Re: Photoscore

[Urs Liska]

Am 28. November 2016 01:58:07 MEZ, schrieb Chris Yate <address@hidden>:
>On 27 Nov 2016 23:49, "Urs Liska" <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 28.11.2016 um 00:41 schrieb Chris Yate:
>>>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> I don't know... It seems ridiculous that they have no common format
>-
>but it's a relatively tiny industry...  But I doubt the big houses like
>Peters and Barenreiter use either Sibelius or Finale...
>>
>>
>> The big houses more or less *exclusively* use Sibelius and Finale in
>parallel, with a very low share still using SCORE and an actually tiny
>share using Amadeus.
>
>Interesting. I've been told they use something else - a bespoke system,
>but
>maybe that's old information. 

SCORE  is maybe bespoke enough ...

> Why use the two in parallel though?

Well, that's market, I suppose. Some prefer InDesign and others prefer Quark.

>
>.. And do you know, for actual production of books, do they use Adobe
>publishing tools, or something along those lines?

No idea, I've never talked about *this* part of the toolchain. But I'd think so.

>
>> Breitkopf just last year decided to quit any diversity and to move
>everything to Sibelius.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In the larger world of office IT, Microsoft have dealt with the
>issue of
>everyone expecting to be able to share and consume MS Word documents by
>supporting ODF, though it's still a problem that some people expect to
>receive only .doc files.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'm sure there would be Sibelius and Finale output
>converters
>for Lilypond, but that these file formats are proprietary.
>>
>>
>> This is only true in a hypothetical sense. Due to lack of resources
>we
>only have an extremely rudimentary MusicXML export so far (the fact
>that
>this is due to the single (!) developer working on it having taken a
>full-time job speaks volumes, I think). There has been a few attempts
>in
>recent years to improve the situation, but in the end it boils down to
>the
>fact that this will only happen with some substantial external funding.
>
>So, is musicXML really a reliable interop format between the other
>systems?

I don't think so - at least not goven wjaz you can see now. I have just seen 
how a simple Sibelius file looked when exported to MusicXML and immediately 
imported back into Sibelius - frightening.

>
>>> It makes me sad that they don't see a market in inter-operability.
>If
>you're certain of the benefits of your software over another, then it's
>a
>real sign of confidence to be able to export and import to and from all
>of
>the alternatives.
>>
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken completely for the better part of its lifetime
>LilyPond was considered the last exit of a one-way street, i.e. it was
>considered useful to convert documents *to* LilyPond, but who would
>ever
>need anything *after* it ...
>> Fortunately this attitude isn't that strong anymore, but still the
>resources to change the situation are missing.
>
>If output to MusicXML is the solution, then it's clearly solvable. But
>this
>relies on the big boys implementing good import routines - and when
>submitting things to a publisher, I'm not sure how much reformatting
>they
>do but I would expect none. Which is the point of my prior post... It's
>dangerous to export to a format of which you can't independently test
>the
>validity.

Indeed.

Best
Urs 


>
>Chris

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.