Re: Lilypond lobbying?

[Urs Liska]

Am 22.08.2011 15:30, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska<address@hidden>  writes:
>
> > The point is to be more open in a bidirectional exchange.  This option
> > would allow to write scores in LilyPond even when you for some reason
> > or the other are obliged to produce Finale/Sibelius files.  There are
> > several situations I could think of:
> >
> > * LilyPond is just the program you know how to use.
> >    You don't want to learn - and even less to buy - other programs
> Well, there is also the question of preferring a text input based
> workflow, like when you are legally blind.
OK, thats what my "..." stood for.
Any more ideas around (for a collection of "advantages of LilyPond" for 
example)?
> Depending on which country you are in, prescribing the use of WYSIWYG
> tools for a competition open to the public could trigger accessibility
> laws.
>
> > This mail that I had to read gives an unwanted but good argument why
> > editors have the right to insist on their "workflow":
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg64139.html.
> Well, one has to face it: 90% of all author-created electronic documents
> (not restricted to music) are a heap of awful crap that you could not
> just stick a fork in, but that indeed has had forks stuck in it
> everywhere until it convulsed into print-ready copy.
This is probably quite true and an issue with our modern computer based 
working models.
There are probably quite big advantages with the traditional concept of 
separating the work and let everything be done by professionals:
First an author (writer, composer, whatever) - then an editor - and 
finally the printer. (With editing existing music you'd traditionally 
have editor - typesetter - printer.) BTW this is exactly the unix-type 
One-task-one-tool concept ;-)
OTOH I very much like the possibility to have full control over the 
whole workflow and so minimizing communication problems.
OTOH again communication between two specialists (e.g. an editor and a 
typesetter) can be very productive.
So it is a quite difficult issue without one single solution.

I once had a funny situation: I was recording a CD, and the owner of the 
recording studio complained massively about their shrinking income 
because everybody thinks he can do "professional" audio production at 
his home studio.
But the same owner didn't find anything unusual when I did the whole art 
work for the cd (well, I'm not actually a graphic designer but only a 
pianist ...).
> With WYSIWYG, you can't actually see where the forks are, but a versed
> editor is experienced in navigating by pain and thrashing.
>
> Now a Lilypond source is unpredictable in just how much thrashing you
> get per poke.  And it may be a bear to maintain.
>
> Assume that the composer has created a four part fugue with macros for
> the parts and counterparts, snug together with augmentation,
> transposition and so on.  You can change the theme, and get a different
> fugue out.
>
> But an editor does not want to change the theme.  He might want to
> octavate a phrase to accommodate common instrument ranges, or add
> fingerings to some passages.  The fingerings, obviously, don't transpose
> well.  The score is composer-friendly, not editor-friendly.
I think these are still two different processes, that should be 
separated conceptually.
An editor will want to do the things you mention, but the engraver has 
to take care of the realization.

And I still think a versed editor will also be very well able to deal 
with lilypond files. The problem is that publishers don't have enough 
specialists at hand, don't know whether they can rely on getting the 
right people for the revised edition in ten years, a.s.o.
While this also holds true for the commercial products it surely is more 
frightening being confronted with an open source project with an input 
language that seemingly only nerds care to learn, a.s.o.
I have by now understood that it is very much useless to try to convince 
or even force any major players in using LilyPond. And probably one  
can't even blame them because - as you pointed out - from their current 
perspective it would be economically risky to rely on such a thing.

> Hm.
>
> > When I started to use LilyPond I didn't expect at all that I would
> > someday have to deal with real world publishers. If I had known then,
> > I might never had given LilyPond a try.
> Well, your work is composition.  If Lilypond helps you with that, it is
> doing its principal job.  And composition is the harder part, needing to
> be done over and over.  Editing for publishing is a one-time thing.
No, I'm a pianist. So far I used Lilypond to create performance material 
if I need it (for example transpositions of songs, creating an ensemble 
score from handwritten parts etc.) But now things have changed and there 
sometimes arises the possibility to publish these scores. Or not, 
because I can't provide Finale files.