On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Garrett McGilvray wrote:
The reason that I came back for a second try was not that it was free, since I had already paid for "the real thing." I don't remember what made me think of it, but I remembered the essay on LilyPond's goal of superior engraving, and I decided to give it a second try. I fared better the second time. I have redone some of my past work in LilyPond, and I like the new results better. I doubt now I'll go back to Finale.
I would be interested to see a comparison of some *good* scores engraved using Finale (and/or Sibelius) and the same scores using LilyPond. Maybe you can post some examples?
It's easy to show a really bad Finale result and compare it with how much better LilyPond can do this.
But it is more fair to compare a good Finale/Sibelius score, prepared by a skilled and experienced Finale/Sibelius user, and then try to use LilyPond to do things better.
In many cases it will be a matter of taste which of the results people will like best.
Many of my collegues - actually probably all of them - use Finale or Sibelius. I have never heard anyone of them complain "My scores look bad! Please suggest a better alternative for me!"
A comparison: When the audio CD was introduced it became a huge success because everyone could hear the difference in sound quality and the improvement in user-friendlyness. When after that the Super-Audio CD was introduced it was only embraced by a very small number of people who wanted the very best sound quality. For most people "CD-quality" was and still is synonym to "perfect audio". And even MP3 is good enough for them. Why would you need Super-Audio?
-- MT _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
