Not so small that you cant do enough money with it. Sib and finale has grown as sequencers and interesting enough for many midi-ists, specially for hobbyists. I am sure a big part of the market of sib (definitely easier than finale and with a big music-library) was not engraving and not so professional.
Francois 2012/8/2, Lucas Gonze <lucas.go...@gmail.com>: > The market for music notation tools is very small! That's a major obstacle. > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Francois Planiol <alicuota...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> If this is faster (depends, entering notes and lyrics without tuning >> the output is in lilypond faster) so Sibelius is victim of the same >> capitalism it serves. No cry. >> >> But if Sib-programmers are smart, they would go startup... >> >> Francois >> >> 2012/8/2, Lucas Gonze <lucas.go...@gmail.com>: >>> I'm an ex-Sibelius user. Even though I know Lilypond syntax pretty >>> well I still find that it would be much faster to use Sibelius. >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Francois Planiol <alicuota...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I know quite a bunch of of Sibelius users and their argumentation, >>>> mostly are writing arrangements or compositions directly in the >>>> computer. They just want to click the glyphes on a pentagrama >>>> directly. I suppose a part them would not mind if Lily takes the hand >>>> over spacing and other decisions, but these would only be conviced >>>> with a pentagrama-frontend and a directly accessible midi-playback. >>>> They think they have no time to learn a new method of writing music... >>>> and want one installer for all the stuff. >>>> On the other side, Sibelius will still work a while... >>>> Francois >>>> >>>> 2012/8/2, Lucas Gonze <lucas.go...@gmail.com>: >>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling >>>>> <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: >>>>>> More generally than that, I think the reason to discuss is to >>>>>> _discover_ >>>>>> the >>>>>> areas where you can cooperate. There are obvious areas of >>>>>> interaction >>>>>> -- >>>>>> e.g. enabling Lilypond output for MuseScore and ensuring that it gets >>>>>> updated effectively in response to Lilypond syntax changes. >>>>> >>>>> I have considered using Lilypond as a back end for front end hacking, >>>>> but the compile time from .ly to .svg is way too high. >>>>> >>>>> Is it architecturally possible to make a significant amount of >>>>> overhead go away? Are incremental compiles plausible? >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> lilypond-user mailing list >>>>> lilypond-user@gnu.org >>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
