Music Publishing/Transcribing with Latex
rf...@my-dejanews.com
I was wondering if there exists a LaTeX package for transcribing music
compositions to create sheet music? I think this would be awesome! If it
does not exist, with your assistance, I would volunteer to do it!
you may reach me by email at r...@cooper.edu
tia,
rob
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Thomas Ruedas
at
http://www.gmd.de/Misc/Music/
where you find a link to it.
Thomas
--
--------------------------------------------
Thomas Ruedas
Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics,
J.W. Goethe University Frankfurt/Main
Feldbergstrasse 47 D-60323 Frankfurt/Main, Germany
Phone:+49-(0)69-798-24949 Fax:+49-(0)69-798-23280
e-mail: rue...@geophysik.uni-frankfurt.de
http://www.geophysik.uni-frankfurt.de/~ruedas/
--------------------------------------------
Soren Sandmann Pedersen
rfm22> hey all! I was wondering if there exists a LaTeX package for
rfm22> transcribing music compositions to create sheet music? I think
rfm22> this would be awesome! If it does not exist, with your
rfm22> assistance, I would volunteer to do it!
Have a look at lilypond. See
http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/hanwen/lilypond/
--
Soeren Sandmann (sand...@daimi.aau.dk)
zer...@earthling.net
rf...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> hey all!
>
> I was wondering if there exists a LaTeX package for transcribing music
> compositions to create sheet music? I think this would be awesome!
As the two previous posters pointed out, there are two different ways of
typesetting music in LaTeX: using a macro-package, eg MusiXTeX and OpusTeX,
or using Lilypond. MusiXTeX and co. are ordinary LaTeX macro-packages -- you
input the MusiXTeX commands directly in your TeX-files, and TeX typesets the
music using the definitions in the macro-packages. The main disadvantage of
MusiXTeX is the syntax; it's difficult to learn and to use. There are however
"preprocessers", eg pmx, which make the job a bit easier. MusiXTeX and
friends are "free for non-commersial use" (I think?).
Lilypond is a part of the GNU music project, and is a program that reads
input-files in written i Mudela, a more or less intuitive music description
language, and then outputs TeX-files, or midi-files. Lilypond is of course
GPL'ed.
So which one is best? I prefer Lilypond, others prefer MusiXTeX. If you prefer
OpenSource software, Lilypond is the only one, otherwise try the others too.
> If it does not exist, with your assistance, I would volunteer to do it!
Both MusiXTeX and OpusTeX seem to be one-man projects (ruled despotically by
their creators :)); the Lilypond people on the other hand seem to accept help
from other.
Lilypond homepage: www.cs.uu.nl/people/hanwen/lilypond/
The others are availabe at CTAN.
HTH,
Jonas.
Bob Tennent
>
>As the two previous posters pointed out, there are two different ways of
>typesetting music in LaTeX: using a macro-package, eg MusiXTeX and OpusTeX,
>or using Lilypond. MusiXTeX and
AFAIK, MusixTeX at least is free for any use.
>
>Lilypond is a part of the GNU music project, and is a program that reads
>input-files in written i Mudela, a more or less intuitive music description
>language, and then outputs TeX-files, or midi-files. Lilypond is of course
>GPL'ed.
>
>So which one is best? I prefer Lilypond, others prefer MusiXTeX. If you prefer
>OpenSource software, Lilypond is the only one
>
Why is Lilypond any more open-source than MusixTeX?
>Both MusiXTeX and OpusTeX seem to be one-man projects (ruled despotically by
>their creators :)); the Lilypond people on the other hand seem to accept help
>from other.
Certainly the MusiXTeX person (Daniel Taupin) and the other authors
accept help from others too. There is an active mailing list (mu...@gmd.de).
IMHO, MusiXTeX currently produces the best output, but Lilypond
is improving rapidly. It would seem that MusiXTeX gives you more
flexibility to set things as you want. However Lilypond also
gives you MIDI output.
