Re: Is Sibelius really as bad as this?

[Richard Shann]

On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 10:29 +0200, Urs Liska wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 29.05.2015 um 10:13 schrieb Richard Shann:
> 
> > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 21:16 +0200, Jacques Menu wrote:
> > > Hello Richard,
> > > 
> > > Find attached what I get after raw import of the XML file into Sibelius 
> > > 7.1.3 and then export as PDF.
> > > 
> > > It seems there’s no difference with what you got from IMSLP.
> > > 
> > > JM
> > 
> > Well, again I couldn't view this in Evince but I could open it with
> > Iceweasel, and it shows something interesting: in bar 13 the original
> > has a cautionary accidental in parentheses. 
> > 
> > Denemo's MusicXML import ignores this field (yes! I've submitted a bug
> > report for this) so I have inserted it manually, getting the attached
> > typeset LilyPondBar13.png.
> > 
> > The hand-written Sibelius output was particularly bad for this (see
> > SibeliusHandGenerated.ly), while Sibelius's MusicXML import, like
> > Denemo's, ignored the cautionary attribute when re-importing its own
> > MusicXML (see SibeliusImportedFromMusicXML.png attached - this has been
> > snipped from your file).
> > 
> > Reading this mailing list gave me the impression that Sibelius was a
> > required format for some publishing houses. 
> 
> This is correct. From my own experience and comments by others most
> (major) publishers require you to submit one of the following:;
> - Finale files
> - Sibelius files
> - SCORE files
> - ((((PDF))))
> 
> > How can this be? 
> 
> Good question.
> Has to be put also the other way round: How can it be that practically
> noone accepts LilyPond yet? It can't be the text approach alone,
> otherwise they wouldn't use SCORE (and sometimes even Amadeus which is
> very similar to LilyPond in a way).

I think the answer may be that they re-typeset everything in-house, so
even a manuscript is acceptable. Have you ever had a chance to ask them?

Richard