Re: Lilypond lobbying?

[Joseph Wakeling]

On 08/18/2011 01:14 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
> So far it also seems nonsensical to exclude handwritten scores. This
> isn't only unusual but also musically restricting.
> While really loving computer notation (at least with LilyPond), I often
> had the impression that some composer had let his creativity be
> influenced by the capabilities of their software (or their capability to
> use this software). Well, it is definitely easier to experiment with
> composition and notation by hand, without thinking about how to realize
> this with software.

Actually, I wonder if their main aim may be to exclude scores that are
handwritten and/or otherwise difficult to read: preparation in Finale or
Sibelius generally guarantees a certain level of legibility.  There are
also lots of notation softwares that result in terrible-looking scores.

It may also be a way of making sure that people submitting scores are
more likely to be serious composers.  After all, Finale/Sibelius is a
hefty investment for an amateur.

Perhaps someone could write to them and explicitly ask "Why do you
require scores to be generated with Finale or Sibelius"?

(I would be amused to know if they'd actually realize if someone did
send print/PDF generated by Lilypond...)

> b)
> One of the prizes is the publication of the winning work. They don't
> tell anything about how and where this will happen. And it is quite
> possible that some publishing house won't just print from the pdf files
> but will want to edit the scores to fit their needs and conventions. So
> it may be possible that they really can only handle Finale and Sibelius
> files.

Yes, but if that's their need it's easy to say "Winning entries must
provide Finale or Sibelius files to the publisher" rather than putting
in place constraints at submission time.