Bob T.
zer...@earthling.net
r...@NOSPAM.qucis.queensu.ca (Bob Tennent) wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 1998 14:42:02 GMT, zer...@earthling.net wrote:
> >
> >As the two previous posters pointed out, there are two different ways of
> >typesetting music in LaTeX: using a macro-package, eg MusiXTeX and OpusTeX,
> >or using Lilypond. MusiXTeX and
> >friends are "free for non-commersial use" (I think?).
>
> AFAIK, MusixTeX at least is free for any use.
> >
> >Lilypond is a part of the GNU music project, and is a program that reads
> >input-files in written i Mudela, a more or less intuitive music description
> >language, and then outputs TeX-files, or midi-files. Lilypond is of course
> >GPL'ed.
> >
> >So which one is best? I prefer Lilypond, others prefer MusiXTeX. If you
prefer
> >OpenSource software, Lilypond is the only one
> >
> Why is Lilypond any more open-source than MusixTeX?
The MusixTeX license is a bit weired, but if I interpreted it correctly,
you're allowed to freely use it. If you modify the code, you're not allowed
to call it "MusixTeX". However, you're not allowed to charge anything for
MusixTeX, and this is the reason (or one of?) why MusiXTeX isn't
OpenSource(tm). (Check out the OpenSource definition:
www.opensource.org/osd.html.)
BTW, Debian (www.debian.org) doesn't distribute MusiXTeX in its main
distribution, since its not Open Source/Free Software.
MusiXTeX is of course "open source" in the sense that the source code is
distributed -- OTOH, it's impossible to distribute a macro-package w/o the
source.
I apologize if I might have moved the discussion slightly off-topic ;-),
/Jonas.
Bob Tennent
>> >
>> Why is Lilypond any more open-source than MusixTeX?
>
>The MusixTeX license is a bit weired, but if I interpreted it correctly,
>you're allowed to freely use it. If you modify the code, you're not allowed
>to call it "MusixTeX". However, you're not allowed to charge anything for
>MusixTeX, and this is the reason (or one of?) why MusiXTeX isn't
>OpenSource(tm). (Check out the OpenSource definition:
>www.opensource.org/osd.html.)
>
Bob T.
zer...@my-dejanews.com
Nope. TeX is public domain (as well as MetaFont and the Computer Modern
fonts)-- therefore, you can do *anything* with it, there are no restrictions.
You can use it, modify it, sell it and also put it uder a license. That's why
there are proprietary TeX distributions -- you can download the sources, add
features that people are prepared to pay for, and then put it under a
proprietary license and sell it, without giving away the sources.
Of course, you could also copyleft it etc, but the original sources, that were
made public domain by D. Knuth will always be available in the public domain.
For more information on different categories of software licenses, visit the
GNU Project's Philosophy Page: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html.
>
> Bob T.
Olaf Weber
> Nope. TeX is public domain (as well as MetaFont and the Computer Modern
> fonts)-- therefore, you can do *anything* with it, there are no restrictions.
TeX isn't public domain -- there are limitations on what you are
allowed to do with the sources, and the name is trademarked. See for
example the start of tex.web:
% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved.
% Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if
% (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy. (The WEB system provides
% for alterations via an auxiliary file; the master file should stay intact.)
% See Appendix H of the WEB manual for hints on how to install this program.
% And see Appendix A of the TRIP manual for details about how to validate it.
% TeX is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society.
% METAFONT is a trademark of Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
--
Olaf Weber
Timothy Murphy
>Nope. TeX is public domain (as well as MetaFont and the Computer Modern
>fonts)-- therefore, you can do *anything* with it, there are no restrictions.
I don't think that it true.
If you look at the beginning of tex.web
you will see that TeX is copyright,
and "TeX" is a trademark of the AMS.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Robin Fairbairns
>In article <slrn6smce...@tennent.dyn.ml.org>,
> r...@NOSPAM.qucis.queensu.ca (Bob Tennent) wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Aug 1998 15:20:45 GMT, zer...@earthling.net wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> Why is Lilypond any more open-source than MusixTeX?
>> >
>> >The MusixTeX license is a bit weired, but if I interpreted it correctly,
>> >you're allowed to freely use it. If you modify the code, you're not allowed
>> >to call it "MusixTeX". However, you're not allowed to charge anything for
>> >MusixTeX, and this is the reason (or one of?) why MusiXTeX isn't
>> >OpenSource(tm). (Check out the OpenSource definition:
>> >www.opensource.org/osd.html.)
