- Original Message
> From: Graham Percival
> To: Martin Tarenskeen
> Cc: lilypond-user mailinglist
> Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 6:51:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Lilypond to MusicXML (was: Re: New Sibelius to LilyPond
> conversion suite)
>
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:45:58AM
You can get started with a reasonable MusicXML import project for as little as
a US $10 investment in Finale NotePad. For a MusicXML export project, just
download a free Finale demo. Recordare does not make any money from either the
sales or downloads of MakeMusic products.
The Finale products
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Graham Percival wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:45:58AM +0100, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
But the main problem remains: Lilypond developers are also very happy
Lilypond users, which could explain the lack of motivation to put a lot
of time and effort exporting to a format
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:45:58AM +0100, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
>
> But the main problem remains: Lilypond developers are also very happy
> Lilypond users, which could explain the lack of motivation to put a lot
> of time and effort exporting to a format that only people who do NOT use
> Li
Personally I would already be quite happy if Lilypond would only be able
to export the most basic information like staffs, clefs, keys, notes, and
beamings. More detailed and/or complex details I would then add manually
in the software that I use to import the exported musicxml. Even that
wou
On Sunday 07 February 2010 20:40:55 you wrote:
> MusicXML isn't a standard at all. If you have to say "umm, dunno,
> look at what this other piece of software does", it's not a
> standard.
Just to make things clear: It's not so bad. It's just impossible to write a
full specification for musical
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 07:12:59PM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> However, there is also a practical problem: How do you check the
> quality of your export? There are so many things in the MusicXML
> "specification" that are left unclear, and the typical advice on
> the MusicXML mailing list is
On Saturday 06 February 2010 16:18:54 Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
> Everyone will agree having not only musicxml2ly but also a Lilypond to
> MusicXML converter would be cool.
Absolutely. The only problem is who will develop it? I don't have the time for
such a task, but rather create some more Urtex
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 04:18:54PM +0100, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
> Could this also be true for Lilypond ? Would it be better/easier to have
> a --musicxml output option ( just like --png --ps and --pdf ) instead of
> a separate application that has to be written from scratch ? Maybe then
> the
Everyone will agree having not only musicxml2ly but also a Lilypond to
MusicXML converter would be cool.
I remember a similar discussion some time ago in the Mup mailing list. The
Mup developers from Arkkra Enterprises were saying it would probably be
less work to add musicxml export as an e
10 matches
Mail list logo
