Lilypond, a system for automated music engraving - CiteSeerX

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings of the XIV Colloquium on Musical Informatics (XIV CIM 2003), Firenze, Italy, May 8-9-10, 2003♭ We study engraved editions as a guide when implementing formattingalgorithms. The most recent revisions of the the beamingand spacing code were guided by the Bärenreiter edition of theCello Suites by J. S. Bach [12], in particular, measurements ofthe Sarabande of the second suite guided our current spacing algorithms.Figure 9 shows our rendering of this piece. LilyPond’sFigure 5: Three glyphs from the Feta font.default decisions for stemming, spacing and line breaking followthe printed edition, except in two places, where manual overrideof the layout was necessary. The layout quality of this piece is comparable with the original hand-engraved edition.The best quality print-outs are attained for single staff, singlevoice music. Nevertheless, multiple staffs and polyphonic notationare also supported. Conflicts in notehead placement (collisions) between polyphonic voices are resolved automatically if possible. Figure 7 shows some some collisions in the context of piano music.LilyPond is not limited to classical music. There is also support forchord names, tablature, figured bass and medieval notation.Figure 6: A fragment demonstrating spacing. The top fragmentis printed with optical spacing. In the bottom fragment, all noteheads are at equal horizontal distances. As a result, the downstem/upstemnote pairs form visual clumps.consecutive stems. Therefore, the notes of a up-stem/down-stemcombination should be put farther apart, and the notes of a downupcombination should be put closer together, all depending on thecombined vertical positions of the notes [9]. Figure 6 demonstratesthis optical spacing.In engraved music, beams should cover staff lines as much aspossible. This prevents small distracting wedges of white space,and uneven appearance of the beam thickness. In Finale, suchbeams are known as “Patterson beams” after the plug-in that offersthis functionality. We call this beam quantization, as the verticalpositions of the beam end-points are not continuously variable, butdiscrete. LilyPond also offers beam quantization. It uses a genericmechanism, where a large number of configurations for both beamendings are tested. For every configuration a penalty score is computed.For example, configurations that lead to very short stemsincur a heavy penalty, and very long stems a small penalty. Similarly,a penalty is computed for the slope of a configuration, and forpositions that lead to “forbidden” positions of secondary and tertiarybeams. A weighted sum of the penalties measures the beautyof a configuration. After computing penalties for all configurations,the best scoring configuration is used as beam position. Thisapproach is independent of the number of stems (Ross [10] listsmany examples for beams with two stems, but gives no furtherrules), and adapts to different beam thicknesses. In addition, ifmore complex rules are needed, these can be integrated by addingmore scoring functions to the code.Some formatting procedures are based on other work. For example,Hegazy and Gourlay [11] describe a line breaking approachsimilar to TEX’s line-breaking algorithm. This algorithm has beenre-implemented for LilyPond. The spacing engine describes thedesired spacing in terms of springs. When justifying a single line,force is needed to compress or stretch these springs. Very looselyand very tightly spaced lines require more force. A dynamic programmingalgorithm is used to find the configuration of line-breaksthat keeps the total force as low as possible. This results in a set ofline breaks that favors even and natural spacing across the entirepiece. ♭♭♭ ♭ 48 3 ♭ ♭ ♭4848̇ ♮ ♯♯♮♯♮♯ ♮ ̇̇♮ ♯ ♮♮Figure 7: Random complex polyphonic notation. The lower leftbeam uses French beaming and different stem and beam thicknessesbut its position is still quantized correctly.The design of the program enforces a strict separation betweencontent (music) and form (typography). A consequence is that thesame piece music may be represented in different forms. Chordsform simple example. In the following fragment, a chord is enteredusing the syntax >. That same chord is then printedboth in a staff and in textual form.sus = \notes {4 }\score { \simultaneous {\context ChordNames \sus\context Staff \sus} } △/sus4CSeparation between form and content is also used in the supportfor transcribing mensural music. Mensural music uses differentfont shapes for notes, clefs and alterations. In addition, particularrhythmical patterns of notes are denoted by combining theirnote heads in special symbols called mensural ligatures. LilyPonddoes not add a separate music representation for this type of music.Instead, the music is entered as if it were modern notation, andligatures are marked in the input. During print-out, a print style formensural notation can be selected. Support for historic print stylesis included, and can be used to check the transcription to modernnotation. Figure 8 shows an example of this process. In effect,LilyPond transcribes from modern notation to mensural notation.As a consequence, there is a single input language representingboth mensural ligatures and their transcriptions into modern notation.The separation between content and form is thereby maintained.Support for ligature notation is an experimental feature,CIM-4