>> >
>> Are these not the same conditions as TeX itself?
>
wrong. just like musixtex (and latex, for that matter) you may not
modify tex (see below) and still call it tex.
the definition of `modification' in the case of tex is "it passes the
trip test"; there are things you may *have* to modify to port tex to a
new architecture, but they will not affect its ability to pass trip.
the same is true of metafont (and the trap test).
similarly, you are not supposed to modify the computer modern fonts
and still call them computer modern. there was a case last year where
don got immensely shirty because the slackware tex distribution he had
installed contained copies of the cm fonts which didn't have the same
metrics as don's own. (this even provoked him to damn the entire
linux project, whereas in fact it was merely a problem with the shoddy
management of the slackware distribution, which has since been
corrected.)
--
I live in the crowd of jollity, not so much to enjoy company as to shun
myself. -- Samuel Johnson
Han-Wen Nienhuys
>In article <slrn6sjnd...@tennent.dyn.ml.org>,
>> >
>> >So which one is best? I prefer Lilypond, others prefer MusiXTeX. If you
>prefer
>> >OpenSource software, Lilypond is the only one
>> >
>
>The MusixTeX license is a bit weired, but if I interpreted it correctly,
>you're allowed to freely use it. If you modify the code, you're not allowed
>to call it "MusixTeX". However, you're not allowed to charge anything for
>MusixTeX, and this is the reason (or one of?) why MusiXTeX isn't
>OpenSource(tm). (Check out the OpenSource definition:
>www.opensource.org/osd.html.)
Actually, the Mu*TeX license is rather undefined. When I (and RMS)
talked to the authors about the MetaFont copyrights it was apparent
that the authors were not aware (and not interested) in legal issues
like copyright, trademarking, free use, commercial use and free
software.
The last time I looked, the documentation and source itself stated
rather contradictory licensing terms. (kind of like `MusiXTeX is free
for all' and `You may not change this file under any circumstance').
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys, han...@cs.uu.nl ** GNU LilyPond - The Music Typesetter
http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/hanwen/lilypond/index.html
Bob Tennent
*this* file (but you may copy it, change its name, and change that file)'.
I certainly hope that the proponents of one particular flavour of
open-source (tm?) software aren't going to go around denigrating slightly
different flavours. Religious wars we don't need.
Bob T.
Boris Veytsman
> zer...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> >Nope. TeX is public domain (as well as MetaFont and the Computer Modern
> >fonts)-- therefore, you can do *anything* with it, there are no restrictions.
>
> I don't think that it true.
> If you look at the beginning of tex.web
> you will see that TeX is copyright,
> and "TeX" is a trademark of the AMS.
>
The proper phrase is:
TeX as well as MetaFont and Computer Modern fonts are under a
liberal license: you can do *anything* with them as long as you
do not call your derivatives TeX, MetaFont and Computer Modern.
Knuth chose to protect the *names* of his products but not the
products themselves---an issue that confused many people. As White
Knight said, there is a big difference between a song and the name of
a song.
--
Good luck
Werner Icking
>The last time I looked, the documentation and source itself stated
>rather contradictory licensing terms. (kind of like `MusiXTeX is free
>for all' and `You may not change this file under any circumstance').
I don't think so.
Here's the original text from the documentation by Daniel Taupin:
<quote>
Although one of the authors contested that point once the common work had
begun, \musixtex{} may be freely copied, duplicated and used. However, since
it is intended to be a \ital{freeware} you are not allowed to sell it, and the
fee you may ask for distributing it must be limited to maintenance, support
and duplication costs. You may take parts of it to include in other packages,
but no packages called \musixtex{} may be distributed under this name if
different from the original distribution (except obvious bug corrections or
text font adaptations for specific implementations).
\musixtex{} may be included in further commercial packages, provided that no
fee is charged for \musixtex{} itself.
</quote>
--
Werner Icking Werner...@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2443 __o
GMD - Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH _`\<,_
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany (_)/ (_)
"Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~