Re: Engraving challenges

[Urs Liska]

Am 08.01.2014 16:02, schrieb Alex Loomis:
> Another vote for this. It would also make logistics easier.

OK, it's a good idea. We can have any number of parallel approaches of 
course.

Just one thing: I think peer review is a _very_ valuable tool when it 
comes to editing music. It may be different when you are composing and 
providing your own music as material. But when you have to prepare an 
edition of existing music proof-reading is essential and can only be 
done by different people.
I was told that in the formalized workflow at Henle there is the 
preparation of the "engraver's copy" by the editor, then comes the 
typesetting, and finally no less than six rounds of proof-reading.

I find it interesting to explore how this can be done with different 
tools. Although this may be extremely biased because I'm so sure that 
text based tools are infinitely more suitable for such tasks ;-)

Urs

> On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:48 AM, Simon Bailey <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden
> > <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> >
> >     It might actually be interesting _not_ to collaborate, and see
> >     what differences occur.  This might also be true for Lilypond.
> >
> > I was thinking something similar. It might be interesting to see how
> > different people interpret or beautify the given examples. i'd be
> > willing to create a no-frills default lilypond version. and then a
> > tweaked one in my "house" style. However, I would also find it
> > interesting how other experienced lily users approach the task
> > differently -- there's always more than one way to do things... ;)
> >
> > regards,
> > sb
> >
> > --
> > Do not meddle in the affairs of trombonists, for they are subtle and
> > quick to anger.