Atte André Jensen wrote: > Bob van der Poel wrote: > <snip> >> ...when I have serious (or fun) work to do I write my score with MUP. > > Could you elaborate abit about why you choose mup over lilypond? > I'll probably get flamed by the lilypond guys ... but: I did spend some time with a number of products in 2004 and wrote this review: http://mellowood.ca/mup/mup-review.html I know things have changed since then. But, I figure that so long as something works I'll continue to use it :) Biggest concerns for me: - I find the syntax of mup much easier. I am quick to point out that this might just be a case of "what one knows". MUP is certainly less verbose. - mup handles transposition very well. I'm not sure if lily does now (it didn't last time I checked). It is quite possible that the final output from a lily score may be better. But to my eyes the stuff I get from mup is very good. These days I don't do band scores anymore with multiple parts, etc. Mostly I do lead sheets which I need to print in various keys (for Bb, Eb, etc). I've got an automated tool chain for this and can crank out a custom score from a fakebook with lyrics, melody and chord names in 20 to 40 minutes. My biggest sadness with mup is that the authors have NOT decided to open source the product. Certainly, that is their right and I'll not argue that they must or should. They do regular updates and respond to user requests and questions. But, one has to wonder if the product would develop more quickly if more folk were able to hack at it. Hope this helps. -- **** Listen to my CD at http://www.mellowood.ca/music/cedars **** Bob van der Poel ** Wynndel, British Columbia, CANADA ** EMAIL: bob@xxxxxxxxxxxx WWW: http://www.mellowood.ca _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
