![]() I think the Dorico paradigm is mostly there, but I’m thinking there remain details that are just f-ing me up.Īlso, at present Dorico does not support adding an ‘unknown’ instrument – if it’s not in their list of existing instruments, you’re in for a lot of work. That hardly seems like ‘intuitive’ or ‘discoverable’ to me. Obviously!! And if you find it easy, I’m sincerely happy for you! But there you are – in spite of working through all of Dorico’s online video tutorials, and more on YouTube as well, and I have a better than average grasp of all this technology, and working with Dorico for over a month now, I still apparently don’t grasp the paradigm for how editing existing music is supposed to work. I’ll stipulate my difficulties are because I “don’t grasp the interface”. (I note in passing that the online tutorials seem to emphasize initial score entry, not editing existing music.) You would think that when I’m done editing bar 7 and return it to its original length, bars 8-666 would return to normal, but that hasn’t been my experience - after editing bar 7 I am finding I am having to go through and fix bars 8-666. ![]() With Dorico when I edit bar 7, I am also affecting bars 8-666. What is GOOD about the Finale paradigm is that if I’m editing bar 7, I’m only editing bar 7. ![]() In my experience their paradigm for initial score entry was quite reasonable, but editing existing music was a nightmare. Those are preposterously hard to do in Finale. As a musician, I have performed on the glass armonica with the Blue Man Group and at the Kennedy Center, and have a fair number of commissioned works to my credit. I have built hardware MIDI devices from the chip level. I’m a Linux/Windows Systems Engineer C/C++ for many decades. Before that I wrote a program in C to do my own scoring, which worked passably well, but gave me a profound appreciation for how ridiculously hard it is to engrave music generally. I’ve been using Finale since Windows 3.1. Mostly because I think Dorico is on the right track. But in the chorus of ‘how wonderful Dorico is’, and there’s a lot of truth to that, I would still like to voice some dissent. Python is a trademark of the Python Software Foundation.Īny other trademarks I mentioned without realising are trademarks of their respective holders.Well, no, Lilypond is not generally easier than Dorico – for most things. If you have problems, try a different Lilypond versionĪll material © Silas S. LP: (block of code) :LP (each delimeter at start of its line) Ties (like Lilypond's, if you don't want dashes)Įrhu fingering (applies to previous note) Prohibit page breaks until end of this movement L: here are the syl- la- bles (all on one line) Time signature with quaver anacrusis (8th-note pickup) Semiquaver, quaver, crotchet (16/8/4th notes)ĭotted versions of the above (50% longer)ĭemisemiquaver, hemidemisemiquaver (32/64th notes) Text files are whitespace-separated and can contain: ![]() Run jianpu-ly ly-file (or jianpu-ly text-files > ly-file) His style of jianpu is different from that produced by my jianpu-ly (which also has a different input format). (I would put their name here if I could find it.)Īdditionally, David Zhang of Beijing extended this idea into a tighter integration of jianpu with Lilypond, often called jianpu10a.ly, which provides a JianpuStaff that accepts normal Lilypond code and translates it (a bit like Lilypond's TabStaff). For Chinese users, someone has written a Chinese summary of jianpu-ly which looks right.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |