On 08/18/2011 04:12 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: > Send them a one page sample of Lilypond output and as why that would not be > acceptable.
I suspect you'd get a simple answer -- "Because it's not in accordance with the rules." Or alternatively, "We do not give feedback on extracts, if you wish to enter please make a complete submission as described in our instructions." Organizations put in place rules like this so their admin people don't have to think, just check boxes. Of course, if you send them (say) a Lilypond-generated score and DON'T SAY ANYTHING, it might skip their notice, but the moment you draw attention to the fact, it gives them carte blanche to just say "No! It doesn't meet our requirements." Ditto any query about "Would it be acceptable to set the score with X?" The answer is obvious -- a rule has been set and the admin person receiving the mail won't even think about it. And they don't want to waste their time looking at samples -- they want a confirmed submission or nothing -- so the likelihood of them taking the time to say whether a single page is good enough or not is small. So, your only recourse is to actually query the restriction itself -- ask them, why this constraint when all they actually require to be submitted is PDF and hard copy? Get a concrete answer to that question, and _then_ you have the chance to lobby for Lilypond. But you need to get past the admin person at the gates with the checklist of stock answers -- you need to go to the person who made those rules, or better still, his or her boss -- and you need to have an answer about why they should care about people who don't use Finale/Sibelius. In the latter respect, note that these people probably don't care about issues of free/open source software (they probably don't know what it means). They _may_ not care that Finale/Sibelius is expensive (after all, it's pretty much an essential purchase for any serious composition student and small compared to the other costs of musicians, like instruments). They might care more about issues like accessibility for blind or otherwise disabled individuals, or for people from poorer countries (though likely anyone from a 3rd-world country who is a classical composer will be from a wealthy family, otherwise how would they get to college in the first place?). Bottom line: yes, it's disgraceful that this competition forces composers to use particular software, but to get them to change their mind you first have to understand why they made the decision, and only then will you be in a position to try and query it or suggest alternatives. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
