Re: short Musikmesse minutes
On 20/03/2014 10:30, Urs Liska wrote: I think that LilyPond's main strength is transformative use: different page formats, different media, different transpositions, individual variations. Yes, and I have/had the impression that it _is_ possible now to promote this feature. Of course I don't expect the final outcome to match my current enthusiasm, but I'll surely keep you informed about my progress. Given my experience of buying some pieces, this is actually an extremely useful use. Okay, my experience is old, but I bought some pieces by P.D.Q.Bach. For a small score (ten pages?) the number of transcription errors between the score and parts was amazing. Iirc the score was correct, but the parts had errors galore. Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Am 20.03.2014 01:56, schrieb SoundsFromSound: Are there any style sheets floating around that people can take a look at? The sheet Urs co. used looked great to my eyes, on that collection. Which ones are you referring to? Maybe that could help users and also inspire them to create their own sorts of house styles. Just a thought... I think that's exactly what Kieren has in mind. And he has already written a number of styles and put considerable thought in an appropriate stylesheet-loading function. In the end it's a matter of time (or rather lack thereof) to put it into a usable shape. The idea is to have a repository with includable stylesheets including style (e.g. publisher), page size, score type etc. and make this repo contributable. Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
SoundsFromSound soundsfromso...@gmail.com writes: Urs Liska wrote Am 20.03.2014 00:18, schrieb Kieren MacMillan: 1. Flawless MusicXML import and export. #1 is the next largest hurdle. Yes, and a crucial one. But I think current development is very promising. For the first time someone is actually working on it. Although it is only a first step this is really a solid foundation. (Although only visible when using Frescobaldi from its Git repository. I use musescore for MusicXML - LilyPond conversion. It does a much better job than any other tool I know (including musicxml2ly). Musescore is open source software, why not [try to] use their importer? -- Johan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Hi Johan and all, this reminds me of an idea I had quite some time ago: A program like MuseScore might import lilypond either by a stream, created by lilypond, or via module calls made by a scheme-module which makes use of the musescores API. Now this is just an idea for the archives (who knows, what it will be good for once ;) ), which is hopefully obsolete with the musicXML efforts of Peter Bjuhr (and anybody else involved). Cheers, Jan-Peter Am 20.03.2014 08:35, schrieb Johan Vromans: SoundsFromSound soundsfromso...@gmail.com writes: Urs Liska wrote Am 20.03.2014 00:18, schrieb Kieren MacMillan: 1. Flawless MusicXML import and export. #1 is the next largest hurdle. Yes, and a crucial one. But I think current development is very promising. For the first time someone is actually working on it. Although it is only a first step this is really a solid foundation. (Although only visible when using Frescobaldi from its Git repository. I use musescore for MusicXML - LilyPond conversion. It does a much better job than any other tool I know (including musicxml2ly). Musescore is open source software, why not [try to] use their importer? -- Johan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Am 20.03.2014 08:35, schrieb Johan Vromans: SoundsFromSound soundsfromso...@gmail.com writes: Urs Liska wrote Am 20.03.2014 00:18, schrieb Kieren MacMillan: 1. Flawless MusicXML import and export. #1 is the next largest hurdle. Yes, and a crucial one. But I think current development is very promising. For the first time someone is actually working on it. Although it is only a first step this is really a solid foundation. (Although only visible when using Frescobaldi from its Git repository. I use musescore for MusicXML - LilyPond conversion. It does a much better job than any other tool I know (including musicxml2ly). Musescore is open source software, why not [try to] use their importer? Maybe it's time to create a task force. On the LilyPond side there are currently two options: - built-in musicxml2ly - the improved version of philomelos.net which hasn't been backported yet And perhaps there is some big potential in the work Peter Bjuhr is currently doing for ly2musicxml inside Frescobaldi. Frescobaldi's new ly.music module may be a great help with its LilyPond score DOM approach that is (AFAIK) already capable of writing a .ly file from its internal representation. Urs -- Johan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Am 20.03.2014 00:18, schrieb Kieren MacMillan: In my opinion, here — in order of importance — are the things we need to make established houses sit up and take notice: 1. Flawless MusicXML import and export. 2. Better “pixel-level” control of objects. 3. A finely-tuned stylesheet system. 4. Excellent, “turnkey edition control features. 5. Several examples of fairly complex engravings, presented with “best practice” coding. #4 is nearly in place, thanks to Jan-Peter. I am working on it ;) I hope to present better demos and docs soon! ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
