Re: Lilypond lobbying?

[Christopher R. Maden]

On 08/25/2011 08:36 AM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> 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.

Well — and here is the case for MusicXML support again — they are likely
to *import* the LaTeX into their production process.  They will not
actually retype the text.  (They may need to re-key the equations,
because equations, like music, are typographically complex.  (Barbie
says, “Math is hard!”))

If there were an easy way for a publishing house to import or ingest a
LilyPond score and get the notes and meter, maybe articulation,
dynamics, and tempo, there would likely be more acceptance of LilyPond
files.

Even at a publishing house that uses the tool, they’re likely to strip
and rebuild the file anyway.  The very power that LaTeX and LilyPond
provide makes it possible for creators to do all sorts of perverse
things that the publisher really does not want.

A solid, basic MusicXML export would make it possible for the publisher
to get at the meat of the composition and then apply their house style.

~Chris
-- 
Chris Maden, text nerd  <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
Those who learn from history are doomed to become cynics.