I, for one, don't mind the chunkier look
!
or /
, or to add the virga, to get neumes not possible with the gabc as entered. For those of us reproducing scores, this is mostly accomplished already as Gregobase exists, and a mistake there is trivial to correct, as anyone can contribute.Gregorio is not good for critical editions, but I don't think that MusChant would be either.
I may not be understanding, but Dorico can be output as PDF, PNG, or SVG even. So displaying it online is quite easy. Granted, it can't be edited online.
I wasn’t interested either. As I said I don’t always appreciate Gregorio being wedded to LaTeX, and I can accept that LaTeX is a time-suck. But gabc? That is a lot harder to accept, especially as you don’t have to input it in the way it was originally intended to be transcribed.But I also am not interested in learning to code laTex or LilyPond and cobbling things together with photoshop or affinity publisher
I desperately desire to have new and old within the same document
saying "GABC sucks"
I fail to see how designing yet another square note font brings us closer to the interoperability of chant engraving software.
What are the features GABC/gregorio is lacking
Xmarteo is also free as an eagle to ignore Dan’s font.
But it solves a real need for some others in the meantime.
yet I think there is no reason to rant.
it’d be better to ask the developers what needs to be done to achieve the current needs. But Fr Samuel has said a million times that a better way to handle lines is needed before doing a lot of things. Knowing precisely where the breaks are only occurs after a first pass when typesetting. This then allows for the typesetting of the space between lines and things like braces for psalmody that require this space to be defined.Collecting new requirements could be a first step to revive it.
change whether or not two syllable words get an accent mark, use æ instead of ae
The issue is that if you're generating graphics for combination with modern notation as in the example Dan just shared, it's extremely onerous to do so. You have no way of dynamically making adjustments to either part to make them work together. At least one of the scores will be a static graphic that, if it needs any adjusting, will require going back to that program, guessing just how much to adjust spacing or whatever, exporting as a graphic, reimporting to another program, comparing, and then doing the whole process over again just because something doesn't line up correctly.Otherwise, I am struggling to see why it is so hard to treat Gregorio scores as graphics
Does anybody know about a good program for optical recognition for mensural music?
reimporting to another program, comparing, and then doing the whole process over again just because something doesn't line up correctly.
And that's only to make fine graphical adjustments to chant-only scores, not combination scores as shown above. Perish the thought of having to use the workflow I just described.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.