On 20.03.2014, at 08:35, Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl wrote: I use musescore for MusicXML - LilyPond conversion. It does a much better job than any other tool I know (including musicxml2ly). Hm, my experience has been quite different! 7 months ago I tested MuseScore v1.3 with 10 MusicXML-files of openmusicscore and all xmlsamples of musicxml.com. 5/10 openmusicscore files and 15/18 musicxml.com files failed during conversion with musescore and / or compilation with LilyPond. (Not to mention lots of mistakes in the resulting scores.) Musescore is open source software, why not [try to] use their importer? MuseScore will drop their support for LilyPond in version 2.0 (see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2014-02/msg00087.html). hth patrick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
2014-03-20 10:01 GMT+01:00 pls p.l.schm...@gmx.de: On 20.03.2014, at 08:35, Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl wrote: Musescore is open source software, why not [try to] use their importer? MuseScore will drop their support for LilyPond in version 2.0 (see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2014-02/msg00087.html). This is true but he is talking about using their MusicXML importer I think. Without knowing all the internal details, I can say this sounds easy but it is Not. Because, it imports, and converts to what exactly? Certainly not to a LilyPond-usable representation of the music. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Francois Planiol alicuota...@gmail.com writes: Lily is free and that is a bg problem, for salesmen. Remember the incandescent lamp? It was not expensive enough and forcedly replaced by a dangerous CFL with a higher margin for everybody except the end-customer. So forget it, when it is free. Just even worse for commerce. (sure there is not some trust-negociations between engraving programs companies and music publishing job?) Free is not a problem but it also is not much of a selling point for in-house software as pretty much all acquisition costs are dwarfed by running expenses, particularly personnel. How expensive is personnel that can be trained to work with LilyPond, and how fast are they going to crank out stuff? And most importantly: when there are problems, is there a reliable place you can throw money at to make them go away? There are quite few businesses built around TeX/LaTeX which has, in some manner, a more dependable foundation than LilyPond. We have Mutopia, remotedly cpdl and imslp, I miss a more flexible snippets2music.ly website, the use of tablets under musicians in drastically increasing (I still prefer high-quality paper) so the configurability of scores will have to stand to new standards anyway, so what the deal? let the deads bury the deads and use lily.pdf on tablets, print at home and find a binding system that you like (and sell tablets!) Expensive sheet music is dead, be happy in free and GNU-world. GNU was never a counterthesis to expensive. The main question we have to ask ourselves is even if we manage to promote LilyPond as a technology, how do we get actual users to profit from that? Wikipedia offers LilyPond input by now as a score tag IIRC. That's actually a use where the input syntax is available to the user. I think that LilyPond's main strength is transformative use: different page formats, different media, different transpositions, individual variations. Pixel-wise control is a nuisance for those kinds of uses. Any tweaks should be reasonably robust (meaning that they do close to the right thing under transformations) and you probably need a versioned/interpolating handling of them so that manipulations for version x and version y are reasonably applicable to something in between. That starts smelling like semi-manual hinting of scores. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Am 20.03.2014 10:25, schrieb David Kastrup:
Francois Planiol alicuota...@gmail.com writes:
Lily is free and that is a bg problem, for salesmen.
Remember the incandescent lamp? It was not expensive enough and
forcedly replaced by a dangerous CFL with a higher margin for
everybody except the end-customer. So forget it, when it is free. Just
even worse for commerce. (sure there is not some trust-negociations
between engraving programs companies and music publishing job?)
