Re: Is Sibelius really as bad as this?

[Urs Liska]

Am 29.05.2015 um 17:05 schrieb Ali Cuota:
> I would think (trying to think business) that tweaking a score in Sib
> is faster than in lily.

What Kieren says here is true. But ...

> So they receive any bad Sib and tweak it by
> hand. (this appies to Fin and Sco too, in a less ergonomic manner).
> It maybe easier to find experienced tweakers for these programs that
> are older than lily. And they have these workers.
> Now, change for lily tweakers would mean a change in personal and
> contratists.

... I think this is even more important.

> And for this change, the managers should express absolute
> aesthetic requirement, but they first care for maximal rentability
> (they have to).

Well, it's not a merely aesthetic requirement. There are functional 
advantages too in using LilyPond, and I can see from my conversations 
with staff from major publishers that they actually do realize this.
But of course it's an issue to do *any* change if nobody can *guarantee* 
you it's going to pay of also economically within a very foreseeable 
time-span.
And of course what they may feel is missing is a reliability in support. 
LilyPond isn't really an entity one can relate to. They may ask 
themselves: "who" is this LilyPond? Who will help us out when that one 
guy we're right now dealing with isn't available anymore or at the end 
of his wisdom?

These are issues that make it difficult to convince someone to switch.

Urs

> (this will get worse with the free comerce agreement
> between US and UE and consequent dispariton of subsidies for culture).
> Lilypond and nice engraving is not vital to sell.
> The solution is biologic...
> Francois
>
>
> 2015-05-29 9:23 GMT-05:00, Richard Shann <address@hidden>:
> > On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 10:29 +0200, Urs Liska wrote:
> > > Am 29.05.2015 um 10:13 schrieb Richard Shann:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 21:16 +0200, Jacques Menu wrote:
> > > > > Hello Richard,
> > > > >
> > > > > Find attached what I get after raw import of the XML file into
> > > > > Sibelius 7.1.3 and then export as PDF.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems there’s no difference with what you got from IMSLP.
> > > > >
> > > > > JM
> > > > Well, again I couldn't view this in Evince but I could open it with
> > > > Iceweasel, and it shows something interesting: in bar 13 the original
> > > > has a cautionary accidental in parentheses.
> > > >
> > > > Denemo's MusicXML import ignores this field (yes! I've submitted a bug
> > > > report for this) so I have inserted it manually, getting the attached
> > > > typeset LilyPondBar13.png.
> > > >
> > > > The hand-written Sibelius output was particularly bad for this (see
> > > > SibeliusHandGenerated.ly), while Sibelius's MusicXML import, like
> > > > Denemo's, ignored the cautionary attribute when re-importing its own
> > > > MusicXML (see SibeliusImportedFromMusicXML.png attached - this has been
> > > > snipped from your file).
> > > >
> > > > Reading this mailing list gave me the impression that Sibelius was a
> > > > required format for some publishing houses.
> > > This is correct. From my own experience and comments by others most
> > > (major) publishers require you to submit one of the following:;
> > > - Finale files
> > > - Sibelius files
> > > - SCORE files
> > > - ((((PDF))))
> > >
> > > > How can this be?
> > > Good question.
> > > Has to be put also the other way round: How can it be that practically
> > > noone accepts LilyPond yet? It can't be the text approach alone,
> > > otherwise they wouldn't use SCORE (and sometimes even Amadeus which is
> > > very similar to LilyPond in a way).
> > I think the answer may be that they re-typeset everything in-house, so
> > even a manuscript is acceptable. Have you ever had a chance to ask them?
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lilypond-user mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user