Hi Luis, hi everyone:
I set up and used MusiXTeX (MT) this weekend. While it wasn't exactly
the most straightforward process I was able to install and use it on my
laptop and on my desktop machine. I ran some simple tests with it,
rendered some scores from one of the large on-line collections, and
tested PMX (a MT preprocessor) and Mux2D (a GUI for MT) as well. Printed
output was excellent (well, it's TeX, innit?), but I felt that MT
suffers from two major drawbacks:
1. It requires TeX, and unless you already have TeX installed it's
no trivial matter to install it.
2. Its language semantics and syntax are woefully opaque, especially
when compared to LilyPond.
Nevertheless, its quality of output is impressive. Alas, I was unable to
get anything usable from PMX, nor did I find that its macro language was
very much easier than MT itself. Mux2D compiled after a bit of source
tweaking (it's written for Qt 2.x) and was nicely usable, though of
course I had no time to do anything extensive with it.
I've compiled the recommended version of Qt (3.3.2) and today will
attempt Werner Schweer's MuseScore. AFAIK no-one here has said anything
about it, perhaps because its requirements are a bit on the edge, but I
want to test it for possible inclusion in the new book chapter. Any
impressions from anyone so far ? Also, am I correct in noting that the
score editor has been removed from MusE ?
In my opinion, Bill Schottstaedt's CMN is also wonderful, particularly
when combined with Rick Taube's Common Music. CM can direct its output
to a variety of interesting destinations, including CMN, Csound, MIDI,
and Common Lisp Music. Also, again like LilyPond, CMN has
humanly-comprehensible language elements, and its printable PostScript
output is excellent. You might actually be able to put a Ferneyhough
score in CMN, it supports a number of 20th-century music symbols, and I
believe it allows for custom graphics. Definitely good stuff, and I have
already included its profile in the new chapter.
Btw, SCORE does indeed run under DOSemu, complete with full-screen
resolution. Good news if you already own SCORE and want to use it under
Linux.
Best regards,
dp
luis jure wrote:
>el Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:43:40 -0400
>Dave Phillips <dlphilp@xxxxxxxxxx> escribi?:
>
>
>
>>it seems that SCORE has several drawbacks:
>>
>> 1. It costs a fair chunk of dinero.
>> 2. It hasn't yet been proven to run under DOSemu.
>> 3. It's copy protected.
>> 4. No source code.
>>
>>
>
>i guess that makes it pretty much useless for most of us. in my case, reason
>number 1 is enough...
>
>
>
>> Today's goal: MusicTeX, maybe using Lyx (?) for a front-end. Anyone
>>here have any experience with MusicTeX or any member of its family ?
>>
>>
>
>hardly a peek many years ago, at a time when i knew about linux even less
>than now. i soon discarded it thinking that if i were to invest my time
>learning a text-based music notation program, i'd rather go for CMN.
>
>is it just my impression, or people here don't mention CMN much? i only
>tried it a bit, never wrote a complete score, but i still think i'd rather
>learn that that other programs i've seen. it's tightly integrated with
>CM/CLM, which is not only convenient for algorithmic composition, but also
>offers a tool to convert to and from other formats, like MIDI files or
>csound scores.
>
>it's true that i don't know well other notation packages for linux, but from
>the examples i've seen, most of them seem to be more appropriate for simpler
>notation, like classical music or popular songs. i'm not trying to notate
>anything ferneyhough-like, not even close, but the score can still get quite
>complex pretty soon...
>
>best,
>
>lj
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