Free is not a problem but it also is not much of a selling point for
in-house software as pretty much all acquisition costs are dwarfed by
running expenses, particularly personnel. How expensive is personnel
that can be trained to work with LilyPond, and how fast are they going
to crank out stuff? And most importantly: when there are problems, is
there a reliable place you can throw money at to make them go away?
I think the concept of versioned collaboration offers an interesting
path here: Start out with a project commissioned to LilyPond experts.
The lectors will learn very fast how to apply fixes to the musical text.
And they (and the existing engravers) can immediately get experiences on
real-life projects. That doesn't replace some fundamental training, but
is definitely more attractive than telling them to start their learning
curve from { a b c }.
...
I think that LilyPond's main strength is transformative use: different
page formats, different media, different transpositions, individual
variations.
Yes, and I have/had the impression that it _is_ possible now to promote
this feature. Of course I don't expect the final outcome to match my
current enthusiasm, but I'll surely keep you informed about my progress.
Urs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Price could be an argument to introduce in GNU and free world. This
was mis case.
After deceptions with a disapeared GUI (HB-Engraver) and even worse
with the hotline of Finale, I switched to MusixTeX, but this was also
annoying... At this point, I knew only that paper is the better way.
If lilypond had been expensive, I would not have given an eye. And I
was happy not only get (free) lilypond, but also see that some values
I like are also the values of some people in internet.
About professional engraving, engravers are frequently independents,
and the publishers make the prices, so why bother? This is just bad
will from these guys, because in the time of Score, the workflow was
commonly accepted.
And again, music-on-paper-from-publisher will become expensiver, more
and more, anyway.
Francois
2014-03-20 5:30 GMT-05:00, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org:
Am 20.03.2014 10:25, schrieb David Kastrup:
Francois Planiol alicuota...@gmail.com writes:
Lily is free and that is a bg problem, for salesmen.
Remember the incandescent lamp? It was not expensive enough and
forcedly replaced by a dangerous CFL with a higher margin for
everybody except the end-customer. So forget it, when it is free. Just
even worse for commerce. (sure there is not some trust-negociations
between engraving programs companies and music publishing job?)
Free is not a problem but it also is not much of a selling point for
in-house software as pretty much all acquisition costs are dwarfed by
running expenses, particularly personnel. How expensive is personnel
that can be trained to work with LilyPond, and how fast are they going
to crank out stuff? And most importantly: when there are problems, is
there a reliable place you can throw money at to make them go away?
I think the concept of versioned collaboration offers an interesting
path here: Start out with a project commissioned to LilyPond experts.
The lectors will learn very fast how to apply fixes to the musical text.
And they (and the existing engravers) can immediately get experiences on
real-life projects. That doesn't replace some fundamental training, but
is definitely more attractive than telling them to start their learning
curve from { a b c }.
...
I think that LilyPond's main strength is transformative use: different
page formats, different media, different transpositions, individual
variations.
Yes, and I have/had the impression that it _is_ possible now to promote
this feature. Of course I don't expect the final outcome to match my
current enthusiasm, but I'll surely keep you informed about my progress.
