Re: producing "archival" scores

[Aaron Dalton]

Jason Merrill wrote:
> Thanks for the interesting comments so far.  I want to refocus the
> discussion slightly.  I didn't mean to get into a discussion about the
> relative merits of lilypond as an entry tool, exactly, so take as a
> temporary supposition that I want to enter music in lilypond right
> now, but that at some future time, someone else wants to modify that
> music in a program other than lilypond.  How can I do something now to
> make that easiest?
> 

There is not now, nor ever will be, some universal music language.
MusicXML is an option, but not one everybody will choose.  One could ask
the exact same question by replacing 'lilypond' with 'MusicXML'.  The
issue with archival (it seems to me) is a format whose source will
"always" be readable and whose output will "always" be viewable.  Seems
to me Lilypond and MusicXML are the only ones that provide both of
these.  They also seem to me to be the only two options that are
non-proprietary so others will not have purchase anything to access your
work.  Whether you prefer MusicXML or Lilypond is a matter of taste,
methinks.  Obviously the people on this list are going to have a marked
bias towards Lilypond, but that is indeed another question.

> Josiah makes the point that MusicXML is too verbose.  I agree;
> however, it succeeds at it's stated goal of being a music interchange
> format in that it is widely supported.  Is there another, better music
> interchange format either available or in development?
> 

I could argue that Finale is also "a music interchange format that is
widely supported."  MusicXML is just one more way of encoding music.
Any format that uses plain text as source and a non-proprietary compiler
I think is a perfectly decent archival option.

> So far, the best option was suggested by Tom: a tool called PDFtoMusic
> Pro that converts PDF scores into MusicXML.  The pros are that it is
> available right now, and that it presumably works.  Downsides are that
> it is proprietary and not free, and takes what seems to me a rather
> indirect route towards solving my particular problem.
> 

1) I have strong reservations about the claims made by this product.  I
would be very interested in hearing what people's results have been.  I
cannot imagine that they can do what they say with the accuracy they imply.

2) The fact that it's proprietary to me is more than a downside, but
actually kills the option as one for long-term archival.  I guess it
depends on your goals.  It sounds like you're more interested in
exchange rather than archival.

> Any other suggestions?  Any comments on the likelihood of being able
> to compile lilypond into a music interchange format at some point in
> the future?

I see no reason why a ly2musicxml utility could not be done, but I don't
know enough about the guts of Lilypond personally.  It's an interesting
question to be sure.

-- 
Aaron Dalton       |   Super Duper Games
address@hidden   |   http://superdupergames.org