Hi Andrew, > I still do not see why the web graphic waterlily has suddenly been assumed > to be the lilypond ‘logo’.
To my knowledge it is the only graphic representation of the LilyPond project. I think it sort of made its way as the official unofficial logo. > One could always say that I am free to not use a logo, but this argument, > which will certainly be raised, is not valid in my opinion. Could you elaborate? > Logos are for branding and marketing. Why do we need one? Without falling into proselytism, I think the LilyPond project needs more visibility. And this logo would one of other tools for those who *want* to make this project more visible. Finale and Sibelius (to name what most musicians I talk to reference as "the only two 'professional' alternatives") all are pretty obnoxious and intrusive in their marketing and promotion strategies and even them do have that default "tag line". I happen to think there should be no *default* LilyPond tag line. But, I chose to make it really clear and as un-intrusive as possible that all my engravings were made using LilyPond. I do want people to know that there is free/libre software capable of beautiful professional score engraving. For example, this [1] is the tagline I use. It would not fit in "professional" prints but that is not what I do. There is so much editing from day to day that I need this "noise" as you said and I found this explicit version numbering and software identification to be a load off my mind and an aid for people working within the project. As a bonus, if I could, I would use a simple, elegant, logo representing the software. So my question to you is : Provided some logo is agreed upon, What would be the problem making an elegant and professional logo available for those who find a need for one ? -- Pierre-Luc Gauthier
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user