On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM,
<address@hidden> wrote:
Send lilypond-user mailing list submissions to
address@hidden
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
address@hidden
You can reach the person managing the list at
address@hidden
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of lilypond-user digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re:Multiple tensions in Chord Mode (Dossy Shiobara)
2. Re:Appreciation / Financial support (David Kastrup)
3. Re:Appreciation / Financial support (Henning Hraban Ramm)
4. Re:Appreciation / Financial support (Tim McNamara)
5. Re:Multiple tensions in Chord Mode (Jean-Alexis Montignies)
6. Re:Appreciation / Financial support (Tim McNamara)
7. Re:Appreciation / Financial support (Janek Warcho?)
8. Re:Appreciation / Financial support (Dr. med. Kai Lautenschl?ger)
9. Re:Appreciation / Financial support (David Kastrup)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:55:16 -0400
From: Dossy Shiobara <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Multiple tensions in Chord Mode
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/28/12 9:48 AM, Louis Guillaume wrote:
> In chord mode:
>
> c:7.9-.9+
>
> In regular markup:
>
> <c e g bes des' dis'>
>
> Both of these produce a chord symbol AND chord without the flat-nine.
> It seems to only accommodate one 9th, and uses the last one encountered.
>
> Is there a way to do work around this?
What about using the alternate note names? Could you do this:
<c e g bes cis' dis'>
for example, if des' == cis', right?
--
Dossy Shiobara | "He realized the fastest way to change
address@hidden | is to laugh at your own folly -- then you
http://panoptic.com/ | can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
* WordPress * jQuery * MySQL * Security * Business Continuity *
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 21:26:59 +0200
From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain
Hannes Kuhnert <address@hidden> writes:
> Tim McNamara schrieb:
>> Sending money directly to developers instead of to a central Lilypond
>> account cuts a lot of costs and eliminates much of the need for
>> organizational bureaucracy (e.g., an accounting department).
>
> On the other hand donations to a non-profit organisation would give
> the contributor a benefit on income tax (think as higher donations at
> same effort).
Definitely. But setting up and maintaining the status of a non-profit
organisation is taking serious effort. And it would be rather tricky
for me to participate in the board of such an organisation since I would
be set to profit from the board's decisions.
I am checking out the options I have as a private person, but I am not
exactly optimistic here.
--
David Kastrup
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 22:19:26 +0200
From: Henning Hraban Ramm <address@hidden>
To: lilypond-user Users <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Am 2012-05-28 um 21:26 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Hannes Kuhnert <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Tim McNamara schrieb:
>>> Sending money directly to developers instead of to a central
>>> Lilypond
>>> account cuts a lot of costs and eliminates much of the need for
>>> organizational bureaucracy (e.g., an accounting department).
>>
>> On the other hand donations to a non-profit organisation would give
>> the contributor a benefit on income tax (think as higher donations at
>> same effort).
>
> Definitely. But setting up and maintaining the status of a non-profit
> organisation is taking serious effort.
Esp. internationally!
Some (most?) countries accept tax benefits only with national NPOs,
perhaps plus a few known, big international ones (like Red Cross).
E.g. when living in Switzerland I had never any benefit from my
donations to German non-profits.
I just read that German laws that restricted tax benefits to national
NPOs were sentenced illegal by the European Court in 2009, i.e. you
can at least get tax benefits for donations to NPOs within the EU.
But an international NPO is nevertheless hard to establish and to
maintain.
I heard within the EU it would be most easy in France.
And even if we had a LilyPond NPO, I guess we wouldn?t be allowed to
give most of our donations to just one developer - and at least
according to German law, he wouldn?t be allowed to be a member of that
NPO.
Le it be...
Greetlings, Hraban
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 16:24:57 -0500
From: Tim McNamara <address@hidden>
To: lilypond-user Users <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
On May 28, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Hannes Kuhnert wrote:
> Tim McNamara schrieb:
>> Sending money directly to developers instead of to a central Lilypond
>> account cuts a lot of costs and eliminates much of the need for
>> organizational bureaucracy (e.g., an accounting department).