Proceedings of the XIV Colloquium on Musical Informatics (XIV CIM 2003), Firenze, Italy, May 8-9-10, 2003and current work focuses on implementing the variety of printingstyles of Gregorian notation. ♭ ♭ ♯♯Figure 8: The same fragment of music in three ancient layoutstyles: historical print (top), contemporary mensural notation(middle), and modern notation with ligature brackets (bottom).Finally, this paper itself shows an application of LilyPond: textand music can easily be mixed in the same document. The inputformat is ASCII based, so one can enter snippets of LilyPond inputin other ASCII based document formats, such as L A TEX and HTML.With the aid of a small helper program, these fragments can bereplaced in the output by the corresponding music notation, in theform of pictures (for HTML) or TEX (for L A TEX). For example,Figure 1 was created by entering the following in the L A TEX sourcefile\begin[verbatim]{lilypond}\notes { c’4 d’8 }\end{lilypond}5. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORKWe have presented our progress on LilyPond, a free music engravingsystem, which converts a music representation to high qualitymusic typography. For some pieces, LilyPond output is comparableto hand-engraved music. The program is focused on producinghigh quality notation automatically. This makes it an excellenttool for users who are not notation experts.LilyPond can run without requiring keyboard or mouse input.This makes it an excellent candidate for generating music notationon the fly, e.g., on webservers. The degree of automation alsomakes it a suitable candidate for transforming large bodies of musicto print automatically: for example, LilyPond has been used toproduce an automated rendering of a database of 3,500 folk songsstored in ABC [13]. This is helped by the fact that LilyPond includes(partial) convertors for a number of music formats, amongothers MusicXML [14], MIDI, Finale’s ETF, and ABC.Beaming, line breaking and spacing are the strong points of theformatting engine. In some areas the engine still falls short. Forinstance, placing fingering indications, articulation and dynamicmarks together is a complex problem. We plan to improve collisionhandling such that manual adjustments are no longer necessaryfor complex configurations of these notation elements. Otherplans for future work include improving formatting of slurs andadding page layout to the system.The program has no graphical user interface, and always producesall pages of the final output. To see the result of a change, theprogram has to be rerun on the entire score. In effect, this transformsmusic editing into a debug-compile cycle, and fine-tuninglayout details is a slow process. We plan to explore solutions thatmake manual adjustments with LilyPond a more interactive andefficient process.6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSOur sincere thanks go out to all our developers, bug-reporters andusers; without them LilyPond would not have been possible. Inparticular, we would like to thank Jürgen Reuter for contributingligature support, and providing the mensural notation example forthis paper.7. REFERENCES[1] “Revised 5 report on the algorithmic language scheme,”Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation, vol. 11, no. 1,September 1998.[2] Free Software Foundation, “GUILE, GNU’s UbiquitousIntelligent Language for Extension,” http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/, 2002.[3] Allen Parish, Wael A. Hegazy, John S. Gourlay, Dean K.Roush, and F. Javier Sola, “MusiCopy: An automated musicformatting system,” Tech. Rep., Department of Computerand Information Science, The Ohio State University, 1987.[4] Donald Knuth, The TEXbook, Addison-Wesley, 1987.[5] Daniel Taupin, Ross Mitchell, and Andreas Egler, “Musixtex,”2002.[6] Bill Schottstaedt, Beyond MIDI. The handbook of musicalcodes, chapter Common Music Notation, MIT Press, 1997.[7] H. H. Hoos, K. A. Hamel, K. Renz, and J. Kilian, “TheGUIDO music notation format—a novel approach for adequatelyrepresenting score-level music,” in Proceedings ofInternational Computer Music Conference, 1998, pp. 451–454.[8] Paul Hudak, Tom Makucevich, Syam Gadde, and Bo Whong,“Haskore music notation—an algebra of music,” Journal ofFunctional Programming, 1996.[9] Helene Wanske, Musiknotation — Von der Syntax desNotenstichs zum EDV-gesteuerten Notensatz, Schott-Verlag,Mainz, 1988.[10] Ted Ross, Teach yourself the art of music engraving andprocessing, Hansen House, Miami, Florida, 1987.[11] Wael A. Hegazy and John S. Gourlay, “Optimal line breakingin music,” in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Electronic Publishing, Document Manipulation andTypography. Nice (France), J. C. van Vliet, Ed. April 1988,Cambridge University Press.[12] Johann Sebastian Bach, Sechs Suiten für Violoncello solo,Number BA 320. Bärenreiter, 1950.[13] Erich Rickheit, “Yet another digital tradition page,” http://sniff.numachi.com/˜rickheit/dtrad/.[14] Guido Amoruso, “Xml2ly,” http://www.nongnu.org/xml2ly/.CIM-5
Page 3: Proceedings of the XIV Colloquium o

Lilypond, a system for automated music engraving - CiteSeerX

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?