2 article(MANIFESTO -- Rationale behind the GNU LilyPond project)(HWN
5 sect(Goals for LilyPond)
8 GNU LilyPond was written with some considerations in mind:
12 it() Describing a well-defined language for defining music. We call
13 this language (rather arrogantly) The Musical Definition Language
14 (mudela for short). GNU LilyPond reads a mudela sourcefile and outputs a
16 it() Providing an easy-to-use interface for typesetting music in
17 its broadest sense. This interface should be intuitive from a musical
18 point of view. By broadest sense we mean: it is designed for music
19 printed left to right in staffs, using notes to designate rythm and
21 it()Generating high-quality output. Ideally it should be of a professional
22 quality. We'd like to render Herbert Chlapiks words, "Fine music
23 setting is not possible without a knowledgeable printer," untrue.
24 it()Making a system which is fully tweakable. It should be possible to
25 typeset a book on how not to typeset music.
28 sect(Development constraints)
31 Further considerations while doing the programming
34 it()GNU LilyPond uses TeX for its output. This is not a key issue: in a
35 future version, GNU LilyPond might bypass TeX, but at the moment TeX
36 is convenient for producing output.
37 it()GNU LilyPond does not display notes directly, nor will it be rehacked
38 to be used interactively. GNU LilyPond writes output to a file. It
39 will not be extended to play music, or to recognize music.
40 it()GNU LilyPond is intended to run on Unix platforms, but it should
41 be portable to any platform which can run TeX and the GNU tools
42 it()GNU LilyPond is free. Commercial windows packages for setting music are
43 abundant. Free musicprinting software is scarce. For more thoughts on
44 this, please consult the file(gnu-music) documentation.
45 it()GNU LilyPond is written in GNU C++. It will not be downgraded/ported to fit
49 sect(Goals for mudela)
51 The design of Mudela has been (perfect past tense, hopefully) an
52 ongoing process, the most important criteria being:
55 it()define the (musical) message of the composer as unambiguously as possible.
56 This means that, given a piece Mudela, it should be possible for a
57 program to play a reasonable interpretation of the piece.
59 It also means that, given a piece of Mudela, it should be possible for a
60 program to print a score of the piece.
61 it()be intuitive, and easily readable (compared to, say, Musi*TeX input,
63 it()be easily writable in ASCII with a simple texteditor
66 Other considerations were (and will be):
69 it()be able to edit the layout without danger of changing the original
71 it()allow for adding different interpretations, again,
72 without danger of changing the original,
73 it()easy to create a conductor's score,
74 as well as the scores for all individual instruments,
75 it()provide simple musical manipulations, such as em(i) extracting a
76 slice of music from a previously defined piece, em(ii) extracting
77 only the rhythm from a piece of music, em(iii) transposing, etc.,
78 it()easy to comprehend to both programmers and others.
81 One of the things that (might) be here would be: feasible to use in a
82 graphic editor. We don't have experience with these beasts, so we
83 don't know how to do this. Comments appreciated.
85 Musical pieces could be
88 it()Orchestral scores, (eg Mahler)
89 it()piano pieces (eg. Schubert, Rachmaninov),
90 it()pop songs (lyrics and chords),
92 it()Bach multivoice organ pieces,
93 it()Short excerpts to be used in musicological publications.