Re: Lilypond lobbying?

[Robert Schmaus]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 02:44 +0200, "Urs Liska" <address@hidden>
wrote:
 
> The publisher will want (and probably has) to have the possibility to 
> edit your score - be it for more fine tuning or for corrections in a 
> second edition. And for this they will only accept the programs they are 
> accustomed to, that have been tested to work the way they are used to.

Yes, that how I understood Schott's reply too. Which means we would need
to convince them to use lilypond in their house too. And that will
probably require that it is actually possible to produce a style file
that allows something like this:

\schott-style {
  \header{ ... }
  { e e f g } \break
  { g f e b }
}

i.e. an environment where all tweaking can be done by very simple
statements like \break and such. Otherwise they would need to employ a
Professional LilyTweaker (career opportunities guys!).

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:42 +0200, "Janek Warchoł"
<address@hidden> wrote:
> I'd be interested in preparing those and persuading publishers to
> accept LilyPond, but i'm afraid it will be premature thing to do
> before GLISS and some more changes concerning slurs, dynamics, ties
> and beams. :(
> (in other words: i think that Lily output, while quite nice
> out-of-the-box, still has noticeable shortcomings: bringing it to
> publication quality usually requires *lots* of small tweaks, not quite
> feasible to do.  I can discuss this on examples if you'd like.)

Exactly! But maybe it's still possible to get them interested at least.
I guess they would need a perspective of a relatively stable version
ahead which requires only simple tweaking for the final polish.
I'm sure the mills of Schott grind slowly, too, and if there's a
long-term chance that they expand their software portfolio to LilyPond
... one needs to make them see the upsides for them, for composers, for
the creative process ...