20 Aug
2007
20 Aug
'07
9:18 a.m.
tim hall wrote:
David Baron wrote:
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).
[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. 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