Do we really offer the future?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
173 messages Options
1234 ... 9
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Do we really offer the future?

Urs Liska
Just one more of the fundamental questions I took home from the
Musikmesse ...

The question can be asked somewhat less pretentious then in this
message's subject line, but I think it actually boils down to no less
than that.

You know that I have again been at the Frankfurt Musikmesse this week,
and again I had the opportunity to talk with various people from
publishing houses (names only privately ...), and I was (unpleasantly)
surprised that I didn't always have fully satisfactory answers ready.

The questions came in various variants of "why should a publishing house
use LilyPond?" And despite all the reasoning and writing I have produced
over the last years I didn't always find "the" striking key features
that were convincing in the concrete situation.

I think  I have always taken a perspective that was focused slightly
beside the point, namely the perspective of an individual editor or the
team of editors. This is perfectly transferable to a publishing house
starting from scratch, but not to a big house with traditions,
regulations and limitations.

Compared to last year I have the impression that many people have become
more aware of the basic questions about longevity of binary and textual
data formats and data processing. The question has become much less "why
should we consider dropping Finale and Sibelius, it's working, heh?" and
more "OK, we see that we need an alternative approach, but how do you
convince me that LilyPond has to be it?"

We always say that text based tools are superior because they are much
less prone to become unusable. This, and the potentials that come from
version control, make quite some impression, but again this is only
relevant to new material and doesn't take into account two important issues:

1)
Publishers receive heterogenuous data material from various sources
(editors, composers, engravers), and these are mostly done using Finale
or Sibelius (and in some cases Score). It is completely out of question
to requre all these people to switch to LilyPond.

2)
One major question publishing houses consider today is how to carry
their (digitally) existing material to the future. By now they have
realized that simply using the latest version of the mainstream programs
is calling for disaster, that's good for us. But again, the question is:
Can we really offer "the" solution for this?

The immediate idea would be to go some route via MusicXML and offer
hassle-free workflows to convert existing editions or said received data
material) to LilyPond. But firstly I don't think we can already
guarantee this. And secondly, the question is natural to pop up: If one
already uses MusicXML as the permanent and future-oriented storage
format, where is then the need to consider LilyPond for this?
I think it is reasonable to expect that there will always be mainstream
programs that can work with MusicXML files, and their user base will
probably always be larger than ours.

###
So, now I've somewhat laid out why we are actually facing this question
about "offering the future".
I can't give convincing answers to that, but of course I have a few
ideas, and I would be happy about a constructive discussion. This is not
a pipe dream discussion as I will (have to) pick up the communication
with the publishers soon. And it will probably make a good impression if
I can show that we have taken their concerns seriously, especially if I
can come with some promising suggestions.

The first asset is the fact that plain text tools allow highly
sophisticated workflows and adaptation of the programs' functionality.
The biggest impression I could make was probably our "grid" approach (of
course only backed up by the fact that we have successfully realized it
in a real project), and - to some extent - the prospect of maintaining
the whole edition process within one single context (the \annotation
functionality in the ScholarLY library). But the latter was somewhat
less striking because it seems most publishing houses don't really care
anymore about the editorial process, and they have the impression that
this could actually create more overhead than they have currently.

The second asset I see is that we can (principally, in the real-world it
isn't completely mature yet) completely separate content from
representation, which should be stressed very much when it comes to the
questions of long-term data storage and of repurposing content.

In theory, LilyPond (as LaTeX) is better suited to process textual data
than binary tools, simply because it's their natural appraoch. But I
don't know what I would answer to the question "well, yes, I see, but
what *impact* does this really have?"

There is one road that I could see as the "golden bridge".
I think MusicXML isn't the best solution for long-term management of
editions. It's just too much focused on data exchanged between music
software - and mostly pop music oriented tools. Looking for a
fundamental solution to migrate the whole data base of a publishing
house I would think that MEI is a much better solution because it's
inherently more comprehensive, and because it has been originally
conceived from an editor's perspective rather than music production tools.
Currently there doesn't exist *any* straightforward way to render MEI
encoded data with a professional engraving program, so this could be the
key feature for avoiding the question "so why should we prefer LilyPond
over Sibelius or the new Steinberg app?".
IF we could come up with a promising path to let LilyPond work with MEI
data (that is firstly: use MEI as input to LilyPond and/or convert MEI
data to LilyPond files, and secondly: Be able to convert to both
directions so one can also edit scores as LilyPond and convert them back
to MEI for storage) that _could_ be the satisfactory answer I claimed as
missing above. Publishers have more than once thought about a concerted
effort with regard to data management. Of course that would also imply a
platform for _distributing_ music, so the option/request to provide
*digital* scores is also ubiquituous. Actually this was again suggested
this week in one of my meetings, and I would love to pick that up with a
more or less concrete but at least convincing outline.
At the same time the prospect of publishers (or "the" publishers in a
common effort) would consider MEI this would motivate the MEI community,
and if it would be somehow connected with LilyPond it would raise the
chance that some of them would actually step out and start something
worthwile (I know there is a latent interst in LilyPond within the MEI
community, but there's no sufficient "market" for it so nobody actually
came up with a solution so far.


####
####
To conclude:

- most people in the business have moved away from taken the status quo
   with Finale and Sibelius for granted.
- they know that they *have* to find new answers.
- many (except a few die-hard reactionists) see that LilyPond and
friends *can* offer answers to their questions
- but they also see that these are maybe not the only possible answers and
- that we (currently) can't guarantee straightforward migration paths.

