Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@googlemail.com> writes: > 2013/2/14 Wim van Dommelen <m...@wimvd.nl>: > >> I was a little upset when I read "they decided to disperse the >> collection", >> but it is true, I've contacted them and you can indeed buy a random plate, > > I seem to remember having heard that Henle now uses Sibelius. > If that's true, well, further Sibelius-development is aborted, what > does this mean for Henle's future? > A chance for LilyPond ... ?
For commercial viability, LilyPond is lacking two mechanisms: a) a reliable and scaleable mechanism to make individual problems go away by manual labor. WYSIWYG systems offer that. I think that Frescobaldi tries offering a bit of that as well. b) a mechanism to make problem complexes go away by money. Commercially developed systems offer that. Sibelius has thrown away mechanism b) by dismissing their development team. Its problems are there to stay, but you can fix up a lot of them manually. Without a), however, it is hard to maintain a distinguishing edge over competition. The question is how important that is. Have we lost distinguished book publishing houses with significant focus on classical books due to public domain _texts_ being in a much easier malleable form than public domain _scores_? So-so. They do a lot of publishing of _new_ texts. But the market for new _music_ is a bit shallow. There is pop music published quite a bit, but it does not really overly exercise LilyPond's strengths all that much. And "modern classics" are not really in circulation to a degree where large houses can live from them. Current publishers are still living from "editions". If we get reliable optical music recognition (like OCR for classic _texts_) to LilyPond, this market will be getting strained. I am not sure how to pitch LilyPond in this environment. But it can't harm to further improve it. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
