Am 22.08.2011 15:30, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska<lilyp...@ursliska.de> writes:
The point is to be more open in a bidirectional exchange. This option
would allow to write scores in LilyPond even when you for some reason
or the other are obliged to produce Finale/Sibelius files. There are
several situations I could think of:
* LilyPond is just the program you know how to use.
You don't want to learn - and even less to buy - other programs
Well, there is also the question of preferring a text input based
workflow, like when you are legally blind.
OK, thats what my "..." stood for.
Any more ideas around (for a collection of "advantages of LilyPond" for
example)?
Depending on which country you are in, prescribing the use of WYSIWYG
tools for a competition open to the public could trigger accessibility
laws.
This mail that I had to read gives an unwanted but good argument why
editors have the right to insist on their "workflow":
http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user@gnu.org/msg64139.html.
Well, one has to face it: 90% of all author-created electronic documents
(not restricted to music) are a heap of awful crap that you could not
just stick a fork in, but that indeed has had forks stuck in it
everywhere until it convulsed into print-ready copy.
This is probably quite true and an issue with our modern computer based
working models.
There are probably quite big advantages with the traditional concept of
separating the work and let everything be done by professionals:
First an author (writer, composer, whatever) - then an editor - and
finally the printer. (With editing existing music you'd traditionally
have editor - typesetter - printer.) BTW this is exactly the unix-type
One-task-one-tool concept ;-)
OTOH I very much like the possibility to have full control over the
whole workflow and so minimizing communication problems.
OTOH again communication between two specialists (e.g. an editor and a
typesetter) can be very productive.
So it is a quite difficult issue without one single solution.
I once had a funny situation: I was recording a CD, and the owner of the
recording studio complained massively about their shrinking income
because everybody thinks he can do "professional" audio production at
his home studio.
But the same owner didn't find anything unusual when I did the whole art
work for the cd (well, I'm not actually a graphic designer but only a
pianist ...).
With WYSIWYG, you can't actually see where the forks are, but a versed
editor is experienced in navigating by pain and thrashing.
Now a Lilypond source is unpredictable in just how much thrashing you
get per poke. And it may be a bear to maintain.
Assume that the composer has created a four part fugue with macros for
the parts and counterparts, snug together with augmentation,
transposition and so on. You can change the theme, and get a different
fugue out.
But an editor does not want to change the theme. He might want to
octavate a phrase to accommodate common instrument ranges, or add
fingerings to some passages. The fingerings, obviously, don't transpose
well. The score is composer-friendly, not editor-friendly.
I think these are still two different processes, that should be
separated conceptually.
An editor will want to do the things you mention, but the engraver has
to take care of the realization.
And I still think a versed editor will also be very well able to deal
with lilypond files. The problem is that publishers don't have enough
specialists at hand, don't know whether they can rely on getting the
right people for the revised edition in ten years, a.s.o.
While this also holds true for the commercial products it surely is more
frightening being confronted with an open source project with an input
language that seemingly only nerds care to learn, a.s.o.
I have by now understood that it is very much useless to try to convince
or even force any major players in using LilyPond. And probably one
can't even blame them because - as you pointed out - from their current
perspective it would be economically risky to rely on such a thing.
Hm.
When I started to use LilyPond I didn't expect at all that I would
someday have to deal with real world publishers. If I had known then,
I might never had given LilyPond a try.
Well, your work is composition. If Lilypond helps you with that, it is
doing its principal job. And composition is the harder part, needing to
be done over and over. Editing for publishing is a one-time thing.
No, I'm a pianist. So far I used Lilypond to create performance material
if I need it (for example transpositions of songs, creating an ensemble
score from handwritten parts etc.) But now things have changed and there
sometimes arises the possibility to publish these scores. Or not,
because I can't provide Finale files.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