>
> On the other hand donations to a non-profit organisation would give the
> contributor a benefit on income tax (think as higher donations at same
> effort).
That's not a bad point an there is some truth to that, but I don't feel the need to get a tax break in order to feel that my donation to Lilypond has value to me. Lilypond already has intrinsic value to me- I have dozens of clean, readable lead sheets done for my jazz combo (which takes me about 20-30 minutes to have a lead sheet typeset for concert, Eb and Bb instruments). I've tried/seen some others- my trumpeter's Finale lead sheets are hard to read, MuseScore sheets tend to look a little awkward and take me longer to do, etc. Lilypond's output is superior IMHO. So on those grounds it is worth paying some money whether I get a tax break or not. It is one of the two contributions I can make- I can't write application code, but I can use the software and offer feedback and suggestions from userland and I can donate money.
I think the most sustainable approach is to get a lot of conscientious Lilypond users to commit to donating a fairly small amount. There are thousands of us, after all. 500 of us donating ?10 a month ought to make this work. If someone set up a non-profit to collect and distribute contributions to Lilypond, a goodly percentage of those contributions would necessarily go to run the non-profit: legal fees, registration fees, accounting costs, etc. Paying developers directly sidesteps that stuff. There is the perception of that being a less accountable approach and I think that some may be uncomfortable with that- it took me a little thinking to get over it.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 23:35:15 +0200
From: Jean-Alexis Montignies <address@hidden>
To: lilypond-user <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Multiple tensions in Chord Mode
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On 28 mai 2012, at 20:55, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
> On 5/28/12 9:48 AM, Louis Guillaume wrote:
>> In chord mode:
>>
>> c:7.9-.9+
>>
>> In regular markup:
>>
>> <c e g bes des' dis'>
>>
>> Both of these produce a chord symbol AND chord without the flat-nine.
>> It seems to only accommodate one 9th, and uses the last one encountered.
>>
>> Is there a way to do work around this?
> What about using the alternate note names? Could you do this:
>
> <c e g bes cis' dis'>
>
> for example, if des' == cis', right?
>
> --
> Dossy Shiobara | "He realized the fastest way to change
Interesting voicing, in which context do you use that?
If it's from super locrian, you would have to use the diminished 4th instead of the third like in: c:m7.9-.11- , and the add the voicing to the chord exception list. (But then the third in on top of the augmented ninth, ouch ).
I'm surprised the markup won't display all the note on the staff.
I have this excerpt from my chord exceptions:
customChordExceptions =
{
% from superlocrian (MM7)
<c ef g bf df' ff'>- \markup
{ 7
\hspace #0.2 \parenthesize {
\fontsize #-3 { \override #'(direction . 1) \dir-column {
\line { "?9" }
\line { "?9" }
} }
}
}
<c ef gf bf df' ff' af'>- "7alt"
}
Jean-Alexis
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 16:38:10 -0500
From: Tim McNamara <address@hidden>
To: lilypond-user Users <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On May 28, 2012, at 1:17 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
>> of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified
>> dramatically; a lot of the code users have to write is pretty ugly and
>> is going to scare off potential users). Having someone working full
>> time on Lilypond is a great way to get that done in under a decade.
>
> The syntax will _not_ be simplified dramatically since LilyPond,
> overall, has a reasonably simple syntax.
"Dramatic" may have been over-stated, although to the non-programmer like me the syntax of Lilypond is far from simple- it seems exceedingly complex and much of it is like magic incantations which are spoken but the meaning is not really known. And that's not even including Scheme and grobs and all that stuff.
I was thinking about simplification like being able to put in a coda with \coda or a segno with \segno instead of things like
\mark \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.segno" }
and so on. The more complicated the incantations are, the easier it is to get them wrong the harder it is to debug and the longer it takes to write.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 23:51:22 +0200
From: Janek Warcho? <address@hidden>
To: Tim McNamara <address@hidden>
Cc: lilypond-user Users <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Message-ID:
<CANYDDpqa+=e5gLxV-3aLJjhOsiwCgL5LY8tUo+y7hJjanGqE=address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Tim McNamara <address@hidden> wrote:
> I was thinking about simplification like being able to put in a coda with \coda or a segno with \segno instead of things like
>
> ?\mark \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.segno" }
>
> and so on. ?The more complicated the incantations are, the easier it is to get them wrong the harder it is to debug and the longer it takes to write.