Urs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: This is true but he is talking about using their MusicXML importer I think. Without knowing all the internal details, I can say this sounds easy but it is Not. Because, it imports, and converts to what exactly? Certainly not to a LilyPond-usable representation of the music. All I wanted to say is that there exists a piece of open source software that does a decent job of converting MusicXML into LilyPond. It may be worth considering to clone this tool, strip everything but the MusicXML importer and LilyPond exporter and proceed from there. Of course it is not trivial, but continuously enhancing the current MusicXML.py isn't trivial either. Alternatively, we could give the MuseScore LilyPond exporter some live it needs to keep it alive. -- Johan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Another interesting option might be the new library from Frescobaldi. Peter is using it for the export side of things, and it might be useful for import too. IIUC Frescobaldi can write a .ly file from its internal DOM representation. I think there is much in common between translating that DOM _to_ XML and to do the contrary. _Im_porting has the additional benefit of providing a 1to1 representation that can be directly converted to a LilyPond file which isn't so easy the other way round. Urs Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl schrieb am 20.03.2014: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: This is true but he is talking about using their MusicXML importer I think. Without knowing all the internal details, I can say this sounds easy but it is Not. Because, it imports, and converts to what exactly? Certainly not to a LilyPond-usable representation of the music. All I wanted to say is that there exists a piece of open source software that does a decent job of converting MusicXML into LilyPond. It may be worth considering to clone this tool, strip everything but the MusicXML importer and LilyPond exporter and proceed from there. Of course it is not trivial, but continuously enhancing the current MusicXML.py isn't trivial either. Alternatively, we could give the MuseScore LilyPond exporter some live it needs to keep it alive. -- Johan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user -- Diese Nachricht wurde mit a href=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.onegravity.k10.pro2;bK-@ Mail/b/a gesendet.___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
short Musikmesse minutes
Hello, This year a short visit to the Musikmesse only. Learning about the BEST EDITION 2014 award only after the event (and would have had to miss that one anyway). Congratulations nevertheless to Urs and Janek and all else involved. Missing out on the MusicXML meeting as well, but I noted it was taking place. As I am in the process of digging out some choir music, published about two centuries ago and hence not readily available at your music seller, I had been encouraged to approach some music sheet companies whether they might be interested. Here we go (translation): - Have you typeset in Finale or Sibelius? - No, in Lilypond actually - Oh, we can't use it, it is too computer-heavy [computerlastig], we need to be able to push the note heads around. Well, they might have a point when thinking ink on paper. But (BUT) tablets on music stands were ubiquitous at Musikmesse, possibly with food pedals for page turning, and that is calling big time for systems that allow variable display sizes and hence music reflow. At Klemm music, new music scan software SmartScore. No time to test it, but for choir music full version required. Seems to be a full typesetting program as well. Data exchange with Finale easily done, using MusicXML which the guy says is the well established standard interchange format. Did not spot a stand for Sibelius. I looked but did not hunt for it. On the sheet music side the usual suspects, the big houses, some stands representing music from eastern European countries, but smaller houses that were present one or two years ago no longer present. Regards Klaus ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Time for a Lilypond Publishing House... Francois 2014-03-19 7:27 GMT-05:00, Klaus Föhl klaus.fo...@uni-giessen.de: Hello, This year a short visit to the Musikmesse only. Learning about the BEST EDITION 2014 award only after the event (and would have had to miss that one anyway). Congratulations nevertheless to Urs and Janek and all else involved. Missing out on the MusicXML meeting as well, but I noted it was taking place. As I am in the process of digging out some choir music, published about two centuries ago and hence not readily available at your music seller, I had been encouraged to approach some music sheet companies whether they might be interested. Here we go (translation): - Have you typeset in Finale or Sibelius? - No, in Lilypond actually - Oh, we can't use it, it is too computer-heavy [computerlastig], we need to be able to push the note heads around. Well, they might have a point when thinking ink on paper. But (BUT) tablets on music stands were ubiquitous at Musikmesse, possibly with food pedals for page turning, and that is calling big time for systems that allow variable display sizes and hence music reflow. At Klemm music, new music scan software SmartScore. No time to test it, but for choir music full version required. Seems to be a full typesetting program as well. Data exchange with Finale easily done, using MusicXML