From 07ab5bd0fc789e2edfb3a9b87a72e3c8e41d5f40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: hanwen Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:58:27 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] (Introduction): rewrite start of introduction. --- ChangeLog | 8 ++ Documentation/user/GNUmakefile | 11 ++- Documentation/user/introduction.itely | 135 ++++++++++++++-------------------- 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-) diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog index 932ac88fbf..d25d55a368 100644 --- a/ChangeLog +++ b/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2003-07-18 Han-Wen Nienhuys + + * Documentation/user/introduction.itely (Introduction): rewrite + start of introduction. + 2003-07-18 Juergen Reuter * lily/all-font-metrics.cc: fixed typo @@ -12,6 +17,9 @@ 2003-07-17 Han-Wen Nienhuys + * Documentation/user/refman.itely (Figured bass): + language nit courtesy http://www.vocabula.com + * GNUmakefile.in: remove no kpathsea hack. * Documentation/topdocs/INSTALL.texi (Top): remove web-doc from diff --git a/Documentation/user/GNUmakefile b/Documentation/user/GNUmakefile index 8c344d9bd7..7baec58bb7 100644 --- a/Documentation/user/GNUmakefile +++ b/Documentation/user/GNUmakefile @@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ LATEX_FILES =$(wildcard *.latex) # todo: add latex. DVI_FILES = $(addprefix $(outdir)/, $(TELY_FILES:.tely=.dvi)) -EXTRA_DIST_FILES= $(LATEX_FILES) - +EXTRA_DIST_FILES= $(LATEX_FILES) $(IMAGES) +# IMAGES=$(wildcard *-suite1-line.*) HTML_FILES = $(addprefix $(outdir)/, $(TELY_FILES:.tely=.html)) PS_FILES = $(DVI_FILES:.dvi=.ps) @@ -34,6 +34,9 @@ include $(depth)/make/stepmake.make # lilypond.tely uses mbinclude TEXINFO_SOURCES := $(filter-out lilypond.tely, $(TEXINFO_SOURCES)) +outimages: + cp $(IMAGES) $(outdir) + dvi: $(DVI_FILES) ps: $(PS_FILES) @@ -61,7 +64,7 @@ extra-local-help: # Generic rule using % twice not possible? # $(outdir)/%/%.html: $(outdir)/%.texi -$(outdir)/lilypond/lilypond.html: $(outdir)/lilypond.texi +$(outdir)/lilypond/lilypond.html: $(outdir)/lilypond.texi outimages mkdir -p $(dir $@) $(MAKEINFO) --output=$(outdir)/lilypond --html $< -cp -f $(outdir)/*.{png,ly} $(outdir)/lilypond @@ -84,7 +87,7 @@ else # Links referred to by Documentation index LILYPOND_LINKS=Reference-Manual.html Tutorial.html Ly2dvi.html Midi2ly.html -local-WWW: deep-symlinks +local-WWW: outimages deep-symlinks deep-symlinks: mkdir -p $(outdir)/lilypond diff --git a/Documentation/user/introduction.itely b/Documentation/user/introduction.itely index d5015cfbca..055782ae97 100644 --- a/Documentation/user/introduction.itely +++ b/Documentation/user/introduction.itely @@ -14,53 +14,65 @@ usually cannot pinpoint what exactly is so disconcerting about computer prints. However, it only takes a little attention to see for yourself what is +what the differences are. The procedure is easy. Find two editions of +the same piece, an old edition a reputable publishing house, and one +which is formatted with a computer. If you are unsure, both can be +told apart easily. Traditional hand-work has slight variations in +symbol placements, while computer programs repeat all their errors in +placement with iron rigidity. To illustrate this, we show two scanned +fragments of the same piece, the first Cello Suite by Johann Sebastian +Bach. The top one was hand made (published in 1950 by +B@"{a}renreiter), while the bottom one was computer made (published in +2000 by Henle). +@ignore +@iftex +@image{baer-suite1-line,15cm} +@image{henle-suite1-line,15.3cm} +@end iftex - oftenmostly itself, -than studying the looks of , and will so most l playing Since we -normally don't For normal users, it is difficult If you are familiar -with this sensation, you will probably not be able to pinpoint what -exactly causes this feeling. - - - - - Normally, one notices these details only subconsiously. The best way -to become conscious of these differences is to compare a traditionally -printed and a computer printed edition of the same piece, preferably -with a magnifying glass. If you are not sure: traditional engraving is -photographically reproduced hand-work, and can be recognized by -slightly irregularities in symbol placement, and small blotches due to -the reproduction process. - - - -By contrast, we try to mimick traditional plate engraving in the -general impression, layout algorithms, and the font -design. Consequently, our output often beats our competitors when it -comes to good looks. - - - - -LilyPond is an automated music engraving system. - - -With LilyPond is a program that lets you print sheet music. It is -certainly not unique in that sense. - - -it is more than that - - If you are reading this +@ifhtml +@html + +

