Re: [GLISS] why the hell all this fuss

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

I'm moving this discussion from -bug to -devel as it seems more appropriate 
here.

On 06/09/12 11:56, David Kastrup wrote:
> Joseph Rushton Wakeling <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Has anyone ever actually engaged with any major publishers to identify
> > the factors that are of interest to them in engraving software, and
> > the features that Lilypond would have to implement in order to meet
> > their requirements?
>
> Judging from my experience in print publishing, the most important
> feature is that output quality is not competitive.
>
> They have taken large investments in their current tools, their
> operators, their experts, their workflows, dependencies, and customer
> base and expectations and pricings.  They are major publishers not just
> since yesterday.  They have what it takes to crank out good scores at
> competitive prices.
>
> Getting them interested is only feasible if LilyPond opens new business
> areas for them.  They won't be interested to change to LilyPond in
> already established areas because it would mean putting them on equal,
> or actually on worse footing with newcomers.
>
> Short of being able to offer new _business_ models, you'll get
> stonewalled.  They'll have to react if you manage to upset the
> established markets with LilyPond, but they won't actively participate
> before that is the case.

Obviously what you say has a lot of truth to it -- like any other business, 
publishers' software choices are very heavily dictated not just by the 
software's objective properties but also by how it fits with their existing 
infrastructure, production process and staff training.

But I wasn't proposing a lobbying exercise to get publishers using Lilypond -- I 
was proposing that we try and identify what technical aspects of engraving 
software, beyond infrastructural lock-in, are important to the major publishers. 
 I think that's something that can be found out even if the publishers have no 
intention of altering their software choices.

At the first instance, their production infrastructure is worth understanding in 
detail.  Who is it who uses the engraving software, in-house staff, external 
freelancers, a mix of both?  How do they work together?  What is it that the 
publisher expects to receive from their engravers, a Finale/Sibelius/SCORE file, 
an Adobe Illustrator file, a PostScript or PDF file of the final work, or some 
combination of these?  What do they archive, and how do they handle corrections, 
updated editions etc.?  Do they even care about the software used as long as the 
final score meets house style?

I don't see that there is likely to be any big secret around all of this, 
because the major details are likely to be almost entirely the same from 
publisher to publisher.  (In STM publishing, for example, many of the major 
rival publishers use the same typesetting services from the same suppliers. 
It's not a secret that the typical workflow is that text is imported or re-typed 
in Word, which is used for copyediting; and this is then imported into InDesign, 
where the layout is done; and from there it is exported to PDF and XML.  It's 
also evident why they are ever more favouring these tools over e.g. LaTeX, 
because the whole process of typing, checking and editing is much easier with 
these tools; LaTeX is being relegated to an input format rather than a 
production one.)  Of course there are details of practice that publishers won't 
share, but most likely the dominant differentiating factors are simply economies 
of scale rather than some special, secret technique.

I don't think this has to involve major overtures to major publishers, it just 
needs to involve finding a few technical people (both freelancers and in-house 
staff) responsible for engraving with major publishers, taking them out for a 
drink or two, and going over in detail what are their killer features in a piece 
of engraving software, and what would render a piece of software unusable.  For 
best insight I would also talk to film composers and studio staff, to see how 
their use of Finale/Sibelius/etc. fits with what the publishers do (e.g. is it 
relevant to publishers that the same software they use for engraving, can also 
be used to very quickly produce, revise and test an arrangement for use in the 
recording studio?).