Dion Moult Seriously who ever reads this description.

Sibelius, Finale, Cakewalk? Real men use Lilypond.

Some of the old-timers on this site might recognise the title’s startling similarity to the introductory article I wrote about LaTeX. I received some questions on how I created the music sheet in the previous post about my upcoming composition, Evan, and the answer is: with Lilypond.

As you’ve probably guessed already, Lilypond is a markup language, just like LaTeX. You don’t use a graphical user interface to insert your notes, rests, and whatnot, but instead just code it into a plain text file and convert it to a, let’s say PDF format when you’re ready to view it.

lily-1f1cc0c4

Music scores are complex. Much, much more complex than your word documents. You might have a good deal of fun formatting wizardry going around with LaTeX, but with music, you have notes, you have staffs, bars, stems, different symbols, different types of annotations, clusters, rests, expression markings, decoration (stuff like trills etc), and don’t even get me started on modern music. A score of a modern music piece is probably a piece of art in itself, my stemless notes, dotted barlines and lack of a time signature in my previous post being nothing compared to what’s out there. All of this has to be pieced together in a readable format, whilst still giving the composer flexibility to modify the score to put whatever they wants.

If anybody here has used the famous notation softwares out there such as Sibelius or Finale, it’s quick and easy to learn but a pain when you get to decently complex scores. You also quickly realise that the stuff you produce on there definitely looks nothing professional and mediocre at best. If you consider creating a score, for, let’s say an orchestral piece, you’d not want to continue using these traditional programs.

2009-08-26-232355_1280x800_scrot

Take for example that score above. It’s of decent complexity and created using lilypond. Attempt something like that in other programs and you’d fail horribly.

Lilypond is like LaTeX. You tell it what your score will contain, and Lilypond will work out the best way to format it. That’s the best thing - it ensures readability, something vital in any score and a real pain to do manually. Here is a simple example, as a picture speaks a thousand words:

2009-08-26-232958_1280x800_scrot

Lilypond is flexible. It allows you to notate very modern pieces with weird artifacts such as, in my own piece missing stems. Of course you may even have missing notes, or even stems that branch out or waving lines to symbolise a direction. (please, don’t just add these for the fun of it, you need to know why and when they should be used and more importantly how to use them)

2009-08-26-234829_1280x800_scrot

It’s also fast. Don’t believe me if you want to, but I would honestly say that creating a score in Lilypond is faster than other software (well, LaTeX in my opinion is also faster than Word Processors). Not only can you chunk in notes as fast as you can possibly type them (and you get used to how to input notes very quickly), you can also use variables. If you have a repeating section of a piece, you can just assign it to a variable, just like in math you can say x = 5, and whenever you want to use that section, or in math, the number 5, you just dump the variable and it does it all automatically.

One other feature some might consider a plus point is that it can output the score in midi format. My personal view is that midi should be marked illegal and anybody who uses it be sent straight to prison, because it sounds like crap and effectively slaughters the beauty of the piece, but – well, it does it anyway if you tell it to.

flat-design

It’s hard to fully appreciate the capabilities that Lilypond provides but I’d like to stress one: readability. Lilypond takes this very seriously. Just as music has evolved through the ages so has scorewriting, and Lilypond really adds that professional feel to whatever score you produce. If you create scores, I would recommend it.

All well and good, but how do I start using Lilypond?

Just like LaTeX it doesn’t matter if you’re on Windows, Mac or Linux. Lilypond works cross-platform and doesn’t charge a buck. First you’d want to hop over to their website, and proceed to the download page. Their website looks as though somebody ate the stylesheet, but nevertheless I can assure you that the program definitely has style. You’d then want to start reading the documentation.

You’d want to read that documentation carefully and ensure you understand what’s going on especially if you’re new to markup languages. Go through step by step – it contains many cross-links but I would recommend just doing it in the order it presents itself in. I cannot say the first score you ever produce with Lilypond will be up and running within 5 minutes, but you’ll get used to it, and when you do, you’ll be really glad you did.

