[LAU] GPL Scoring/Engraving Programs

[Dave Phillips]

tim hall wrote:

> David Baron wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>
>
> I find this all slightly depressing. I thought Rosegarden / Lilypond 
> ought to be the tools for the job, but the message I keep hearing is 
> that they don't come up to the standards required for professionally 
> printed music. I wish somebody could properly explain why.

I don't think anyone can. I've given LilyPond-created scores to my 
students for quite a while, they think it's professional-quality stuff.

Also, I've heard lectures by Hans & Jan, I know the background research 
they've done, and professionalism has been a watchword for LilyPond all 
along. They've carefully compared various engraved output with 
computer-generated results, and they've aimed for very high-quality 
production standards. If someone wants to publish a point-by-point 
comparison (I'm only talking about printed output now) then I'd love to 
read it.

The only valid complaint I've heard against LilyPond is that it's 
difficult to learn and use. I usually respond by pointing that 1) the 
complainers are often attemptng to use it in lieu of a WYSIWYG notation 
editor. It is *not*, I repeat *NOT* a notation editor (I'm sure you know 
this, Tim, I'm overemphatic for effect here). And 2) it's a language, 
and like any other language you'll learn more about how to use it by 
actually using it. This method is not favorable to newbies, especially 
if they're coming from the Finale/Sibelius world and have zero 
experience with a programming language (and IMO a mark-up language is 
still a programming language by another name).

> Please say it isn't so. ;)

Okay: It isn't so. :)

Btw, one of my long-term plans is to write a guitar method. I've already 
used the OOoLilyPond macro to create embedded music fragments, the 
results are impressive. I have enough experience now with LilyPond that 
I don't think I can be comfortable with anything else.

Best,

dp