Re: A big advantage to lilypond

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht  writes:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 22.03.2016 01:46, Redwood (Daniel) wrote:
>> But I wonder: why aren’t more lilypond authors posting more of their
>> sources to IMSLP?
>
> personally, I’m often reluctant to do so, because I might want to
> distribute my typesets commercially. In my opinion, _good_ music
> typography is an art and science and worth paying for;

Except that nobody even gets a chance to pay for it because you merely
"might want to distribute your typesets commercially".

Have you considered uploading them with a payment suggestion and
mechanism?  They won't magically market themselves, and the default
workings of the world and your own inertia make it more rather than less
likely that you'll ever get to marketing them, and even then the
question is what you'll be making from it.

Take a look at .  The
Edition Thoeni was founded by Maurice Thöni in 1944 and kept alive until
1980.  Thöni was quite prolific and wrote a lot of original pieces and
arrangements many of the scores in the edition himself.  However, the
current state of the edition is such that his daughter passes most of
the proceeds from the _performances_ into upkeep of the edition (I've
met her and Aegler in Zürich because my main accordion was obviously
built for Maurice Thöni and I was looking for evidence that he actually
played it at some point of time).

Making money from scores is really rather tricky ultimately and the big
editions keep themselves alive by having very streamlined processes and
pretty invasive agreements that tend to last longer than a composer's
life.

But still the prospect of "I might market this at some time for great
returns" keeps back music as well as software: how much "shareware" has
ever turned a profit commensurate of the effort to devise payment
schemes and restrictions?

So I really suggest that you take stock about what you _realistically_
will actually be marketing yourself, and how much you expect to gain
from it, versus how much it is worth to you that the arrangements/scores
actually get played.

I'd add payment suggestions (make it as easy as possible, Paypal and a
suggested sum) to the score.  Don't expect a windfall.  Probably
"enquire when custom arrangements are needed" is likely to provide the
most payback even when the source is readily available: again, you as
the author are probably most likely to turn money into adapted scores.

Particularly when you arrange your scores in a manner where creating
arrangements is mostly trivial.

> also I create an own visual style with my typesets that I don’t want
> others to easily discard. It’s a generous thing to typeset music and
> publish the source, but it’s perfectly valid to not do so and keep it
> private.

Sure.

> There’s also a technical side to it: (nearly) all of the scores I
> typeset rely on my personal stylesheets library, which I also feel
> somewhat protective about, and it’s impractical to include all of it
> in such an upload, or make a specific version containing only that
> which is really needed…

Well, LilyPond needs better schemes to organize personal stylesheets,
just like LaTeX has ways to organize document classes and styles.  But
again the main question is what you are trying to protect your
stylesheets from.  Other people working with them?  If there is actual
money in that, who would people first contact when needing custom work
to be done?

Yes, most of the work done using your scores and library is going to
bypass you.  However, you don't make money from work that is not done at
all either.

Many private people are hogging their "Intellectual Property" since they
see the valuations popular artists get for it.  But you won't get
anything from keeping it unpublished indefinitely.

> And lastly: even if I can obtain a ly source file from somewhere on
> the web, I sometimes have to rework the entire code, before making any
> use of it (and then I wonder if I’d been better off to just input it
> myself). Sometimes the coding is objectively sloppy, convoluted, or
> difficult to read; sometimes it’s just because of different coding
> styles, or approaches to representing the music[1], which can pose
> extremely annoying obstacles in sharing code. And the python-ly
> (Frescobaldi) formatting tools only get you so far (great though for
> doubling durations, or absolute->relative, or the like).  Which is why
> I very much think we need higher standards in that area…

Where will the high standards come from if people are protective about
the good stuff in their personal scores and stylesheets?

It's pretty hard to change your bank accounts with typesetting.  Just
try it seriously for a few years instead of going "I might want to do it
at some point in life" indefinitely.  It's easier to change the world.

