# LilyPond



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Some may have noticed that I advocate the use of LilyPond for typesetting scores instead of Finale or Sibelius. I advocate it for two main reasons:

1. It's free
2. It produces much nicer output

Anyone who is already used to using Finale or Sibelius, however, may find it difficult to grasp that LilyPond is text-based. That is, LilyPond's project files are written in a plain-text language similar to the programming language Scheme (much of LilyPond's backend was written with Scheme). However, LilyPond is also based on the same philosophy as typesetters such as LaTeX (which also use plain-text documents): let the author worry about content instead of formatting and let the typesetter worry about formatting instead of content. Therefore, LilyPond's plain-text nature is actually an advantage, as it allows the composer or arranger to focus on content, and let LilyPond handle proper formatting. On the other hand, like LaTeX, LilyPond's plain-text language allows whoever is using it to override absolutely any default setting to achieve their own formatting.

The first main advantage of LilyPond that I listed was that it is free. LilyPond isn't just freeware, either--it's free/open source as well. This means that anyone can contribute to the software by adding features, debugging code, etc. Why is this a good thing, besides the fact that you don't have to shell out hundreds of dollars? This means that LilyPond is written by people who care about music and how it looks on the page. All of the glyphs, all of the formatting, and all of the parameters have been carefully crafted by people who care about readability. Consequently, the glyphs are a bit more rounded and natural-looking (for prominent examples, see the treble clef and the flat accidental marks) and spacing for _everything_ is more natural and less mechanical. The result is a score that reflects the care that the composer put into his music, which is the second advantage I listed. The introduction on LilyPond's website puts it best:



http://lilypond.org/introduction.html said:


> LilyPond came about when two musicians wanted to go beyond the soulless look of computer-printed sheet music. Musicians prefer reading beautiful music, so why couldn't programmers write software to produce elegant printed parts?
> 
> The result is a system which frees musicians from the details of layout, allowing them to focus on making music. LilyPond works with them to create publication-quality parts, crafted in the best traditions of classical music engraving.


But do you need proof? Simply visit http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ and check out some of the free scores, all engraved with LilyPond. (BTW, in case you didn't know, the act of typesetting music is formally referred to as "engraving," because that's how it used to have to be done.)

Are you still worried about the text-based input? Don't worry: LilyPond has ample documentation about the ins and outs of making music with it. If you need something a bit more, Windows or Mac users can use LilyPondTool, a Java text-editor designed specifically for LilyPond, offering up syntax highlighting, autocompletion, and a score setup wizard. Linux (KDE) users can use Frescobaldi, a similar tool that works a lot better. Still missing point-and-click? You can try any number of free tools for that, including Denemo, MuseScore, and Rosegarden.

Oh, and don't worry: LilyPond supports MIDI export (to be played by your favorite sequencer) and PNG as well as PDF output. It is also designed to be intuitive for very large projects, including books which contain multiple scores combined with text. In short, anything Sibelius or Finale can do, LilyPond can do better (except the point-and-click thing, which it's still working on, and music OCR, which you need a separate tool for (which produces MusicXML, which can be imported by LilyPond) that is complicated to use.)


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

I've heard LilyPond is really excellent at making Schenkerian graphs, but I unfortunately don't have much time to figure that out now...


----------



## notesetter (Mar 31, 2011)

I'm a professional engraver using Finale. My choice of software is pretty much dictated by the preference of my clients, but I think if it were my choice alone, I'd probably stick with Finale. I've seen samples produced with LilyPond and agree that they look very nice. But, in my corner of the publishing business (educational music), tight production schedules and the need for standardization when dealing with dozens of composers and arrangers dictate the use of a more "universal" software.

Take a look at samples (from their website) of the output of German publisher G. Henle. They have used Finale since 2000. The work is absolutely stunning in its beauty. Of course, they have many custom fonts based on their old plate engraving punch sets. Add to that, they sometimes do extensive post-Finale processing of the PostScript output using Adobe Illustrator. LilyPond at one time compared their output with Henle's.

I'd agree with you, though. More adventurous, tech minded folks with an interest in music engraving should check out LilyPond. It's hard to beat the price!


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

notesetter said:


> I'm a professional engraver using Finale. My choice of software is pretty much dictated by the preference of my clients, but I think if it were my choice alone, I'd probably stick with Finale. I've seen samples produced with LilyPond and agree that they look very nice. But, in my corner of the publishing business (educational music), *tight production schedules and the need for standardization when dealing with dozens of composers and arrangers dictate the use of a more "universal" software.*


True, true.

When you get a new (i.e. freshly composed) piece of music to engrave, how does that work? Is it usually a hand-written manuscript, or is it already notated with a program such as Finale, Sibelius, or LilyPond? You mentioned that your corner of the business is educational music. Does that mean you engrave music for practice such as warm-ups? I'd be interested in finding out more about this.


----------



## notesetter (Mar 31, 2011)

When I get a job, it is already entered into Finale or Sibelius (transfer to Finale via Music XML) by the composer/arranger. A printout hard copy of the score, marked up by an editor, accompanies the computer file. It is then up to me to enter the edits, space and lay out the score and extract a full set of parts. By "Educational Music", I mean music for school band, orchestra and jazz ensemble.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I see. Not that I expect you to change procedure, but with LilyPond, it would be more efficient to require the composer/arranger to provide the parts. The parts can be kept in separate LilyPond files which can be included in another LilyPond file (the command is \include "otherfile.ly"), so that you could, for example, produce separate movement scores and full scores from the same parts files, as well as the parts scores. That way, you would only have to edit the parts files, and the edits would transfer to the full scores without any additional work. Of course, requiring the composer/arranger to provide LilyPond files for each of the parts puts severe limits on prospective clients.

Also, since you work in the business: is there any particular reason why jazz scores use a different font than normal scores, or is it just for the lulz?


----------



## notesetter (Mar 31, 2011)

Both Finale and Sibelius feature "linked parts" which really do the same as what you're describing. However, there are limitations in play for that method. Some adjustments made to scores don't work for parts and vice versa because some things cannot be "unlinked". Most publishers prefer to extract separate files, while knowing that corrections have to be made twice - once on score and once on the part. Of course, let's say for recording session scores and parts where engraving ("artistic") quality is not a great concern, linked parts save huge amounts of time.

You've got it right - the jazz fonts give jazz arrangements the look of what the jazz cats call a "chart", the old fashioned pen and ink look of this genre.


----------