Market is hard, and everything is moving quite slowly, of course.
But IF we should be able to come up with convincing solutions or at
least roadmaps I see that we now have better chances than ever to get
LilyPond a foot in the door with the publishing business in general.

Sorry for that elaborate text, but I think it is important and hopefully
fruitful.

Best
Urs



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Kieren MacMillan
Hi Urs,

First off, thank you so much for your continuing efforts on behalf of Lilypond. They are really important, and no doubt time- and energy-consuming for you, with little promise of immediate benefit to you personally. The ‘Pond appreciates you!

> "why should a publishing house use LilyPond?”

We might start by asking the question “Why should *any* person use Lilypond?”, and then scale up from there.

> many people have become more aware of the basic questions about longevity of binary and textual data formats and data processing

As you go on to say, Lilypond does that well right now, but certainly is not the only (or likely very best) such format.

> 1) Publishers receive heterogenuous data material from various sources (editors, composers, engravers), and these are mostly done using Finale or Sibelius (and in some cases Score). It is completely out of question to requre all these people to switch to LilyPond.

Of course. But a transparent [two-way] translation interface would solve that problem immediately.

> Can we really offer "the" solution for this?

Not right now, that’s for sure.

> I don't think we can already guarantee [the ability to read/write MusicXML files]

We definitely can’t. And until we can, we will have no chance of convincing anyone out there to seriously consider Lilypond.

> If one already uses MusicXML as the permanent and future-oriented storage format, where is then the need to consider LilyPond for this?

To paraphrase a former U.S. President, “It’s the output, stupid!”  =)

> The first asset is the fact that plain text tools allow highly sophisticated workflows and adaptation of the programs' functionality.

Yes.

> most publishing houses don't really care anymore about the editorial process, and they have the impression that this could actually create more overhead than they have currently

We might want to tailor a few “pitches” — complete with working demonstrations — to present to organizations with different needs. For example, a quick-and-dirty translation which (e.g.) took a Finale source filie and turned it [first via MusicXML, probably] into a Henle-lookalike Lilypond file in under 5 minutes would be VERY compelling to certain people, and they wouldn’t want to see (or even care about) edition management, ScholarLY, etc. Then a second (likely longer) demo would be available for those working on critical editions. And so on.

> The second asset I see is that we can (principally, in the real-world it isn't completely mature yet) completely separate content from representation, which should be stressed very much when it comes to the questions of long-term data storage and of repurposing content.

This, for me, is Lilypond’s killer app right now. When I output the scores for my musicals, there are at least four major targets: Full Score, Piano/Conductor Score, Vocal Score, and the various instrumental parts. In addition to having one source output to four different presentations is already great — but the ability to apply tweaks to any one (or more) of them from an external edition file is incredibly powerful.

> IF we could come up with a promising path to let LilyPond work with MEI data (that is firstly: use MEI as input to LilyPond and/or convert MEI data to LilyPond files, and secondly: Be able to convert to both directions so one can also edit scores as LilyPond and convert them back to MEI for storage) that _could_ be the satisfactory answer I claimed as missing above.

Agreed! This is a wonderful idea that should be pursued vigorously, unless we uncover a very compelling reason not to do so.

> To conclude:
> - most people in the business have moved away from taken the status quo
>  with Finale and Sibelius for granted

That is a very important point!

> IF we should be able to come up with convincing solutions or at least roadmaps I see that we now have better chances than ever to get LilyPond a foot in the door with the publishing business in general.

+1

> Sorry for that elaborate text, but I think it is important and hopefully fruitful.

Absolutely! Thanks again.

Best,
Kieren.
_______________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
www:  <http://www.kierenmacmillan.info>
email:  [hidden email]


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Gilles Sadowski
In reply to this post by Urs Liska
Hi.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:03:19 +0200, Urs Liska wrote:
> Just one more of the fundamental questions I took home from the
> Musikmesse ...
>
> The question can be asked somewhat less pretentious then in this
> message's subject line, but I think it actually boils down to no less
> than that.

To whom LilyPond should strive to "offer the future"?
IMHO, certainly not to the "[...] big house[s] with traditions,
regulations and limitations".

What's for the LilyPond team in spending resources trying to work
around
those self-inflicted limitations?

> You know that I have again been at the Frankfurt Musikmesse this
> week, and again I had the opportunity to talk with various people
> from
> publishing houses (names only privately ...), and I was
> (unpleasantly)
> surprised that I didn't always have fully satisfactory answers ready.
>
> The questions came in various variants of "why should a publishing
> house use LilyPond?" And despite all the reasoning and writing I have
> produced over the last years I didn't always find "the" striking key
> features that were convincing in the concrete situation.

LilyPond is "[...] a program that creates beautiful sheet music
following
the best traditions of classical music engraving." (excerpt from
"http://www.lilypond.org/introduction.html")

I think that this goal is way more important (to users) than trying to
convince publishers.
And convince them of what?  That they will make more profit by using
another engraving tool?
They should try and find if they can benefit from LilyPond; if so, they
should _contribute_ with features that interest them.

> I think  I have always taken a perspective that was focused slightly
> beside the point, namely the perspective of an individual editor or
> the team of editors. This is perfectly transferable to a publishing
> house starting from scratch, but not to a big house with traditions,
> regulations and limitations.

Then perhaps you could "start from scratch". ;-)

> Compared to last year I have the impression that many people have
> become more aware of the basic questions about longevity of binary
> and
> textual data formats and data processing. The question has become
> much
> less "why should we consider dropping Finale and Sibelius, it's
> working, heh?" and more "OK, we see that we need an alternative
> approach, but how do you convince me that LilyPond has to be it?"

