rich@Rice.edu (Richard Murphey) (11/21/90)
Archive-name: musictex/17-Nov-90 Original-posting-by: rich@Rice.edu (Richard Murphey) Original-subject: Re: Music Macros for TeX . . Archive-site: qed.rice.edu [128.42.4.38] Reposted-by: emv@ox.com (Edward Vielmetti) In article <19644@oolong.la.locus.com> vera@locus.com (William Vera) writes: In article <1990Nov15.161346.7516@ircam.ircam.fr> mf@ircam.ircam.fr (Michel Fingerhut) writes nothing but: > MusicTeX is so much better. I agree. Gee, that's nice..., hey everybody, there is something out there called MusicTeX! Michel, instead of wasting time and net bandwidth by simply being opinionated, how about explaining (for those who may not have heard of it) what MusicTeX is and how it is better than Mutex. Inquiring minds would like to know (without having to beg). Or is it that MusicTeX is not Public Domain but rather proprietary to IRCAM, and therefore almost impossible for most of us out here to obtain? Musictex is better because it is an extension of mutex. There are enhanced features as well as new features. Specificly, it supports multiple staves more easily. There is a copy of musictex available via anonymous ftp on qed.rice.edu (128.42.4.38) in pub/musictex.tar.Z. This is an alpha test distribution, which means you should expect to find some bugs in it. I've been unable to contact the author, and have been told that at this point in time he would prefer to concentrate on development rather than support. You need tex and possibly metafont as well to use musictex. Musictex is freely redistributable. If you need more info, get it and read the documentation. Rich