On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:00 AM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > In particular, we'll be more likely to find small publishers there which > are more flexible in choosing their tools and workflows.
In my (albeit limited) experience, it’s actually *worse* with small publishers, that often amount to a one-man or two-men operation where all scores are done the same way, with the same habits and the same tools. I suspect large houses (Peters, anyone?) may afford more flexibility and experimentation. > Well, it's probably hard to properly _weigh_ a survey including small > publishers. Nevertheless, it would seem like a broader base would be > more interesting to people wanting to _start_ publishing as it would > cover more publishers without legacy business and workforce to > integrate, and with more leeway to experiment. An annoying thing about limiting oneself to large publishers is that it fails to take into account the new opportunities opened by "decentralized"* technologies, in terms of self-publishing, pay-what-you-want distribution models, re-distribution, alternative licensing etc. I suspect this is where such programs as Lily have the most ability to thrive, whereas outdated (albeit still alive and kicking) players seem more-or-less confined to "legitimized" venues such as concert halls, conservatories etc. Cheers, Valentin. [*]... or "NSA-centric", since it’s the Internet we’re talking about :-/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