My advice is: Do not do their work for them.  If you do, they won't
believe you until they experience it for themselves (as it had to
happen to make them aware of the problem with proprietary software,
even though you had explained it before, IIUC).

> We always say that text based tools are superior because they are
> much less prone to become unusable. This, and the potentials that
> come
> from version control, make quite some impression, but again this is
> only relevant to new material and doesn't take into account two
> important issues:
>
> 1)
> Publishers receive heterogenuous data material from various sources
> (editors, composers, engravers), and these are mostly done using
> Finale or Sibelius (and in some cases Score). It is completely out of
> question to requre all these people to switch to LilyPond.
>
> 2)
> One major question publishing houses consider today is how to carry
> their (digitally) existing material to the future. By now they have
> realized that simply using the latest version of the mainstream
> programs is calling for disaster, that's good for us. But again, the
> question is: Can we really offer "the" solution for this?
>
> The immediate idea would be to go some route via MusicXML and offer
> hassle-free workflows to convert existing editions or said received
> data material) to LilyPond. But firstly I don't think we can already
> guarantee this. And secondly, the question is natural to pop up: If
> one already uses MusicXML as the permanent and future-oriented
> storage
> format, where is then the need to consider LilyPond for this?
> I think it is reasonable to expect that there will always be
> mainstream programs that can work with MusicXML files, and their user
> base will probably always be larger than ours.

Is the purpose the same?  Lilypond input is oriented towards contents
creation by humans. XML is for contents manipulation by computers.

> ###
> So, now I've somewhat laid out why we are actually facing this
> question about "offering the future".
> I can't give convincing answers to that, but of course I have a few
> ideas, and I would be happy about a constructive discussion. This is
> not a pipe dream discussion as I will (have to) pick up the
> communication with the publishers soon. And it will probably make a
> good impression if I can show that we have taken their concerns
> seriously, especially if I can come with some promising suggestions.

A FLOSS like LilyPond is a great opportunity to share (musical)
culture, at the lowest possible cost.
A project like Mutopia is a promising future: digital scores (of public
domain music) that are free of publishers' rights.
If and when "big" publishers use LilyPond, the result will be more
restricted access (through cost) to culture (because they won't release
their proprietary contents).

I've thought for a long time that the right way to go is to seek
public funds for engraving public domain contents with the purpose
of publishing it under a GPL-like (or Creative Commons) license.

In this context, data safety (mainly: independence from a proprietary
vendor) is also an asset.

And it would create jobs...

> The first asset is the fact that plain text tools allow highly
> sophisticated workflows and adaptation of the programs'
> functionality.
> The biggest impression I could make was probably our "grid" approach
> (of course only backed up by the fact that we have successfully
> realized it in a real project), and - to some extent - the prospect
> of
> maintaining the whole edition process within one single context (the
> \annotation functionality in the ScholarLY library). But the latter
> was somewhat less striking because it seems most publishing houses
> don't really care anymore about the editorial process, and they have
> the impression that this could actually create more overhead than
> they
> have currently.
>
> The second asset I see is that we can (principally, in the real-world
> it isn't completely mature yet) completely separate content from
> representation, which should be stressed very much when it comes to
> the questions of long-term data storage and of repurposing content.
>
> In theory, LilyPond (as LaTeX) is better suited to process textual
> data than binary tools, simply because it's their natural appraoch.
> But I don't know what I would answer to the question "well, yes, I
> see, but what *impact* does this really have?"

If you'd have had an answer to that one, there would have been another
question, up until the killer one: "What _financial_ impact does this
really have?"

> There is one road that I could see as the "golden bridge".
> I think MusicXML isn't the best solution for long-term management of
> editions. It's just too much focused on data exchanged between music
> software - and mostly pop music oriented tools. Looking for a
> fundamental solution to migrate the whole data base of a publishing
> house I would think that MEI is a much better solution because it's
> inherently more comprehensive, and because it has been originally
> conceived from an editor's perspective rather than music production
> tools.
> Currently there doesn't exist *any* straightforward way to render MEI
> encoded data with a professional engraving program, so this could be
> the key feature for avoiding the question "so why should we prefer
> LilyPond over Sibelius or the new Steinberg app?".
> IF we could come up with a promising path to let LilyPond work with
> MEI data (that is firstly: use MEI as input to LilyPond and/or
> convert
> MEI data to LilyPond files, and secondly: Be able to convert to both
> directions so one can also edit scores as LilyPond and convert them
> back to MEI for storage) that _could_ be the satisfactory answer I
> claimed as missing above. Publishers have more than once thought
> about
> a concerted effort with regard to data management. Of course that
> would also imply a platform for _distributing_ music, so the
> option/request to provide *digital* scores is also ubiquituous.
> Actually this was again suggested this week in one of my meetings,
> and
> I would love to pick that up with a more or less concrete but at
> least
> convincing outline.
> At the same time the prospect of publishers (or "the" publishers in a
> common effort) would consider MEI this would motivate the MEI
> community, and if it would be somehow connected with LilyPond it
> would
> raise the chance that some of them would actually step out and start
> something worthwile (I know there is a latent interst in LilyPond
> within the MEI community, but there's no sufficient "market" for it
> so
> nobody actually came up with a solution so far.

It's not clear to me how the LilyPond project would benefit. What would
constitute a "sufficient market"?

