Re: producing "archival" scores

[stk]

> . . . if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be
> straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done
> (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a
> score, so that's not so bad).

I use LilyPond for cases that have intractable layout problems, either
because of complicated text requirements or because of the the necessity
of squeezing a score into 3 pages.  Note entry goes extremely fast, and I
spend 80 to 90% of my time on fixing the layout.  So for me, preservation
of layout is the prime requirement as regards archiving.

I wonder what the typical   note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time   ratio is
amongst LilyPond users.

-- Tom

******************************************************

Josiah Boothby wrote:

Just to clarify one small thing: I think that it would be nearly
impossible -- or at least extraordinarily difficult -- to compile on a
modern distribution of Linux a sufficiently old version of Lilypond so
that ancient .ly files can be used directly. The nice thing about the
old ly files is that the syntax is usually similar enough that if
convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be
straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done
(for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a
score, so that's not so bad).

--Josiah