Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes: > Hi Joseph, > >> The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that >> Sibelius too has its problems when I recently received a score from >> a friend which would surely have looked much better done in >> Lilypond. >> >> The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter. > > I disagree somewhat… and so do most of my Finale- and Sibelius-using > friends and colleagues, who complain endlessly about how much time it > takes to tweak scores and parts. > > What *is* true is that beauty in engraving is less of an issue to most > people than just getting it done. > >> what matters to the end user is very often the facility to get the >> score _just as they want it_, not the ability of the program to >> automatically second-guess their desires. > > Actually, what matters to most end user is to have something “good > enough”… and, I’m sad to say, Finale and Sibelius do that (for them) > with almost no tweaking at all.
If people are not interested in the output, the selling point are the input methods. I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648> Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for unpitched notes or the followup <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3682> Issue 3682: Patch: Implement \beamExceptions function fishing exceptions from beamed music. which feel to me like non-trivial steps in usability. But most of the time I'm left alone with figuring out what might work best for people. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