> ####
> ####
> To conclude:
>
> - most people in the business have moved away from taken the status
> quo
>   with Finale and Sibelius for granted.
> - they know that they *have* to find new answers.
> - many (except a few die-hard reactionists) see that LilyPond and
> friends *can* offer answers to their questions
> - but they also see that these are maybe not the only possible
> answers and
> - that we (currently) can't guarantee straightforward migration
> paths.
>
> Market is hard, and everything is moving quite slowly, of course.
> But IF we should be able to come up with convincing solutions or at
> least roadmaps I see that we now have better chances than ever to get
> LilyPond a foot in the door with the publishing business in general.

LilyPond's capacities are great if we look at
   http://www.lilypond.org/examples.html

If the competition does it better, nothing will change; if it does it
worse, then probably, nothing will change!!!  That is, until people
stop buying the big houses' edition because they have come across a
more beautiful rendering by LilyPond. :-)

> Sorry for that elaborate text, but I think it is important and
> hopefully fruitful.

Yes it is important, definitely.  Hopefully the discussion will avoid
embarking on the wrong trail.  Thanks for starting it.


Best regards,
Gilles


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Urs Liska
In reply to this post by Kieren MacMillan


Am 17.04.2015 um 16:05 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Urs,
>
> First off, thank you so much for your continuing efforts on behalf of Lilypond. They are really important, and no doubt time- and energy-consuming for you, with little promise of immediate benefit to you personally. The ‘Pond appreciates you!
>
>> "why should a publishing house use LilyPond?”
> We might start by asking the question “Why should *any* person use Lilypond?”, and then scale up from there.

Well, this seems a good idea, but not for my original question. I think,
this is to some extent what I already have, but the different question
here is "why should anybody who already has existing workflows and
infrastructure *switch* to LilyPond?"

If you could find the time to put together a list of arguments (or maybe
a nice blog post) why a *composer* should use LilyPond this would also
be very helpful. I have had discussions with various composers whom I
couldn't really convince of the usefulness of giving it a try.
For this kind of people it seems most important to get their music into
the score as quickly and easily as possible. I'm thinking of composers
who *do* need performance material but who do not necessarily need
publication quality, just the one necessary for people to play from the
material.

> ...
>
>> most publishing houses don't really care anymore about the editorial process, and they have the impression that this could actually create more overhead than they have currently
> We might want to tailor a few “pitches” — complete with working demonstrations — to present to organizations with different needs. For example, a quick-and-dirty translation which (e.g.) took a Finale source filie and turned it [first via MusicXML, probably] into a Henle-lookalike Lilypond file in under 5 minutes would be VERY compelling to certain people, and they wouldn’t want to see (or even care about) edition management, ScholarLY, etc. Then a second (likely longer) demo would be available for those working on critical editions. And so on.

Sounds reasonable.
I think I've identified (or was told) the following use cases:

- producing scores "for the day" - editions without specialized demands
and not necessarily intended for extra-long maintainment.
- producing scores on short notice, e.g. performance material when the
composer delivers too late
- process existing material (either from the archives or from
heterogenous contributors' systems)
- scholarly editions and edition series with a long-term horizon.

Urs


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Kieren MacMillan
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
Hi Gilles (et al.),

> To whom LilyPond should strive to "offer the future”?

To everyone it possibly can.  ;)

> IMHO, certainly not to the "[...] big house[s] with traditions,
> regulations and limitations”.

Why not? What’s to say that Lilypond can’t initially fit within those traditions, regulations, and limitations, while providing benefits (financial and otherwise) to those “big houses”, and can’t eventually help a “big house” move past those limitations while maintaining whatever traditions and regulations they see as indispensible?

> What's for the LilyPond team in spending resources trying to work around
> those self-inflicted limitations?

Let’s say, for discussion’s sake, we convince a Warner-Chappell, Boosey & Hawkes, or Barenreiter to use Lilypond as their primary engraving application. You honestly don’t see the potential upsides of that situation? Do you not remember the tipping point when OpenOffice was embraced over Microsoft Office as the official office application suite by certain governments?

> LilyPond is "[...] a program that creates beautiful sheet music following
> the best traditions of classical music engraving." (excerpt from
> "http://www.lilypond.org/introduction.html")
>
> I think that this goal is way more important (to users)
> than trying to convince publishers.

To certain users? Absolutely.
To a majority of users? Possibly.
To all users? Doubtful.

In any case, those aren't mutually exclusive goals. Quite the contrary: almost tautologically, the easier it is for an abstract user to “create beautiful sheet music following the best traditions of classical music engraving”, the easier it will be to convince a given publisher to become a user.

> A project like Mutopia is a promising future

I disagree rather strongly. Mutopia (at least currently) appears to me to be a rather damning example of the failure of the open-source philosophy to be able to make a broad and lasting impact on its intended market. Worse, far too many of the examples there are not, to my eye, “beautiful sheet music following the best traditions of classical music engraving”; I would, for example, never send someone there if I was trying to impress them with Lilypond’s engraving output.

> If and when "big" publishers use LilyPond, the result will be more
> restricted access (through cost)

Cost of what? Lilypond wouldn’t ever cost any more.

> to culture (because they won't release
> their proprietary contents)

Nor would we necessarily want them to.

> I've thought for a long time that the right way to go is to seek
> public funds for engraving public domain contents with the purpose
> of publishing it under a GPL-like (or Creative Commons) license.

That’s a fine goal… but shouldn’t in any way distract the Lilypond community from more important goals which would more immediately and significantly benefit the ‘Pond (and beyond). IMHO, one of those more important goals would be making a major inroad into the rather small walled city that is the commercial music publishing world.

Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: [hidden email]


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Andrew Bernard
In reply to this post by Urs Liska
Hi Urs,

Can you tell me why we should be interested in helping music publishers exactly?

