1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
|
\input texinfo @c -*- coding: utf-8; mode: texinfo; -*-
@ignore
Translation of GIT committish: FILL-IN-HEAD-COMMITTISH
When revising a translation, copy the HEAD committish of the
version that you are working on. See TRANSLATION for details.
@end ignore
@node introduction
@unnumberedsec What's wrong with computer music notation?
We like to call LilyPond an "automated engraving system." It will
format music notation beautifully without requiring typographical
expertise of its users.
LilyPond is not unique in making music notation: there are a lot of
programs that print music, and nowadays most of the newly printed
music is made with computers. Unfortunately, that also shows: just
ask any musician that plays classical music: new scores do not look as
nice as old (from before, say, 1970) scores: the new ones have a
bland, mechanical look. They are not at all pleasurable to play from.
To illustrate this, take a look at the following examples. Both are
editions of the 1st Cello Suite by J.S.Bach. The one on the left is a
very beautifully hand-engraved edition from 1950, the one on the right
is a typical contemporary computer product. Take a few seconds to let
the looks of both pages sink in. Which one do you like better, and
why?
@ifnottex
@multitable @columnfractions .5 .5
@item
@sourceimage{baer-suite1-fullpage,,,.png}
@tab
@sourceimage{henle-suite1-fullpage,,,.png}
@item
B@"arenreiter (BA 320, (c) 1950)
@tab
Henle (nr. 666 (c) 2000)
@end multitable
@end ifnottex
The left picture looks nice: it has flowing lines and movement. It's
music, and it's alive. Now, the picture on the right shows the same
music, and it was written by Bach. His music surely has liveliness
and flowing lines.... Except, the score doesn't show it: it looks
rigid and mechanical. To understand better why that is, let's blow up
a fragment of both pieces:
@divClass{float-center}
@divEnd
@sourceimage{baer-suite1-line,,,.png}
@divClass{float-center}
@divEnd
Hand-made
@*
@divClass{float-center}
@divEnd
@sourceimage{henle-suite1-line,,,.png}
@divClass{float-center}
@divEnd
Computer-made
The location of the bar lines is a giveaway. In the new edition,
both barlines are on exactly the same horizontal location. Also, the
note heads are on the exact same horizontal location. When you look
back at the whole page, you can easily verify that almost all barlines
are in the same location, as are most of the note heads. The entire
thing is spaced as if it were put to a big grid, which is what causes
the mechanical impression.
This is not the only error on this example, and more importantly, this
piece is not the only one with typographical errors. Sadly, almost
all music printed nowadays is full of basic typographical mistakes.
Musicians are usually more absorbed with performing the music than
with studying its looks, so this nitpicking about typographical
details may seem academical. That is not justified. This piece here
has a monotonous rhythm. If all lines look the same, they become like
a labyrinth. If the musician looks away once or has a lapse in his
concentration, he will be lost on the page.
In general, this is a common characteristic of typography. Layout
should be pretty, not only for its own sake, but especially because it
helps the reader in his task. For performance material like sheet
music, this is doubly important: musicians have a limited amount of
attention. The less attention they need for reading, the more they can
focus on playing itself. In other words, better typography translates
to better performances.
@divClass{float-right}
@divEnd
Next: @ref{software,What's wrong with software}, or how
Finale is not the end-all of music software.
@bye
|