In fact, the above method of doing this is not only unwieldy, but also
wrong: it doesn't tell LilyPond what this sign is (how it affects the
score, what should be played in MIDI). We definitely need a way to
/express/ musical meaning in Lily syntax. \mark \markup {
\musicglyph #"scripts.segno" } is just printing a nice graphic.
cheers,
Janek
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 00:02:02 +0200
From: "Dr. med. Kai Lautenschl?ger" <address@hidden>
To: lilypond-user Users <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Hi,
> \mark \markup {
> \musicglyph #"scripts.segno" } is just printing a nice graphic.
and imho it does that better than any other program I used.
best regards
Kai
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 00:27:38 +0200
From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Tim McNamara <address@hidden> writes:
> On May 28, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Hannes Kuhnert wrote:
>> Tim McNamara schrieb:
>>> Sending money directly to developers instead of to a central Lilypond
>>> account cuts a lot of costs and eliminates much of the need for
>>> organizational bureaucracy (e.g., an accounting department).
>>
>> On the other hand donations to a non-profit organisation would give the
>> contributor a benefit on income tax (think as higher donations at same
>> effort).
>
> That's not a bad point an there is some truth to that, but I don't
> feel the need to get a tax break in order to feel that my donation to
> Lilypond has value to me.
The advantage would likely be more that it would become easier to get
institutional donations. There are several institutions that have money
to burn at the end of the financial year, and being able to burn it on a
cultural tax-deductable cause makes things a lot easier.
I consider it difficult to get support from _direct_ candidates, namely
music publishers. They are either small and don't have money to spare,
or they are large and have no interest at all in investing in possibly
disruptive technology that loses them their competitive advantage gained
with established workflows and data. So the "sponsor things that are of
public interest and tax deductable" is likely the better angle for
getting sponsors that are actually rather marginally interested in the
actual product.
> I think the most sustainable approach is to get a lot of conscientious
> Lilypond users to commit to donating a fairly small amount. There are
> thousands of us, after all. 500 of us donating ?10 a month ought to
> make this work.
Well, "this" so far was keeping me going. ?5000 a month would be way
more, and it would not make sense giving all that to me. For one, I
can't actually provide equivalent value in return, being only one person
and modestly effective in spite of high skills. For another, taxes and
social security would eat a sizable part of that since they are
income-based. So with that kind of sum, one would indeed have to form a
non-profit or similar that serves as a project coordinator. But even
while I have been caught flatfooted by the current response in one-time
donations after mentioning that I'd be short this month, I don't
consider the "danger" of getting this kind of amount all that imminent.
> If someone set up a non-profit to collect and distribute contributions
> to Lilypond, a goodly percentage of those contributions would
> necessarily go to run the non-profit: legal fees, registration fees,
> accounting costs, etc.
That's the rub. Something like "Dante", the German TeX user group, has
a budget that's in the order of ?100000 yearly, and they finance
servers, user group meetings, an office with secretary, four membership
magazine issues per year, quite a bit of administration, costs and fare
(when requested) for volunteers helping on conferences, several
projects. This goes actually a long way, but they have in their history
only financed a full-time developer for one or two years (at Czech
rather than German salary rate IIRC), and it was pretty bad in return of
investment. I think they have something like 2500 members.
I think it would not be easy to get so many people for LilyPond
together.
> Paying developers directly sidesteps that stuff. There is the
> perception of that being a less accountable approach and I think that
> some may be uncomfortable with that- it took me a little thinking to
> get over it.
Well, it does not get any more accountable than a public repository and
issue database. I make reports telling those who contribute financially
how the turnout was: in theory, I could make up numbers. So if that is
your worry, donate an odd sum: if I write "3 times ?25", you have to
believe that I counted your donation of ?25 among them. If you donate
?37.13 in contrast, you'll be able to verify that you are in the list.
--
David Kastrup
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
End of lilypond-user Digest, Vol 114, Issue 131
***********************************************