Re: producing "archival" scores

[Cameron Horsburgh]

On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 01:12:11AM -0400, address@hidden wrote:
> 
> > . . . 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
> 

I usually typeset for bands, and I have spent a bit of time getting
style sheets just right. Once they are done, the vast majority of the
time is spent on note entry. I have a good look at a finished part,
and it frequently turns out that changes I need to make there need to
be made to other parts --- that's easy, because those definitions are
in the one place. Once I've got one part looking right, about 5% of
the time will be spent fixing problems in other individual parts. Even
then, fixing a layout problem is often an indication I've done
something wrong.

In my style sheets I have a lot of frequently used tweaks commented
out, so I don't have to go searching the manual for the same thing all
the time. 

Of course, defining style sheets can take a long time, and I'm glad I
don't have to do it for each piece I set. It also helps the style of
music I set doesn't seem to challenge LilyPond's typesetting engine.

-- 

=============================================
Cameron Horsburgh

=============================================