Re: musescore lands sponsoring?

[Federico Bruni]

2012/5/29 Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden>:
>
> Just to make sure you have seen
>
>    
> http://www.opengoldbergvariations.org/b-sendorfer-sponsors-open-goldberg-project-providing-concert-grand-ceus-recording-technology-0
>
> Wouldn't LilyPond have been a technically superior choice for this
> sponsoring project?  What are we missing?
>

What do you mean with "technically superior"? It's about the output?
I think it's LilyPond output. Can you confirm?
http://www.opengoldbergvariations.org/node/191

Maybe you mean that writing a .ly file would have allowed better tweaking?
(I have no idea of the MuseScore workflow)

Or it's about the input?
If it's technically superior because it's text-based, I would agree
with you for a number of reasons.
In this particular case, there's another benefit: no need to write
from scratch because Golden Variations are in Mutopia
http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/make-table.cgi?collection=bachgb&preview=1

Anyway, I think that the main reason why MuseScore is much more
popular than LilyPond is simply because it's a GUI program.
Considering your efforts in Schikkers List, I can imagine that you may
agree with me.

Last year I was thinking about trying to introduce LilyPond in some
music schools in my area.
But then I realized that anyone who is not a kind of geek will be
scared away by the text input (no matter how powerful it is).
The other big obstacle is: schools in general (in any area) organize
classes and workshops on software programs used by the industry.
LilyPond should be first introduced in the publishing industry...
but... how many geeks work in the music publishing companies?