Re: promoting LilyPond

[Martin Tarenskeen]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Garrett McGilvray wrote:

> The reason that I came back for a second try was not that it was free, 
> since I had already paid for "the real thing."  I don't remember what 
> made me think of it, but I remembered the essay on LilyPond's goal of 
> superior engraving, and I decided to give it a second try. I fared 
> better the second time. I have redone some of my past work in LilyPond, 
> and I like the new results better. I doubt now I'll go back to Finale.

I would be interested to see a comparison of some *good* scores engraved 
using Finale (and/or Sibelius) and the same scores using LilyPond. Maybe 
you can post some examples?

It's easy to show a really bad Finale result and compare it with how much 
better LilyPond can do this.

But it is more fair to compare a good Finale/Sibelius score, prepared by a 
skilled and experienced Finale/Sibelius user, and then try to use LilyPond 
to do things better.

In many cases it will be a matter of taste which of the results people 
will like best.

Many of my collegues - actually probably all of them - use Finale or 
Sibelius. I have never heard anyone of them complain "My scores look bad! 
Please suggest a better alternative for me!"

A comparison: When the audio CD was introduced it became a huge success 
because everyone could hear the difference in sound quality and the 
improvement in user-friendlyness. When after that the Super-Audio CD was 
introduced it was only embraced by a very small number of people who 
wanted the very best sound quality. For most people "CD-quality" was and 
still is synonym to "perfect audio". And even MP3 is good enough for them. 
Why would you need Super-Audio?

--

MT