Re: LilyPond to Finale :-(

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> The other argument is quite silly: They need to have the scores ready
> to be eventually updated/corrected for future releases. This is really
> silly, because as we all know, a well-structured and commented
> lilypond score is way more maintainable than a Finale or Sibelius
> score. They just don't have people at hand who know how to work with
> Lilypond ...

And they don't have people at hand who could see whether a given
Lilypond score is well-structured and commented.

So they get to take you at your face value that this is maintainable,
and then, in case they need to maintain it, they can see where they can
hire a specialist out-house specialist with specialist availability and
specialist rates, who will more likely than not tell them that he'll
have to invest dozens of hours before having this thing in a form
suitable for maintenance, possibly at sub-par quality than if they
started with Finale right away.

You can't blame the publisher for making sane and sustainable choices in
line with their current expertise and existing investments and
commitments.

> [And to be honest: I did these editions in the first place to have
> performing material for a cd recording I'm going to do next week. So
> the work put in the scores isn't lost at all].

You are aware that if you let your music be published, you may,
depending on the contract, have forfeited your performance rights and
need to go through RIAA or whoever else in order to pay the publisher
royalties for each performance (of which you are likely to get back some
part).

So if you did your editions in the first place to have performing
material, you better make sure that your first priorities do not get
subverted by a parallel publishing.

-- 
David Kastrup