|
Am 07.12.2013 20:18, schrieb Joseph
Rushton Wakeling:
On
07/12/13 20:05, Urs Liska wrote:
I have to throw in a comparison:
http://lilypond.ursliska.de/uploads/pics/07_02.png
http://lilypond.ursliska.de/uploads/pics/finale2008_one-system.png
These are an excerpt from a copyright piece, but I've got
permission to display
in the context of a tutorial and of a blog post (they're in my
plain text essay
on the blog).
I think this is a very good example for the fact that LilyPond
often manages to
produce legible layout even if it fails. Actually the only thing
that's _really_
wrong with this example is the long slur - but that's of the
kind I wouldn't
expect any automated engraving to manage.
Finale (admittedly 2008 - but LilyPond is 2.13 too IIRC) managed
to clash about
every conceivable grob in this case.
Yes, but you're comparing default behaviour to default behaviour.
I think we can all agree that Lilypond almost invariably wins in
that comparison.
The reason I proposed a competent-user-vs-competent-user
comparison is that a competent user wouldn't leave those clashes
in place but would manually tweak them. If those manual tweaks
are quick-and-easy to make, then those faults of default behaviour
may be considered much less serious.
You may have a look at this and the following pages:
http://lilypond.ursliska.de/notensatz/lilypond-tutorials/tackle-complex-tasks/part-2-improving-the-output.html
It is quite outdated, but it shows that the steps to fix the score
in LilyPond are quite manageable (in particular with \shape or the
new \shapeII), while I think fixing the Finale part (reliably) will
be much more problematic, at least with this kind of music where the
complexity leads to that amount of catastrophic results as in the
Finale version.
Urs
|