which the guy says is the well established standard interchange format. Did not spot a stand for Sibelius. I looked but did not hunt for it. On the sheet music side the usual suspects, the big houses, some stands representing music from eastern European countries, but smaller houses that were present one or two years ago no longer present. Regards Klaus ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Am 19.03.2014 14:15, schrieb Francois Planiol: Time for a Lilypond Publishing House... Francois I'd say rather push LilyPond into the existing publishing houses. And I think changes have never been better for that than now. Although this probably wouldn't be cherished by everyone here ... -- Urs Liska www.openlilylib.org ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Am 19.03.2014 13:27, schrieb Klaus Föhl: Hello, This year a short visit to the Musikmesse only. Learning about the BEST EDITION 2014 award only after the event (and would have had to miss that one anyway). Congratulations nevertheless to Urs and Janek and all else involved. Thanks. Missing out on the MusicXML meeting as well, but I noted it was taking place. Some of us have been taking part, and it was quite interesting, although maybe not really breathtaking. As I am in the process of digging out some choir music, published about two centuries ago and hence not readily available at your music seller, I had been encouraged to approach some music sheet companies whether they might be interested. Here we go (translation): - Have you typeset in Finale or Sibelius? - No, in Lilypond actually - Oh, we can't use it, it is too computer-heavy [computerlastig], we need to be able to push the note heads around. Would you mind telling me in private who you talked with? I had quite a number of talks with people from publishers and had quite different reactions, from outright rejection to a deep understanding of the advantages of using plain text tools. Well, they might have a point when thinking ink on paper. But (BUT) tablets on music stands were ubiquitous at Musikmesse, possibly with food pedals for page turning, and that is calling big time for systems that allow variable display sizes and hence music reflow. I have the impression times have never been more promising to get a foot in the door than now. At Klemm music, new music scan software SmartScore. No time to test it, but for choir music full version required. Seems to be a full typesetting program as well. Data exchange with Finale easily done, using MusicXML which the guy says is the well established standard interchange format. The private equity company that has bought Finale last year seems to consider SmartMusic not all that smart ;-) Did not spot a stand for Sibelius. I looked but did not hunt for it. Probably not worth it for them... Urs On the sheet music side the usual suspects, the big houses, some stands representing music from eastern European countries, but smaller houses that were present one or two years ago no longer present. Regards Klaus ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user -- Urs Liska www.openlilylib.org ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
2014-03-19 13:27 GMT+01:00 Klaus Föhl klaus.fo...@uni-giessen.de: Did not spot a stand for Sibelius. I looked but did not hunt for it. Last time I had news of, it was defunct. Sure, they still could be trying to sell it, but IMHO only a fool would buy a copy. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: 2014-03-19 13:27 GMT+01:00 Klaus Föhl klaus.fo...@uni-giessen.de: Did not spot a stand for Sibelius. I looked but did not hunt for it. Last time I had news of, it was defunct. Sure, they still could be trying to sell it, but IMHO only a fool would buy a copy. I thought Avid was putting up a development team (or rather port-and-fight-bitrot team) in Eastern Europe and milk the name for all that it's worth. So while it won't change much in future (and probably will get worse at importing/exporting to other software that does get developed), it should be available for a while to come. The whole point of throwing the development team in UK out was to try to sell it for as long as possible. I don't think that only a fool would buy a copy, but since I would not have bought a copy anyway, that's just speculation. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Hi Urs, Time for a Lilypond Publishing House... I'd say rather push LilyPond into the existing publishing houses. Why not both? And I think changes have never been better for that than now. True. In my opinion, here — in order of importance — are the things we need to make established houses sit up and take notice: 1. Flawless MusicXML import and export. 2. Better “pixel-level” control of objects. 3. A finely-tuned stylesheet system. 4. Excellent, “turnkey edition control features. 5. Several examples of fairly complex engravings, presented with “best practice” coding. #4 is nearly in place, thanks to Jan-Peter. #3 would take, in my estimation, about 10 person-hours to prepare an exemplar set of stylesheets (I’d be happy to do this myself), and 5-10 hours to create an appropriate stylesheet-loading function. #5 could be put together in “no time”. #2 would require some fundamental changes to Lilypond — likely this is the largest hurdle. #1 is the next largest hurdle. Thoughts? Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Am 20.03.2014 00:18, schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi Urs, Time for a Lilypond Publishing House... I'd say rather push LilyPond into the existing publishing houses. Why not both? Nothing against it. But actually there _are_ already a number of LilyPond Publishing Houses - all of them of neglectable market impact. And I think changes have never been better for that than now. True. In my opinion, here — in order of importance — are the things we need to make established houses sit up and take notice: 1. Flawless MusicXML import and export. 2. Better “pixel-level” control of objects. 3. A finely-tuned stylesheet system. 4. Excellent, “turnkey edition control features. 5. Several examples of fairly complex engravings, presented with “best practice” coding. #4 is nearly in place, thanks to Jan-Peter. Indeed. I hope it will be possible to make that generally usable (be it through inclusion in LilyPond itself or a easily usable place in one of the libraries. Having this would be a valuable additional selling point. #3 would take, in my estimation, about 10 person-hours to prepare an exemplar set of stylesheets (I’d be happy to do this myself), and 5-10 hours to create an appropriate stylesheet-loading function. I'm not so sure if this would really matter that much in terms of market penetration. Which isn't to say that I'd find that highly desirable myself. #5 could be put together in “no time”. At the messe I had a compilation of samples (explicitly including non-publication quality default engravings) with me (including your Beethoven BTW), and this proved very useful. #2 would require some fundamental changes to Lilypond — likely this is the largest hurdle. Apart from pixel-level it will be a tremenduous step if we manage to get a certain kind of graphical approach to that, as is currently being worked on in Frescobaldi. Graphically editing things while retaining strict control over the source code will be a killer feature. So I'd add that as a separate item to your list. #1 is the next largest hurdle. Yes, and a crucial one. But I think current development is very promising. For the first time someone is actually working on it. Although it is only a first step this is really a solid foundation. (Although only visible when using Frescobaldi from its Git repository. Thoughts? One thing that isn't in your list - and which already is there - is everything around the power of version controlled workflows. This provides solutions to actual problems people have. At least this was my experience in Frankfurt. Everybody seems to know about the hassles one has with concurrent revisions of files when having to pass documents around. Meticulous project documentation, encapsulation in branches etc. were keywords editors could grasp immediately. Question is how they will react when they see actual LilyPond code. I'm looking forward to that (there are two publishers I'll visit for closer demonstrations, with two more I have hopes to get to that point too). Urs Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Urs Liska wrote Am 20.03.2014 00:18, schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi Urs, Time for a Lilypond Publishing House... I'd say rather push LilyPond into the existing publishing houses. Why not both? Nothing against it. But actually there _are_ already a number of LilyPond Publishing Houses - all of them of neglectable market impact. And I think changes have never been better for that than now. True. In my opinion, here — in order of importance — are the things we need to make established houses sit up and take notice: 1. Flawless MusicXML import and export. 2. Better “pixel-level” control of objects. 3. A finely-tuned stylesheet system. 4. Excellent, “turnkey edition control features. 5. Several examples of fairly complex engravings, presented with “best practice” coding. #4 is nearly in place, thanks to Jan-Peter. Indeed. I hope it will be possible to make that generally usable (be it through inclusion in LilyPond itself or a easily usable place in one of the libraries. Having this would be a valuable additional selling point. #3 would take, in my estimation, about 10 person-hours to prepare an exemplar set of stylesheets (I’d be happy to do this myself), and 5-10 hours to create an appropriate stylesheet-loading function. I'm not so sure if this would really matter that much in terms of market penetration. Which isn't to say that I'd find that highly desirable myself. #5 could be put together in “no time”. At the messe I had a compilation of samples (explicitly including non-publication quality default engravings) with me (including your Beethoven BTW), and this proved very useful. #2 would require some fundamental changes to Lilypond — likely this is the largest hurdle. Apart from pixel-level it will be a tremenduous step if we manage to get a certain kind of graphical approach to that, as is currently being worked on in Frescobaldi. Graphically editing things while retaining strict control over the source code will be a killer feature. So I'd add that as a separate item to your list. #1 is the next largest hurdle. Yes, and a crucial one. But I think current development is very promising. For the first time someone is actually working on it. Although it is only a first step this is really a solid foundation. (Although only visible when using Frescobaldi from its Git repository. Thoughts? One thing that isn't in your list - and which already is there - is everything around the power of version controlled workflows. This provides solutions to actual problems people have. At least this was my experience in Frankfurt. Everybody seems to