Re: Lilypond lobbying?

[Urs Liska]

Am 25.08.2011 17:48, schrieb Christopher R. Maden:
> On 08/25/2011 08:36 AM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> > A corresponding issue exists in scientific publishing -- many
> > scientists use LaTeX to prepare manuscripts, but in the publishers'
> > typesetting process these are often retyped from scratch in Word
> > prior to copyediting and layout, because minor tweaks to text and
> > layout are far easier to make in Word and InDesign than they are in
> > LaTeX, for all LaTeX' power and beauty.
> Well — and here is the case for MusicXML support again — they are likely
> to *import* the LaTeX into their production process.  They will not
> actually retype the text.  (They may need to re-key the equations,
> because equations, like music, are typographically complex.  (Barbie
> says, “Math is hard!”))
>
> If there were an easy way for a publishing house to import or ingest a
> LilyPond score and get the notes and meter, maybe articulation,
> dynamics, and tempo, there would likely be more acceptance of LilyPond
> files.
>
> Even at a publishing house that uses the tool, they’re likely to strip
> and rebuild the file anyway.  The very power that LaTeX and LilyPond
> provide makes it possible for creators to do all sorts of perverse
> things that the publisher really does not want.
>
> A solid, basic MusicXML export would make it possible for the publisher
> to get at the meat of the composition and then apply their house style.
>
> ~Chris
+1

I will try to get this a bit clearer in the next months. I am working on 
a few editions ATM that are primarily meant as performance material, but 
really should be published (historical (multiple) piano arrangements of 
prominent works of the Viennes School). For two of them the copyright is 
owned by Universal Edition and Edition Peters, so basically only them 
are allowed to publish the scores. U.E. had already taken back their 
promise to publish the arrangement because they wouldn't pay for the 
engraving (i.e. they would have expected me to provide Finale or 
Sibelius files).
The third piece is more promising: From a historical point of view it 
should be evident that it should be published by Universal Edition 
(Alban Berg's own eight hand piano arrangement of his orchestral pieces 
op. 6). But as Berg has become public domain in 2005 I could publish it 
everywhere I like (with consent of the manuscript's owner). So I think 
the negotiating position is somewhat more interesting ;-)

Basically it's an economic consideration.
Let's take for granted that - at least now and for the foreseeable 
future - such publishing houses will definitely prepare their prints 
with Finale or Sibelius.
Cheapest option for them is to get a Finale file directly from the 
editor/author (when I first hat the contact they told me they would give 
me their "house specifications" in order to set up the file correctly 
from the start. Unfortunately I didn't get this - as I couldn't have 
used it anyway - because it would of course have been very interesting now).
Most expensive option is to get a "manuscript" (be it handwritten or 
printed by any software) and get it engraved in-house (or by anybody the 
choose to ask).
Getting a MusicXML file that can be tweaked to the desired form would 
probably be somewhere in between.
So it is then the question how much money they want to invest for the 
given publishing project.
BTW this actually means that publishing houses nowadays calculate with 
not having to pay for the engraving anymore. In fact one step in the 
whole process has practically been eliminated - and with this the 
possible income of so many engravers.

From the perspective of the Lilypond user (who in this context would be 
either a composer or an editor) having MusicXML output would just raise 
the chances to be "cheap" enough to come into business with a publishing 
house.

Best
Urs