Re: Lilypond lobbying?

[Urs Liska]

Am 25.08.2011 13:16, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Joseph Wakeling<address@hidden>  writes:
>
> > Now consider that relative difficulty scaled up across the number of
> > times you might have to implement an individual custom tweak in a
> > 50-page orchestral score, and you begin to see the issue from the
> > publisher or engraver's point of view.  The fact that Finale may get
> > more things wrong initially is not an issue when correcting them is
> > simple; the fact that Lilypond may get so many things right initially
> > is not an issue when it's so much more tricky to make (and validate)
> > small manual corrections.
> Except when you are ordering orchestral scores for Monteverdi's Vespers,
> use Renaissance tuning that is usually a minor third off, play partly
> with historical instruments, practice with modern instruments and would
> like to have the choir scores transposed to be on pitch.
>
> A good Lilypond source will require very little touchup work for pulling
> out the (expensive) custom order.
In the context of Joseph Wakelings thoughts I'd say: Any LilyPond 
source, good or bad will require at least on person on the publishers 
side that will deal with it.
And with a little wider perspective: It will require that the publisher 
can rely on having such a person around also when they have to deal with 
the score again sometimes.

So I think in order to improve acceptance of LilyPond also with bigger 
publishers the main prerequisite would be to have a wider infrastructure 
of reliable engravers around. If it has become "normal" to look for 
somebody editing with LilyPond it may be an option for publishing houses.
Then maybe the exact look of the result isn't that crucial anymore as 
publishers change their "look and feel" anyway from time to time.

Best
Urs