Teacher and Performer
-
- Posts: 192
- Joined: 19 Jan 2016, 17:30
Re: Why SCORE is so good, an opinion
I've been trying so hard to buy this program outright. I can't get the people over at the website to pickup the phone or answer an email. I would love to use DOS SCORE with DOS-BOX.jrethorst wrote:As info, I asked the author about WinScore -- whether it was simply a port to Windows, or whether functionality had been changed or added. He said:WinScore is, in my opinion, not suitable for production work -- it is filled with bugs, missing functionality, and generally a disaster -- though technically it is the "latest version" of the software. The general symbols and mathematics of the program (spacing, etc.) did not change, though, so it really only matters to those working in the program. I still use DOS SCORE for all of my work.
LilyPond Lover
Composer and Transcriber
Teacher and Performer
Composer and Transcriber
Teacher and Performer