lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lilypond lobbying?


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:46:00 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

"Robert Schmaus" <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi Lilyponderers,
>
> I agree with Joseph - let's not blow this out of proportion and start
> creating conspiracies. of course I also agree with everyone else that
> this ist simply annoying and stupid, not to mention unprofessional, on
> part of the contest organisers. 
>
> who, by the way, replied to my request why specifically they ask for
> sibelius or finale. here's what they wote:
>
>> The winner composition will be played in concert 
>> and edited. I hope you understand the implications of it.
>
> (yes, that's the full answer to my question. it's a bit odd - my
> question was "how do you determine the score was actually typeset by
> either of these programs?". I'm not sure *they* understand the
> implication of it ... in particular the part where the composition will
> be played in concert - what's that got to do with anything?)

You don't want to play from copies of handwritten autographs.  Not
everybody has as clean a hand as Bach.

It is well-know that there are no machine-readable music formats other
than Finale (I am surprised they admit Sibelius, but probably it can
export finale), just like there are no machine-readable document formats
other than Word.

That's what the _workflows_ of the industry have focused on.  Of course,
they actually use less crappy tools that are really good at importing
that kind of stuff.

I once had a draft project to do where the printer's specification of
fonts contained "Arial".  Which would not have been all that easy or
convenient to support with LaTeX, so part of my agenda was convincing
the editors to be content using "Helvetica", assuring them that this
would be a technically superior option (all due to the
Type1/Truetype/whatever mess).

The joke was that the actual proofs from the printer _used_ Helvetiva
already (there are a few letter shapes notably different from the
Microsoft clone Arial).  But the specification was for "Arial".

The printers want the crap that they start with in their usual workflow,
never mind that it does not actually survive the process.  But the
process is implemented and working reasonably well.

-- 
David Kastrup




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]