On 11.11.2009, at 01:01, Erik Appeldoorn wrote:
As several users have responded asking for feedback why I stopped with
lilypond (or criticism). Here's my 2cents worth.
During the last four weeks I have been restoring a piece. It has
come to me
in several different parts. Handwriting, several voices just as
extraction
parts. The publisher asked for goodlooking, editable scores. Which
seemed
like a good point to start with lilypond. I started with the
simplest piece,
a voice with organ. Laying it all out wasn't the problem. I am
familiar with
programming, and familiar with other markup languages. From day one
I ran
into trouble with notating what was asked. I have found the list very
friendly and very helpful. In the end all my questions were
answered, and
all notating puzzles solved. But the fact I had to use several of
these
solutions (or work arounds) in one score (or even in one bar) made
inputting
very tedious. The last piece I did was a short piece of 25 bars, four
voices. Took me two days to complete. And although I can see that
the speed
will get greater, at this point I'm only frustrated. I created all 10
movements in Sibelius, took me about 5 evenings. I have created the 4
smallest of them with lilypond, took me 20 evenings. So I take all the
blame. I'm just to slow. On the practical side the work just could
not wait.
I'm guessing the Sibelius comparison also applies to the first month
you spent using sibelius? I've heard it has a very intuitive
interface, but I know the first couple of months I spent with finale
were very difficult.
Also, the complaint here isn't that there's some inherent defect in
the program or the documentation, rather that you didn't want to take
the time to learn how to use lilypond when you could do it in
sibelius faster.
James E. Bailey
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