If they are such corporate dinosaurs that do not recognise the benefits of advanced lilypond technology, open source and open systems, of what concern is it to the community of lilypond engravers?

I would have thought that, like the invention of desktop publishing in the 1980’s, which allowed small scale companies and individuals to produce professional publications, lilypond frees composers, musicians, and engravers from the tyranny - and rejections - of the hidebound established music publishers. Why do we need Peters and Barenreiter and others? Their editions are full of mistakes and not particularly well done. How would using a finer engraving tool help the overall end product? The Barenreiter Bach Violin Sonatas are unusable due to editorial weakness, not engraving issues.

My composer colleague of the New Complexity School will never be published by the Big Firms. But he will be published by me. And with the web nowadays, the big distribution networks the Old Companies have is no longer important.

So I don’t quite understand the need to help out these companies. What exactly is the motivation? What would they put back to the lilypond development effort?

I would like to see the whole world coding in Haskell. And using Emacs. And I would like to see every engraver using lilypond - I am just as keen as you are. But we have to face the fact that these are tools for Kenner und Liebhamer - Connoisseurs and Amateurs (CPE Bach!), and not for the Hoi Polloi. It’s often the case with the best technology.

I would rather see lilypond promoted among individuals and small scale, human, firms and individual craftsmen than attempting to foist it on the established firms. Let them use it if they are enlightened. If they need vast amounts of explaining to understand it, they simply will not get it.

Andrew





_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Johan Vromans
In reply to this post by Kieren MacMillan
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:39:29 -0400
Kieren MacMillan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Do you not remember the tipping point when OpenOffice was
> embraced over Microsoft Office as the official office application suite
> by certain governments?

That's a totally different case: OO and MSO are two similar tools, that
have a similar approach, similar workflow, and produce similar results.

LilyPond approach and workflow is totally different from Sibelius and
Finale and alikes.

To mimic the OO <-> MSO comparison, MuseScore would be a better candidate.

-- Johan

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Johan Vromans
In reply to this post by Urs Liska
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:03:19 +0200
Urs Liska <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The questions came in various variants of "why should a publishing house
> use LilyPond?" And despite all the reasoning and writing I have produced
> over the last years I didn't always find "the" striking key features
> that were convincing in the concrete situation.

Déjà vu all over again...

Why should serious businesses use Unix?
Outcome: they didn't.

Why should serious businesses use LaTeX instead of MSO?
Outcome: they didn't.

Why should serious businesses use Linux instead of Windows?
Outcome: they didn't.

The LilyPond versus Sibelius/Finale/... case is very similar to LaTeX versus
MSO. Both LP and LaTeX (can) produce superior results, but have a weird way
of working -- at least, in the eyes of many. For us, command line driven
programming may feel normal, but for the rest of the world it is not, and
in my belief it will never become broadly accepted.

I did some book productions for a big publisher. I convinced them that I
would be delivering high-quality camera-ready materials. They didn't care
how I did it, what tools I used, even though my results looked better than
theirs.

Bottom line: Let's have fun the way *we* do it. Let's show the world the
beautiful scores we make. If people wants to join us, let's welcome them
and guide them patiently through the learning curve. And enjoy.

-- Johan

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Peter Bjuhr
In reply to this post by Urs Liska


On 2015-04-17 15:03, Urs Liska wrote:
- most people in the business have moved away from taken the status quo
  with Finale and Sibelius for granted.
- they know that they *have* to find new answers.
- many (except a few die-hard reactionists) see that LilyPond and friends *can* offer answers to their questions
- but they also see that these are maybe not the only possible answers and
- that we (currently) can't guarantee straightforward migration paths.

Market is hard, and everything is moving quite slowly, of course.
But IF we should be able to come up with convincing solutions or at least roadmaps I see that we now have better chances than ever to get LilyPond a foot in the door with the publishing business in general.

Sorry for that elaborate text, but I think it is important and hopefully fruitful.
Indeed!

I only want to make a short personal comment at this point and I may or may not enter the real debate later:

As someone who has made the journey from (one of) the two established notation programs to LilyPond, I'm convinced it was the right decision for me but it would honestly be hard for me to recommend it for anyone else - composer or editor - at this point. In this respect I agree with your concern, Urs. But in analogy with Linux and others, LilyPond has a great community where some contribute to the core and others contribute to making tools, documentation etc that makes the "rough core" accessible to more people! So in my view we are more or less rapidly closing in on the point where it would be possible to recommend it to more than a few (albeit not all).

Urs, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for all your effort in making LilyPond better!

Best
Peter

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

fedelogy
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
2015-04-17 16:45 GMT+02:00 Gilles <[hidden email]>:
A FLOSS like LilyPond is a great opportunity to share (musical)
culture, at the lowest possible cost.
A project like Mutopia is a promising future: digital scores (of public
domain music) that are free of publishers' rights.
If and when "big" publishers use LilyPond, the result will be more
restricted access (through cost) to culture (because they won't release
their proprietary contents).

I've thought for a long time that the right way to go is to seek
public funds for engraving public domain contents with the purpose
of publishing it under a GPL-like (or Creative Commons) license.

Me too.. but unfortunately it's not a good moment to seek public funds. And I don't like much having to deal with public istitutions.

I would prefer if more people were able to use LilyPond and learn to have fun and learn and help others while contributing to Free Culture. That's why I started thinking about bringing LilyPond in music schools. Even though I never tried because of lack of time, I can imagine two major issues:

1. LilyPond is not considered as a professional tool because it's not used by the publishing companies. In general schools teach what the market asks. That's why I think that this effort by Urs is important.
2. Text input. Frescobaldi is doing a good job here, but still..



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

fedelogy
In reply to this post by Andrew Bernard
2015-04-20 4:33 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard <[hidden email]>:
So I don’t quite understand the need to help out these companies. What exactly is the motivation? What would they put back to the lilypond development effort?

Maybe nothing, but never say never...

Possible advantages:

- you, as a typesetter, may be allowed to submit lilypond projects to them. I don't know this market but I guess that a publishing company wants to own the source files (they can understand and edit) and not just the PDF.
- if they use LilyPond they may be interested in sponsoring some features.
- if LilyPond was used by some of the major publishing companies, it would get a better "status" and be accepted in music schools. If more students learned using lilypond, they might contribute to Mutopia.



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Urs Liska
Am 20.04.2015 um 12:00 schrieb Federico Bruni:
2015-04-20 4:33 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard <[hidden email]>:
So I don’t quite understand the need to help out these companies. What exactly is the motivation? What would they put back to the lilypond development effort?

Maybe nothing, but never say never...

Possible advantages:

- you, as a typesetter, may be allowed to submit lilypond projects to them. I don't know this market but I guess that a publishing company wants to own the source files (they can understand and edit) and not just the PDF.
- if they use LilyPond they may be interested in sponsoring some features.
- if LilyPond was used by some of the major publishing companies, it would get a better "status" and be accepted in music schools. If more students learned using lilypond, they might contribute to Mutopia.

I have written two detailed posts to this thread (which I want to be reviewed before actually posting), but I think these points are very important. To add to your list is that acceptance with music publishers would stop ruling out engravers who work for music publishers as users for LilyPond.

Urs

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Johan Vromans
In reply to this post by fedelogy
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:00:19 +0200
Federico Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> - you, as a typesetter, may be allowed to submit lilypond projects to
> them. I don't know this market but I guess that a publishing company
> wants to own the source files (they can understand and edit) and not just
> the PDF.

I don't know this market either, but if it is similar to the printed books
business they just don't have the knowledge and skills to deal with our
sources. They'll most happily accepts PDFs.

-- Johan

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Kieren MacMillan
In reply to this post by Johan Vromans
Hi Johan,

> Why should serious businesses use Unix?
> Outcome: they didn’t.

Actually, they do, on quite a large scale: UNIX and UNIX-like servers have a ~68% market share for public servers. And the share of internal (corporate) servers is not insignificant (though not nearly 2/3, of course).

> Why should serious businesses use LaTeX instead of MSO?
> Outcome: they didn’t.

Depends entirely on which “serious business” you’re talking about. I’m about to have my sixth number theory paper published by the American Mathematical Monthly, a “serious business” if there ever was one; they, of course, required the submission in LaTeX, like all reputable journals. My point is, such [ultimately rhetorical] questions only make sense in a correct and fairly narrowly-defined context.

> Why should serious businesses use Linux instead of Windows?
> Outcome: they didn’t.

Here I fully agree with you… and this is the [analogous] battleground where Lilypond’s make-or-break battles will be won or lost.

> For us, command line driven programming may feel normal

I am completely comfortable with command-line programming. But I *never* use it with Lilypond: I only use tools (e.g., Frescobaldi, or even the Mac OS X built-in “Lilypad editor") which abstracts all of that for me.

> it will never become broadly accepted

Totally true, of course — and not necessarily a bad thing. Our willingness to accept that and give [potential] users what they need to get around without the command-line will almost single-handedely determine the degree to which Lilypond successfully penetrates the wider market.

> I did some book productions for a big publisher. I convinced them that I
> would be delivering high-quality camera-ready materials. They didn't care
> how I did it, what tools I used, even though my results looked better than theirs.

Unfortunately, that just isn’t the way with music publishers: they almost universally demand the “source code” (by which they mean Finale or Sibelius music file), which they then manipulate as they deem necessary.

> Bottom line: Let's have fun the way *we* do it. Let's show the world the
> beautiful scores we make. If people wants to join us, let's welcome them
> and guide them patiently through the learning curve. And enjoy.

To my mind, a better bottom line would be to flatten the learning curve significantly for [potential] new users without reducing Lily's power, flexibility, and beautiful output.

Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: [hidden email]


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Kieren MacMillan
In reply to this post by Peter Bjuhr
Hi Peter (et al.),

> As someone who has made the journey from (one of) the two established notation programs to LilyPond, I'm convinced it was the right decision for me but it would honestly be hard for me to recommend it for anyone else - composer or editor - at this point.

Unfortunately, I am in exactly the same boat as you. I *have* attempted in the fairly recent past to get many of my colleagues to dip their toes in the ‘Pond. Every single one of them jumped back out saying, “I envy you the output, but I’ll keep my GUI and workflow, thanks.”

> we are more or less rapidly closing in on the point where it would be possible to recommend it to more than a few (albeit not all)

+1

Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: [hidden email]


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Kieren MacMillan
In reply to this post by fedelogy
Hi Federico (et al.),

>> I've thought for a long time that the right way to go is to seek
>> public funds for engraving public domain contents

> Me too.

I think it’s telling that most of the non-publishing music world is going in exactly the opposite direction: schools are adding “musical entrepreneurship” courses, programs, and degrees all over, in an attempt to teach musicians how to avoid the trap of relying only on public funds; and there is a significant (and mostly successful) grassroots effort to abandon the dying “not-for-profit” model of musical organziations in favour of a model where pleasing the paying audience actually matters to some extent.

> I started thinking about bringing LilyPond in music schools. Even though I never tried because of lack of time, I can imagine two major issues:
> 1. LilyPond is not considered as a professional tool because it's not used by the publishing companies. In general schools teach what the market asks. That's why I think that this effort by Urs is important.
> 2. Text input. Frescobaldi is doing a good job here, but still.

From the [many] discussions I’ve had with music schools large and small, the second is *far* less important than the first. And rightly so: all other things being equal, higher education should be teaching students skills and tools [!!] which they can immediately apply to their careers. Unfortunately, as long as Lilypond is a pariah amongst publishers, it does a disservice to students to teach them Lilypond at the expense of other things.

Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: [hidden email]


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Kieren MacMillan
In reply to this post by fedelogy
Hi Federico (et al.),

> Possible advantages:
> - you, as a typesetter, may be allowed to submit lilypond projects to them. I don't know this market but I guess that a publishing company wants to own the source files (they can understand and edit) and not just the PDF.

The smaller and/or younger the house, the more likely they’ll accept PDFs — they simply “pass them through” for reprinting and selling.

That being said, if I started a publishing house today, I wouldn’t accept 99% of the PDFs I see from *any* application, Lilypond included: they’re just not up to my standards.

> - if they use LilyPond they may be interested in sponsoring some features.

+1

> - if LilyPond was used by some of the major publishing companies, it would get a better "status" and be accepted in music schools.

+1

> If more students learned using lilypond, they might contribute to Mutopia.

As mentioned before, this effect is of little interest to me… but if it helps the larger ‘Pond, I’m all for it!

Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: [hidden email]


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Gilles Sadowski
In reply to this post by Kieren MacMillan
Hello.

On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:39:29 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi Gilles (et al.),
>
>> To whom LilyPond should strive to "offer the future”?
>
> To everyone it possibly can.  ;)

Yes, but we are all aware of the limited resources, and I doubt that
focusing on how to please established editing houses will lead us
closer to the principles and goals of free software.

>> IMHO, certainly not to the "[...] big house[s] with traditions,
>> regulations and limitations”.
>
> Why not? What’s to say that Lilypond can’t initially fit within those
> traditions, regulations, and limitations, while providing benefits
> (financial and otherwise) to those “big houses”, and can’t eventually
> help a “big house” move past those limitations while maintaining
> whatever traditions and regulations they see as indispensible?

Your question is quite fair.
But why do you ask _me_? ;-)
I'd answer that, yes, they can and should use LilyPond, if they care
for their business' future.
The point is that _they_ don't understand, and that bright people
here will (probably) waste their time trying to figure out their
business case for them.

Some software projects try to please their users, sometimes through
decisions that could hurt long-term improvements.
Even worse is giving the priority to non-users!

>> What's for the LilyPond team in spending resources trying to work
>> around
>> those self-inflicted limitations?
>
> Let’s say, for discussion’s sake, we convince a Warner-Chappell,
> Boosey & Hawkes, or Barenreiter to use Lilypond as their primary
> engraving application. You honestly don’t see the potential upsides
> of
> that situation?

Sure, I could imagine them.
I could parallel the comparison with big companies starting to pay
programmers for contributing to the development of Linux.
But, actually, the situation is upside down: the Linux team did not try
to please e.g. IBM; rather, IBM figured out what their best interest
was.

Publishers would be expected to give back if (when) they benefit
financially from using LilyPond.  The discussion here is that LilyPond
should give even more to them, right now.

> Do you not remember the tipping point when OpenOffice
> was embraced over Microsoft Office as the official office application
> suite by certain governments?

Again, this is different in a very significant aspect: the citizen
benefit
(in principle at least) when public institutions become independent of
private interests (by adopting FLOSS).
In this case, we consider FLOSS being adopted by a private company. I'm
sure the company can benefit; I'm not sure that the public will.

>> LilyPond is "[...] a program that creates beautiful sheet music
>> following
>> the best traditions of classical music engraving." (excerpt from
>> "http://www.lilypond.org/introduction.html")
>>
>> I think that this goal is way more important (to users)
>> than trying to convince publishers.
>
> To certain users? Absolutely.
> To a majority of users? Possibly.
> To all users? Doubtful.

If one goal of LilyPond was to immediately grab all users of the
existing
alternatives, it should have renounced to implement its way of
inputting
contents...
It's good (for the goal of creating beautiful scores automatically)
that
the chosen approach was different.  With the difference came
incomprehension
of most people who are generally averse to change, whatever the number
of
rational arguments you can throw at them.

> In any case, those aren't mutually exclusive goals. Quite the
> contrary: almost tautologically, the easier it is for an abstract
> user
> to “create beautiful sheet music following the best traditions of
> classical music engraving”, the easier it will be to convince a given
> publisher to become a user.

I agree with the rationality of the argument: the reality is different
(cf. previous paragraph), unfortunately.

>> A project like Mutopia is a promising future
>
> I disagree rather strongly. Mutopia (at least currently) appears to
> me to be a rather damning example of the failure of the open-source
> philosophy to be able to make a broad and lasting impact on its
> intended market. Worse, far too many of the examples there are not,
> to
> my eye, “beautiful sheet music following the best traditions of
> classical music engraving”; I would, for example, never send someone
> there if I was trying to impress them with Lilypond’s engraving
> output.

I meant the _idea_ of "Mutopia": a repository of free sheet music.
One can rightly be disappointed that the quality of the contents does
not evolve in step with LilyPond.
Can it be blamed on LilyPond's shortcomings?

I'd like to know what people think it would take to make the endeavour
really take off.  I possible, I'd rather use resources for that
project.

>> If and when "big" publishers use LilyPond, the result will be more
>> restricted access (through cost)
>
> Cost of what? Lilypond wouldn’t ever cost any more.

I didn't mean LilyPond; I meant that rather than accumulating scores
forever free (as should be the case if encoding them was done thanks
to public funding), we'll continue in the same system where musicians
continue to pay for works long gone out of copyright.

>> to culture (because they won't release
>> their proprietary contents)
>
> Nor would we necessarily want them to.

Not necessarily.
But for a lot of people creating and using free software, that's one
of the worthy goals.

>> I've thought for a long time that the right way to go is to seek
>> public funds for engraving public domain contents with the purpose
>> of publishing it under a GPL-like (or Creative Commons) license.
>
> That’s a fine goal… but shouldn’t in any way distract the Lilypond
> community from more important goals which would more immediately and
> significantly benefit the ‘Pond (and beyond). IMHO, one of those more
> important goals would be making a major inroad into the rather small
> walled city that is the commercial music publishing world.

IMHO, finding ways to create contents without being dependent on big
companies is more important than pleasing those companies.  YMMV.


Best regards,
Gilles

> Cheers,
> Kieren.


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Kieren MacMillan
In reply to this post by Andrew Bernard
Hi Andrew (et al.),

> I would have thought that, like the invention of desktop publishing in the 1980’s, which allowed small scale companies and individuals to produce professional publications, lilypond frees composers, musicians, and engravers from the tyranny - and rejections - of the hidebound established music publishers. Why do we need Peters and Barenreiter and others?

Have you seen the “graphic design” of the millions of people who bought a Mac (or whatever) and Adobe Illustrator (or whatever) and started cranking out “design”? The situation is exactly analogous in the music world: the vast majority of people (composers, etc.) *think* they know how to make a readable music score, or at least trust that Finale/Sibelius/whatever will do it for them, and the results are atrocious.

Publishing houses, for the most part, are Awfulness Sieves… and as such are [mostly] necessary evils, at a certain level.

> My composer colleague of the New Complexity School will never be published by the Big Firms. But he will be published by me. And with the web nowadays, the big distribution networks the Old Companies have is no longer important.

For better or worse, I have chosen to self-publish my own works. But I’m not deluding myself into thinking that “the big distribution networks the Old Companies have is no longer important” — that’s a fallacy, and easily debunked. It may well be that *one day* that statement will be more true than false… but we’re still at least a decade off from that Rapture, maybe more.

> I would like to see every engraver using lilypond

I don’t really care; I only care about engraving quality. What I *would* like to see is every engraver outputting music of equal or superior quality to the scores I engrave myself in Lilypond, and that’s clearly not happening right now.

If (as some have suggested) Steinberg’s pending application has output of equal or greater quality to Lilypond, and there is some reasonable way (e.g., MusicXML or MEI) for me to “own the source indefinitely”, that application's ease of use (read: GUI and other tools and workflows) could certainly sway me into abandoning Lilypond.

Unlike many on this list, I have no burning need to force Open Source Philosophy on the world if it’s not willing to prove its own worth.

> If [established firms] need vast amounts of explaining to understand it, they simply will not get it.

So true. Hence my repeated pleas to try to make Lilypond usable without vast amounts of explaining.

Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: [hidden email]


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Do we really offer the future?

Gilles Sadowski
In reply to this post by Kieren MacMillan
Hi.

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:52:54 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

> Hi Federico (et al.),
>
>>> I've thought for a long time that the right way to go is to seek
>>> public funds for engraving public domain contents
>
>> Me too.
>
> I think it’s telling that most of the non-publishing music world is
> going in exactly the opposite direction: schools are adding “musical
> entrepreneurship” courses, programs, and degrees all over, in an
> attempt to teach musicians how to avoid the trap of relying only on
> public funds; and there is a significant (and mostly successful)
> grassroots effort to abandon the dying “not-for-profit” model of
> musical organziations in favour of a model where pleasing the paying
> audience actually matters to some extent.
>
>> I started thinking about bringing LilyPond in music schools. Even
>> though I never tried because of lack of time, I can imagine two major
>> issues:
>> 1. LilyPond is not considered as a professional tool because it's
>> not used by the publishing companies. In general schools teach what
>> the market asks. That's why I think that this effort by Urs is
>> important.
>> 2. Text input. Frescobaldi is doing a good job here, but still.
>
> From the [many] discussions I’ve had with music schools large and
> small, the second is *far* less important than the first. And rightly
> so: all other things being equal, higher education should be teaching
> students skills and tools [!!] which they can immediately apply to
> their careers.

This cannot be the overall guiding rule, if "progress" has any value at
all.
Is the sole expectation, of students attending music schools, to be
hired by a publishing company?

Personally, I think that it is equally wrong to teach (how to become
dependent of) proprietary products, the more so when a free (and more
fit to the task!) alternative exists. [Cf. M$-Office versus LaTeX for
typographic quality and consistency.]

> Unfortunately, as long as Lilypond is a pariah amongst
> publishers, it does a disservice to students to teach them Lilypond
> at
> the expense of other things.

I might be wrong, but I think that the vast majority of music engraving
software users don't make their choice based on what a publishing
company
uses.
LilyPond is at a disadvantage mainly because of marketing reasons (and
aversion to changing one's viewpoint on certain tasks).

As Urs mentioned, LilyPond would be a serious alternative for new
publishing houses.  Teaching it is offering business opportunities
for people so inclined.


Best,
Gilles


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
1234 ... 9
Loading...