Am 25.08.2011 17:48, schrieb Christopher R. Maden:
On 08/25/2011 08:36 AM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
A corresponding issue exists in scientific publishing -- many
scientists use LaTeX to prepare manuscripts, but in the publishers'
typesetting process these are often retyped from scratch in Word
prior to copyediting and layout, because minor tweaks to text and
layout are far easier to make in Word and InDesign than they are in
LaTeX, for all LaTeX' power and beauty.
Well — and here is the case for MusicXML support again — they are likely
to *import* the LaTeX into their production process. They will not
actually retype the text. (They may need to re-key the equations,
because equations, like music, are typographically complex. (Barbie
says, “Math is hard!”))
If there were an easy way for a publishing house to import or ingest a
LilyPond score and get the notes and meter, maybe articulation,
dynamics, and tempo, there would likely be more acceptance of LilyPond
files.
Even at a publishing house that uses the tool, they’re likely to strip
and rebuild the file anyway. The very power that LaTeX and LilyPond
provide makes it possible for creators to do all sorts of perverse
things that the publisher really does not want.
A solid, basic MusicXML export would make it possible for the publisher
to get at the meat of the composition and then apply their house style.
~Chris
+1
I will try to get this a bit clearer in the next months. I am working on
a few editions ATM that are primarily meant as performance material, but
really should be published (historical (multiple) piano arrangements of
prominent works of the Viennes School). For two of them the copyright is
owned by Universal Edition and Edition Peters, so basically only them
are allowed to publish the scores. U.E. had already taken back their
promise to publish the arrangement because they wouldn't pay for the
engraving (i.e. they would have expected me to provide Finale or
Sibelius files).
The third piece is more promising: From a historical point of view it
should be evident that it should be published by Universal Edition
(Alban Berg's own eight hand piano arrangement of his orchestral pieces
op. 6). But as Berg has become public domain in 2005 I could publish it
everywhere I like (with consent of the manuscript's owner). So I think
the negotiating position is somewhat more interesting ;-)
Basically it's an economic consideration.
Let's take for granted that - at least now and for the foreseeable
future - such publishing houses will definitely prepare their prints
with Finale or Sibelius.
Cheapest option for them is to get a Finale file directly from the
editor/author (when I first hat the contact they told me they would give
me their "house specifications" in order to set up the file correctly
from the start. Unfortunately I didn't get this - as I couldn't have
used it anyway - because it would of course have been very interesting now).
Most expensive option is to get a "manuscript" (be it handwritten or
printed by any software) and get it engraved in-house (or by anybody the
choose to ask).
Getting a MusicXML file that can be tweaked to the desired form would
probably be somewhere in between.
So it is then the question how much money they want to invest for the
given publishing project.
BTW this actually means that publishing houses nowadays calculate with
not having to pay for the engraving anymore. In fact one step in the
whole process has practically been eliminated - and with this the
possible income of so many engravers.
From the perspective of the Lilypond user (who in this context would be
either a composer or an editor) having MusicXML output would just raise
the chances to be "cheap" enough to come into business with a publishing
house.
Best
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
