2011/8/22 Christ van Willegen <cvwille...@gmail.com>: > 2011/8/22 Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com>: >> What would be the point of using LilyPond then, if all the beautiful >> formatting will be lost? > > Keyboard entry?
For many people it's a disadvantage. Certainly entering notes on a virtual staff paper has some advantages. 2011/8/22 Urs Liska <lilyp...@ursliska.de>: > Am 22.08.2011 14:23, schrieb Janek Warchoł: > The point is to be more open in a bidirectional exchange. > This option would allow to write scores in LilyPond even when you for some > reason or the other are obliged to produce Finale/Sibelius files. Of cource i support bidirectional exchange! It'll be very good to have the possibility to convert LilyPond scores to finale scores in case such need arises. I only don't see much sense in writing score in LilyPond with the intention of converting it to finale right from the start. I think it would be more reasonable to do it altogether in finale. > There are several situations I could think of: > > LilyPond is just the program you know how to use. > You don't want to learn - and even less to buy - other programs > You write music that relies on complex scheme functions > (for example for some forms of algorithmic composition) > You want to create scores programmatically > - I once wrote a Pascal program that created the LilyPond input file for a > serial composition > - I never really did but dreamt of a possibility to create a LilyPond file > from a PureData performance ok, these are valid exceptions to what i wrote above. > The situations where you need the Finale files have been thoroughly > discussed by now. > While we all would prefer being able to sell our Lily files, we have to live > with the fact that this is often not possible. > This mail that I had to read gives an unwanted but good argument why editors > have the right to insist on their "workflow": > http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user@gnu.org/msg64139.html. > > Having the possibility to stay somewhat compatible would ease the step to > try out LilyPond for other typesetters and would thus probably increase the > user base. > This is somewhat comparable to the impact of the existence of Dual Boot > setups (and then Virtual Machines and even Into-Windows-Installing) on the > increased amount of Linux users. > > When I started to use LilyPond I didn't expect at all that I would someday > have to deal with real world publishers. If I had known then, I might never > had given LilyPond a try. Yes, it's very discouraging that publishers don't want to accept Lily format. 2011/8/22 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Assume that the composer has created a four part fugue with macros for > the parts and counterparts, snug together with augmentation, > transposition and so on. You can change the theme, and get a different > fugue out. > > But an editor does not want to change the theme. He might want to > octavate a phrase to accommodate common instrument ranges, or add > fingerings to some passages. The fingerings, obviously, don't transpose > well. The score is composer-friendly, not editor-friendly. > > Hm. That's a valid and very important concern. I think that the best solution to such problems would be an advanced user interface, capable of converting lily source in many ways - for example extracting dynamics from a voice and integrating them back with a one click, changing style formatting etc. It would be extremely useful if such an interface could show the score in a "horizontal view", i.e. turn automatically this: voiceI = { c'4 d' e' f' g'8 d' g'4 f'2 } voiceII = { g2 c b2 f8 e d c } << \new Voice \voiceI \new Voice \voiceII >> into: << \new Voice { c'4 d' e' f' | g'8 d' g'4 f'2 | } \new Voice { g2 c | b2 f8 e d c | } >> (view this with monospace font) and back again! Imagine the possibilities! 2011/8/22 Henning Hraban Ramm <hra...@fiee.net>: > Of course a proud composer would mention this contest. But including the > sponsor’s logos? Forever?? > If you don’t become famous, it’s no problem. > But imagine you’d have to credit each of Mozart’s, Bach’s etc. principals > including their coat of arms in every kind of publication? (Ignoring that > they're in the public domain now.) :D 2011/8/22 Urs Liska <lilyp...@ursliska.de>: > And I still think a versed editor will also be very well able to deal with > lilypond files. The problem is that publishers don't have enough specialists > at hand, don't know whether they can rely on getting the right people for > the revised edition in ten years, a.s.o. > While this also holds true for the commercial products it surely is more > frightening being confronted with an open source project with an input > language that seemingly only nerds care to learn, a.s.o. > I have by now understood that it is very much useless to try to convince or > even force any major players in using LilyPond. And probably one can't even > blame them because - as you pointed out - from their current perspective it > would be economically risky to rely on such a thing. > > No, I'm a pianist. So far I used Lilypond to create performance material if > I need it (for example transpositions of songs, creating an ensemble score > from handwritten parts etc.) But now things have changed and there sometimes > arises the possibility to publish these scores. Or not, because I can't > provide Finale files. It seems like a chicken-and-egg problem... But we simply cannot afford not overcoming it. I wouldn't stand it if i knew for sure that LilyPond would never be accepted in the professional market. I think it would break my heart, but i would quit the project in such case, and perhaps music typesetting in general (i'm not suicidal enough to use fin/sib). I hope that it's a matter of time and hard work till we become widely known. cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user