Re: Lilypond lobbying?

[Janek Warchoł]

2011/8/25 Joseph Wakeling <address@hidden>:
> On 08/25/2011 02:30 AM, PMA wrote:
>> *If* my LilyPond output PDF were to match what Schott wants to see
>> (in other words, a correct Schott-targeted style-sheet would not have
>> changed it), then would Schott print my original PDF *as-is*?
>
> It's important to understand what the _real_ requirements are from the
> point of view of the publisher.
>
> Generally speaking the publisher (whether of music or other texts) does
> not expect to receive from the author a version of the document that
> corresponds exactly to how it will appear in print.  Of course, it's
> very nice if the author can follow as closely as possible the
> publisher's style guide, but even where this has been followed to the
> letter (and the text itself is impeccable and entirely error-free) the
> publisher will typically plan on further editing the author's text.
>
> The publisher's main requirement from a software solution is therefore
> that it makes _editing and tweaking_ a text very easy, because even in
> the best-case scenario they expect to have to do a lot of manual
> intervention.
>
> Lilypond is excellent (and highly extensible) when it comes to
> implementing general stylistic rules, but very finnicky when it comes to
> the small manual tweaks that are the common currency of editorial
> intervention.  Take as an example the tweaks described in the Lilypond
> Notation Manual on slurs:
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-as-curves#slurs
>
> ... and compare that to the ease of editing in Finale: click, drag,
> click, and see _straight away_ that you've got it right.

Yes.  I hate to say it, but in the matter of tweaking slurs LilyPond
sucks really hard compared to Finale.
I see only two solutions:
- develop a GUI fro easy tweaking
- improve slur formatting tremendously.
each requires loads of work and has its drawbacks.

cheers,
Janek