know about the hassles one has with concurrent revisions of files when having to pass documents around. Meticulous project documentation, encapsulation in branches etc. were keywords editors could grasp immediately. Question is how they will react when they see actual LilyPond code. I'm looking forward to that (there are two publishers I'll visit for closer demonstrations, with two more I have hopes to get to that point too). Urs Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Are there any style sheets floating around that people can take a look at? The sheet Urs co. used looked great to my eyes, on that collection. Maybe that could help users and also inspire them to create their own sorts of house styles. Just a thought... - composer | sound designer LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) -- http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/short-Musikmesse-minutes-tp160594p160628.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: short Musikmesse minutes
Lily is free and that is a bg problem, for salesmen. Remember the incandescent lamp? It was not expensive enough and forcedly replaced by a dangerous CFL with a higher margin for everybody except the end-customer. So forget it, when it is free. Just even worse for commerce. (sure there is not some trust-negociations between engraving programs companies and music publishing job?) We have Mutopia, remotedly cpdl and imslp, I miss a more flexible snippets2music.ly website, the use of tablets under musicians in drastically increasing (I still prefer high-quality paper) so the configurability of scores will have to stand to new standards anyway, so what the deal? let the deads bury the deads and use lily.pdf on tablets, print at home and find a binding system that you like (and sell tablets!) Expensive sheet music is dead, be happy in free and GNU-world. :-) Francois 2014-03-19 19:56 GMT-05:00, SoundsFromSound soundsfromso...@gmail.com: Urs Liska wrote Am 20.03.2014 00:18, schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi Urs, Time for a Lilypond Publishing House... I'd say rather push LilyPond into the existing publishing houses. Why not both? Nothing against it. But actually there _are_ already a number of LilyPond Publishing Houses - all of them of neglectable market impact. And I think changes have never been better for that than now. True. In my opinion, here -- in order of importance -- are the things we need to make established houses sit up and take notice: 1. Flawless MusicXML import and export. 2. Better pixel-level control of objects. 3. A finely-tuned stylesheet system. 4. Excellent, turnkey edition control features. 5. Several examples of fairly complex engravings, presented with best practice coding. #4 is nearly in place, thanks to Jan-Peter. Indeed. I hope it will be possible to make that generally usable (be it through inclusion in LilyPond itself or a easily usable place in one of the libraries. Having this would be a valuable additional selling point. #3 would take, in my estimation, about 10 person-hours to prepare an exemplar set of stylesheets (I'd be happy to do this myself), and 5-10 hours to create an appropriate stylesheet-loading function. I'm not so sure if this would really matter that much in terms of market penetration. Which isn't to say that I'd find that highly desirable myself. #5 could be put together in no time. At the messe I had a compilation of samples (explicitly including non-publication quality default engravings) with me (including your Beethoven BTW), and this proved very useful. #2 would require some fundamental changes to Lilypond -- likely this is the largest hurdle. Apart from pixel-level it will be a tremenduous step if we manage to get a certain kind of graphical approach to that, as is currently being worked on in Frescobaldi. Graphically editing things while retaining strict control over the source code will be a killer feature. So I'd add that as a separate item to your list. #1 is the next largest hurdle. Yes, and a crucial one. But I think current development is very promising. For the first time someone is actually working on it. Although it is only a first step this is really a solid foundation. (Although only visible when using Frescobaldi from its Git repository. Thoughts? One thing that isn't in your list - and which already is there - is everything around the power of version controlled workflows. This provides solutions to actual problems people have. At least this was my experience in Frankfurt. Everybody seems to know about the hassles one has with concurrent revisions of files when having to pass documents around. Meticulous project documentation, encapsulation in branches etc. were keywords editors could grasp immediately. Question is how they will react when they see actual LilyPond code. I'm looking forward to that (there are two publishers I'll visit for closer demonstrations, with two more I have hopes to get to that point too). Urs Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Are there any style sheets floating around that people can take a look at? The sheet Urs co. used looked great to my eyes, on that collection. Maybe that could help users and also inspire them to create their own sorts of house styles. Just a thought... - composer | sound designer LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) -- http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/short-Musikmesse-minutes-tp160594p160628.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user
