Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Carl Peterson <address@hidden> writes:

> On Dec 1, 2013 1:47 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Noeck <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> > I personally don't understand why LP is not common at music
>> > universities but that's probably a chicken-or-the-egg thing and the
>> > lack of large scale marketing. But this would also need official
>> > contacts in the LP team who are responsible and can represent LP
>> > towards these institutions.
>
>> Convert three musicians you know to using LilyPond.  If you go
>> "I couldn't get _him_ or _her_ to use it", then how to pitch LilyPond to
>> someone you don't even have contact with?  Think about _why_ you could
>> not get a friend of yours to use it.  What would need to happen so that
>> you could?  Have you tried?  What did you learn when doing so?
>>
>
> Here are the problems I run into: (1) most musicians/composers/institutions
> are already using something.

So we need to catch them before they do.  Janek got a number of his
choir colleagues to enter "Stabat Mater" (don't remember whose,
Pergolesi?) into LilyPond.  If they had no previous need to music
typesetting, the first idea they'll have _when_ they do is to take a
look at LilyPond.  After all, they know its basic note entry already.

The crucial question here is whether LilyPond will survive that first
look even given their previous exposure.  But that's already better than
starting from scratch.

Then we need to get and think about feedback like "I could not for the
life of me figure out how to do x" and its followup feedback "I now know
how to do x, but that's far too complicated a trick to pull whenever
I need x".

> This means that the first hurdle is overcoming the inertia of "I
> already have x, why should I switch? Which leads to (2) even if I can
> demonstrate that LP overcomes the technical difficulties of another
> notation program, people are going to be reluctant to switch because
> of the perceived difficulty of learning LP syntax or working without
> the UI bells and whistles of Finale, etc.

Which is a reason to teach them working with Frescobaldi, "not"
LilyPond.  Teaching LilyPond is like teaching blueprints to carpenters.
In the end, they know exactly what the blueprint means and where each
cut has to be placed, but they never got to touch a saw.

When that fails, try getting them hooked on Denemo first as an
entry-level drug potentially leaving to raw LilyPond use at a later
stage.

> They will also say, "Well, it's not *that* bad of a problem."
>
> I frequently advocate the simplicity of setting SATB hymns in LP to
> the hymn writers and composers of my personal acquaintance (using the
> template I've mentioned on other threads). My standard response
> whenever they talk about a workaround for a provlem in Finale is, "Or
> you could just use Lilypond." They acknowledge that LP would probably
> make their work much easier, but too many are too invested in Finale
> at this point to make the switch.

Well, what's the investment they'll lose?  It's either an imaginary or a
real loss, and if it's the latter, how can we address this?


> LP came out in the midst of other packages that already existed. As a
> result, it is fighting for marketshare in a relatively mature
> market.

Finale output is ugly to the degree where it is distracting readability,
particularly for instrumentalists.  Sibelius' corporate parent has fired
its core developer team in the UK, including its original authors.
Steinberg does not yet have a finished product on market.  Most other
players are fringe players.

The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.

-- 
David Kastrup