Am 28. November 2016 01:58:07 MEZ, schrieb Chris Yate <chrisy...@gmail.com>: >On 27 Nov 2016 23:49, "Urs Liska" <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Am 28.11.2016 um 00:41 schrieb Chris Yate: >>> >>> Hi Jacques, >>> >>> I don't know... It seems ridiculous that they have no common format >- >but it's a relatively tiny industry... But I doubt the big houses like >Peters and Barenreiter use either Sibelius or Finale... >> >> >> The big houses more or less *exclusively* use Sibelius and Finale in >parallel, with a very low share still using SCORE and an actually tiny >share using Amadeus. > >Interesting. I've been told they use something else - a bespoke system, >but >maybe that's old information.
SCORE is maybe bespoke enough ... > Why use the two in parallel though? Well, that's market, I suppose. Some prefer InDesign and others prefer Quark. > >.. And do you know, for actual production of books, do they use Adobe >publishing tools, or something along those lines? No idea, I've never talked about *this* part of the toolchain. But I'd think so. > >> Breitkopf just last year decided to quit any diversity and to move >everything to Sibelius. >> >> >>> >>> In the larger world of office IT, Microsoft have dealt with the >issue of >everyone expecting to be able to share and consume MS Word documents by >supporting ODF, though it's still a problem that some people expect to >receive only .doc files. >>> >>> Anyway, I'm sure there would be Sibelius and Finale output >converters >for Lilypond, but that these file formats are proprietary. >> >> >> This is only true in a hypothetical sense. Due to lack of resources >we >only have an extremely rudimentary MusicXML export so far (the fact >that >this is due to the single (!) developer working on it having taken a >full-time job speaks volumes, I think). There has been a few attempts >in >recent years to improve the situation, but in the end it boils down to >the >fact that this will only happen with some substantial external funding. > >So, is musicXML really a reliable interop format between the other >systems? I don't think so - at least not goven wjaz you can see now. I have just seen how a simple Sibelius file looked when exported to MusicXML and immediately imported back into Sibelius - frightening. > >>> It makes me sad that they don't see a market in inter-operability. >If >you're certain of the benefits of your software over another, then it's >a >real sign of confidence to be able to export and import to and from all >of >the alternatives. >> >> >> If I'm not mistaken completely for the better part of its lifetime >LilyPond was considered the last exit of a one-way street, i.e. it was >considered useful to convert documents *to* LilyPond, but who would >ever >need anything *after* it ... >> Fortunately this attitude isn't that strong anymore, but still the >resources to change the situation are missing. > >If output to MusicXML is the solution, then it's clearly solvable. But >this >relies on the big boys implementing good import routines - and when >submitting things to a publisher, I'm not sure how much reformatting >they >do but I would expect none. Which is the point of my prior post... It's >dangerous to export to a format of which you can't independently test >the >validity. Indeed. Best Urs > >Chris -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