Note (no pun intended): the images were shamelessly ripped off various parts of their site, but all with good promotional intention.

No related posts.


10 Comments

Aligorith says: (29 August 2009)

I cannot recommend this enough!

In addition to the benefits you’ve noted, here are a few others:
* It lets you construct your scores how *you* want, not in some fixed way that was designed for particular workflows only

* It’s syntax for representing music is very convenient to learn, since once you learn it, you’ll never need to fear not having a set of staves to notate jottings/fragments on. Simply jot down the relevant “code” for later.

* Ease of editing the music. With many WYSIWYG music editors, a major flaw with the UI’s is reliably being able to select notes, insert/delete notes in the middle of section, and also knowing where a symbol you wanted to insert will end up.

* Just like with Latex, you can insert comments (i.e. annotations marking stuff to work on, and also just keeping old alternative fragments lurking around until you need them again).

One other note I should make:
If installing this on a Windows computer with an existing Python install, I’d recommend that you disable the Python Install option in the installer. I helped add this, since the installer will overwrite your environment vars for python, making it point to Lilypond’s stripped-down bundled python. Just a warning for the more technical out there.

hari says: (29 August 2009)

I am not a professional or even an amateur music composer in the traditional sense. But how on earth do you people manage to WRITE music without actually listening to the sounds?

It sounds very advanced and professional to me.

Dion Moult says: (29 August 2009)

hari, writing the score and composing the music are two separate things. You sit down at whatever instrument and compose by improvising and in general “messing around” with different themes and ideas on the instrument itself. When you get a combination you like, you scribble it down on a piece of paper. So you have to be fluent at writing scores by hand. This is only written after you have “confirmed” a section of the piece and you are unlikely to change it (which is never true). You continue this process adding to this scribbled score, continuously removing, changing, rearranging and only once you’ve got a decent amount, such as one or two pages worth of scribbled score, you go to a computer and simply use the computer to make a neat copy of that scribbled score. Or in my case, I make the neat copy when my scribbled score becomes too messy or confusing for even myself to read.

The only time people write music without listening to the sound is when they don’t have the instrument nearby or they are incapable of playing the instrument they are composing for. Any nut can do this just by knowing some of the technical limitations of the instrument, such as the pitch range, or whether they can play two notes at once (such as wind instruments). However any nut doing it like that will also do it very badly. Each instrument is very different and it takes many, many years of experience to be able to fully know how to appreciate these unique sounds and make them blend them together without having them there in front of you to “test things out”. This is a bit why a trained ear can hear the differences between a piano piece composed by a violin player, for example. But a good composer would not have these differences.

hari says: (29 August 2009)

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, that makes a lot of sense and I think I have a reasonable understanding of the process now.

p. says: (30 August 2009)

I’d say, nothing can beat a pencil and a sheet of music manuscript paper when it comes to writing good music. Why ‘Evans’?

Dion Moult says: (30 August 2009)

Evan is the name of my cousin. It’s also a pun because the file extension for lilypond is by convention .ly, and so the file becomes evan.ly. Pronounce it literally and it sounds like “heavenly”.

thinkMoult - The very best of thinkMoult « says: (5 January 2010)

[...] Sibelius, Finale, Cakewalk? Real men use Lilypond. [...]

Caio says: (26 January 2010)

And I read somewhere that you can write musical exerpts with lilypond language INSIDE a LaTeX code. That sounds nice.

Dion Moult says: (26 January 2010)

Yes, it is possible. LaTeX itself has a music package but it’s rather immature compared to the full Lilypond markup.

Lillebjorn Nilsen says: (23 September 2010)

@p Yes, pen and paper and a quiet place is a must for the composer. A good calligraphy pen combined with your scanner is pure joy. Musicians know how to enjoy master calligraphy.

For publishing I have to work with Finale. I find all the program updates a pain. Not the least in my wallet. Never backwards compatibility. Usually scans are sent back and forth for proof reading anyway. Find your red pen.

How I wish engravers could send me lean Lilypond .ly files instead!

Leave a Comment