Re: Photoscore

[Gerdau, Michael]

> > For what reason do they still insist on tools and not on results?
> >
> 
> The argument I've heard from my commercial publisher is that they need to
> be able to edit the files later, such as in the case of
> scholarly/definitive editions where the state of research regarding the
> "true" version of a piece might change. I made my contact there the exact
> same offer: I could serve up a PDF that would meet all of their standards,
> and they flatly refused on this reason.

That argument seems valid.

What I still don't understand is why they refuse to use LP outright in the first
place.
We all agree that the results are at least as good as with Finale or Sibelius.
I'd expect we also agree that the effort required to achieve that is less.
My personal learning curve w/r to lilypond was not steeper than that for Finale
or Sibelius.

Why don't publisher employ personal capable of using lilpond, when they
apparently are willing to invest in both Finale and Sibelius?
FWIW at least I'm faster with lilypond than I ever was with either of Finale or
Sibelius. And restructuring as well as reusing stuff is MUCH easier as well.
Does anybody have an answer?

<disclaimer>
The above is an honest question. I'd expect using lilypond would save money and
thus I don't understand it.
</disclaimer>

Kind regards,
Michael
--
Michael Gerdau       email: address@hidden
GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver