[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lilypond lobbying?

From: PMA
Subject: Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:30:00 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101227 Iceape/2.0.11

I'm confused.  Please forgive a terribly naive question --

*If* my LilyPond output PDF were to match what Schott wants to see
(in other words, a correct Schott-targeted style-sheet would not have
changed it), then would Schott print my original PDF *as-is*?


Urs Liska wrote:
Dear Francois,

I'm sorry to tell you that I'm convinced that Robert's translation -
although not completely literally correct - does very well match what
Schott wanted to express:

Am 25.08.2011 00:29, schrieb Francois Planiol:
Dear Robert,

The translation doesnt match totally.

(In my own words, to point out what is important in this text, after
20 years in Germany as church musician):

Es ist in den letzten Jahren zum Standard geworden, dass Herausgeber
oder Autoren die Notendateien ihrer Werke für den Notensatz fertig bei
uns abliefern (was eine Nachbearbeitung hier im Hause nicht
Composers send us usually a data ready-to-print. If necessary and only
in this case, we prefer Finale and Sibelius, for we are used to.

In diesen Fällen bitten wir entsprechend auch um Daten für
Finale und Sibelius, da diese am einfachsten zu verarbeiten sind.
Ausschlusskriterium für die Annahme eines Werkes ist dies jedoch nicht,
vereinzelt wird auch noch nach handschriftlichen Manuskripten direkt
hier im Hause gesetzt.
Buuuut, there is no reason to exclude for publication a work in
another format, included manuscripts will be considered.
What they say is:

1. They publish their scores with Finale or Sibelius because they are
the most suitable for their engraving style.
2. In recent years it has become a de facto standard that editors or
composers provide their scores as music files, which are
ready-to-print or may need in-house polishing by their own engravers.
3. In these cases (this means the now regular case that the editor
provides a file) they also want Finale or Sibelius files because
they are the easiest to process (meaning they have a tested
work-flow with them).
4. They leave it open to accept works for publication that aren't
prepared this way, because they can in rare cases engrave from
manuscripts in the house.

Practically this means: If an author or editor can't prepare the files
they may decide to spend money for an engraver preparing a Finale score.
In exactly this context they would accept a LilyPond score equally as a
manuscript score: They would enter it from scratch in Finale

So I think the best would be a Schott style-sheet for lily, send your
music to schott as pdf and underline, you will make the changes they
want, if needed.

Best greetings


lilypond-user mailing list

lilypond-user mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]