On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 01:12:11AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > . . . if convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be > > straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done > > (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a > > score, so that's not so bad). > > I use LilyPond for cases that have intractable layout problems, either > because of complicated text requirements or because of the the necessity > of squeezing a score into 3 pages. Note entry goes extremely fast, and I > spend 80 to 90% of my time on fixing the layout. So for me, preservation > of layout is the prime requirement as regards archiving. > > I wonder what the typical note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time ratio is > amongst LilyPond users. > > -- Tom >
I usually typeset for bands, and I have spent a bit of time getting style sheets just right. Once they are done, the vast majority of the time is spent on note entry. I have a good look at a finished part, and it frequently turns out that changes I need to make there need to be made to other parts --- that's easy, because those definitions are in the one place. Once I've got one part looking right, about 5% of the time will be spent fixing problems in other individual parts. Even then, fixing a layout problem is often an indication I've done something wrong. In my style sheets I have a lot of frequently used tweaks commented out, so I don't have to go searching the manual for the same thing all the time. Of course, defining style sheets can take a long time, and I'm glad I don't have to do it for each piece I set. It also helps the style of music I set doesn't seem to challenge LilyPond's typesetting engine. -- ============================================= Cameron Horsburgh ============================================= _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