+ +

+@end html +@end ifhtml +@end ignore -What is LilyPond? -Automatic notation, so that means I can play the music, and then it -rolls out of the printer? +The fragments come from different editions, so there are some +editorial differences regarding the slurs. However, we want to compare +the typography of both. We can see that the Henle edition looks +mechanical. This is caused by lack of variation in the spacing: the +note heads in both systems are on the same horizontal positions, as is +the bar line. A second difference is in the blackness of the page: the +B@"{a}renreiter has a stronger look, simply because it uses a heavier +font, and thicker staff lines. In the printed editions, the Henle +version is 7 mm wider (approximately 4 %). Often, this difference is +larger: computer scores tend to be spaced very widely, thus putting +less information on a page, on average. Besides these global +characteristics, software also make errors in the details. Beams +should normally completely cover staff lines. In this case, the +programmers have tried to do so, but forgot to take into account the +thickness of the staff lines. The result is that the endings of all +sloped beams are wedge-formed. The effect is subtle, it may not show +up in this reproduction due to limits of the resolution, but it is +certainly noticeable in the original. + +Looking at such detail to the formatting of a score certainly is +nitpicky. However, all these details serve a purpose, and that is to +help the musician perform better: variation in spacing give each line +a unique, which helps you remember where you are when you look +away. Boldly print notes stand out more clearly when viewed from a +distance. Tightly spaced scores take up less pages, which reduces the +frequency of page turns. Correctly formatted beams and slurs indicate +the direction of music, and without distracting the reader with +unnecessary clusters of ink. Clearly, good music typography is +desirable. -There are other program that do notation. What's so special about yours? What is wrong with other computer printed scores? What is engraving? @@ -118,52 +130,13 @@ design, and how this approach affects you as a user. @menu -* Batch processing:: * Music engraving:: -* Computerized typography :: +* Computerized typography:: * Music representation:: * Example applications:: * About this manual:: @end menu -@node Batch processing -@section Batch processing - -@cindex GUI -@cindex Batch -@cindex UNIX - -LilyPond is a @emph{batch} program. To use it, one enters commands in a -file, and runs the program on that file. The output is produced without -requiring any further interaction. - -When we started developing LilyPond, we were still studying at the -university. We were interested in music notation, not as publishers -or musicians, but as programmers and scientists. We wanted to figure -to what extent formatting sheet music could be automated. Back then -GUIs were not as ubiquitous as they are today, and we were immersed in -the UNIX operating system, where it is very common to use compilers to -achieve computing tasks. So, our computerized music engraving -experiment took on the form of a compiler. - - -@ignore -@cindex free software -@cindex sharing software - -You can freely use, modify and redistribute LilyPond. This choice was -also motivated by our academic background. In the scientific community -it has always been a tradition to share knowledge, also if that -knowledge was packaged as software. One of the most visible groups -that stimulated this philosophy, was the Free Software Foundation, -whose popular GNU project aimed to replace closed and proprietary -computing solutions with free (as in ``Libre'') variants. We jumped on -that bandwagon, and released LilyPond as free software. That is the -reason that you can get LilyPond at no cost and without any strings -attached. -@end ignore - - @node Music engraving @section Music engraving -- 2.11.4.GIT