lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lilypond lobbying?


From: Joseph Wakeling
Subject: Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:36:19 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11

On 08/25/2011 01:41 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
> 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.

I don't think you understand the issue from the publisher's point of view.

The issue is not "Can you create the publisher's look and feel with
Lilypond?" (you surely can) or "Can you find a reliable Lilypond
engraver?" (again, you surely can, although it would be nice if there
were more).

The issue is that if you have a manuscript score engraved in Lilypond
that needs lots of small individual custom tweaks (as almost all scores
do prior to publication), it's almost certainly easier to redo the score
from scratch in Finale and then make additional necessary tweaks, than
it is to correct the existing Lilypond score.

A corresponding issue exists in scientific publishing -- many scientists
use LaTeX to prepare manuscripts, but in the publishers' typesetting
process these are often retyped from scratch in Word prior to
copyediting and layout, because minor tweaks to text and layout are far
easier to make in Word and InDesign than they are in LaTeX, for all
LaTeX' power and beauty.

Availability of more highly-skilled Lilypond engravers will certainly
help adoption, but it doesn't solve the crucial issue which leads
publishers (and others) to use other tools.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]