On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:42:32 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Gilles,
But why _LilyPond_, if you agreed that quality will can (never!)
match that
produced with the tool that produced the scores available on IMSLP ?
Why not that other tool?
What "other tool"? Hand-engraving with metal punch ca. 1852-1952?
Because that’s the standard we’re measuring against by comparing to
IMSLP.
I did not understand that. I thought that we were discussing computer
generated output with (possibly heavy) human tweaking.
New editions will (probably?) not use hand-engraving as you describe,
so that's not part of the competition.
No cross-platform computer application I know of — proprietary or
open source — has better output than Lilypond. In fact, even with
just
a basic stylesheet applied to it, my musical theatre Piano/Conductor
scores rival (and in most cases surpass) what the big publishing
houses (e.g., Warner-Chappell) put out for sale.
This is one of the reasons I laud Urs’s attempt to get some of those
houses to use Lilypond: it would actually improve their current
output!
My point in the long thread is that they may indeed be satisfied
with their current business model (which, for some, include ugly
practice) and tools; hence, perhaps nothing can help.
Regard,
Gilles
Cheers,
Kieren.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
