Re: Discussion: automatic engraving and single-source publishing

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,

>> we should also work on good interfaces for
>> tweaking the engraving *and* on interfaces to separate content and
>> design. In my former answer to Urs' post, I talked about the engraver I
>> use. Here's the idea behind it again:
>> - I have my music stored, to recall it when I actually engrave it.
>> - I want to be able to say: Modify item x in measure n on moment m with
>> modification (override) d

Yes. This.

> In what way do you consider it experimental?

Put a different way, why can’t I use it right now? I’ve got many, many [very 
large] projects where this would be so helpful to me.

> If you are creating performance material which even has to be flexibly 
> re-formatted you can't and don't need to have the same demands as when you 
> publish a printed score.

To some degree… but it would be wonderful to improve the **expectations** of 
flexibly-reformattable performance materials to approximate the **demands** of 
a printed score.

> And exactly for this an approach like your edition engraver could be very 
> useful.
> a) don't stop improving LilyPond to reduce the amount of necessary tweaks
> b) write clean input files
> c) hope they are sufficient for 'flexible' and 'perform only' use cases
> d) store tweaks for a paper publication in a separate file.

+1^100000000
I know… that’s still 1.  ;)

Kieren.