All the best,

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org

Re: A big advantage to lilypond

[Simon Albrecht]

Hi Daniel,

On 22.03.2016 01:46, Redwood (Daniel) wrote:

But I wonder: why aren’t more lilypond authors posting more of their sources to 
IMSLP?


personally, I’m often reluctant to do so, because I might want to 
distribute my typesets commercially. In my opinion, _good_ music 
typography is an art and science and worth paying for; also I create an 
own visual style with my typesets that I don’t want others to easily 
discard. It’s a generous thing to typeset music and publish the source, 
but it’s perfectly valid to not do so and keep it private.
There’s also a technical side to it: (nearly) all of the scores I 
typeset rely on my personal stylesheets library, which I also feel 
somewhat protective about, and it’s impractical to include all of it in 
such an upload, or make a specific version containing only that which is 
really needed…



  And is there some way to find the lilypond source files — the pieces that 
have lilypond sources. I found some through their postings on a French site 
(can’t think of the name now), but it’s on about a dozen pieces, none of which 
interest me.


There are a few sources beside IMSLP that may be considered:
Mutopia has already been mentioned.
Nicolas Sceaux’s ‘Nenuvar’ editions  
– that’s likely the one you were referring to.

Nancho Álvarez’ ‘Victoria’ site 
Also, sometimes you find .ly sources on CPDL as well.


Music I’m going to perform, I usually typeset anyway, partly as a way to learn 
the music. But much of what I play is for my enjoyment, and I don’t rescore it. 
Also, much music like Beethoven sonatas are a great deal of trouble to 
score/typeset.


Another point to consider: why would you want to do new typesets? E.g. I 
have no (or very little) understanding for anybody to retypeset works by 
Brahms, since there’s the superb 1927 complete edition, which is not 
only typeset to the highest possible standard, beautiful and legible, 
but also to my knowledge doesn’t have any problems regarding musical 
text. Admittedly often the problem is that you have to choose between 
/either/ good typography in older editions /or/ reliable musical text in 
newer editions, with old editions being error-prone or convoluted with 
additions, and new editions being a typographical nightmare, which I 
find hard to stand as well.

But of course you will know yourself what you want to retypeset, and why.

And lastly: even if I can obtain a ly source file from somewhere on the 
web, I sometimes have to rework the entire code, before making any use 
of it (and then I wonder if I’d been better off to just input it 
myself). Sometimes the coding is objectively sloppy, convoluted, or 
difficult to read; sometimes it’s just because of different coding 
styles, or approaches to representing the music[1], which can pose 
extremely annoying obstacles in sharing code. And the python-ly 
(Frescobaldi) formatting tools only get you so far (great though for 
doubling durations, or absolute->relative, or the like).

Which is why I very much think we need higher standards in that area…

Yours,
Simon

[1] E.g. in ancient (mensural) music: One finds scores with one bar per 
line, and with the splitting of ‘cross-bar’ notes hardcoded into the 
LilyPond source. However, that badly reflects the intent of the original 
notation, and prevents making editions without complete bar lines and 
without splitting notes from the same source. It’s such a fortune that 
we have the Completion_heads_engraver to do exactly that which 
contemporally would have been the way to go from parts (without 
barlines) to scores (with barlines and split durations). And so I have 
been changing thousands of lines of code to use this facility. The ‘one 
bar per line’ approach is sensible for some kinds of music, but it’s 
definitely not sensible for mensural music with such a different notion 
of timing concepts.
Also, it’s often unclear whether to code different sections of a work as 
separate scores or not, with both having different implications for 
titling, instrument names, file structure…


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: A big advantage to lilypond

[Andrew Bernard]

Of course. What I mean is that they strive to comply with copyright law.

Andrew


On 22/03/2016, 20:08, "David Kastrup"  wrote:

Andrew Bernard  writes:

 Hello Daniel,

 IMSLP strictly enforces copyright, and respects that law in all the
 various international jurisdictions.

They don't have standing to enforce copyright, but they most certainly
_heed_ it.  They don't put up scores with incompatible licenses and take
down content when they are notified of the content being improperly
labelled or submitted.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: A big advantage to lilypond

[David Kastrup]

Andrew Bernard  writes:

> Hello Daniel,
>
> IMSLP strictly enforces copyright, and respects that law in all the
> various international jurisdictions.

They don't have standing to enforce copyright, but they most certainly
_heed_ it.  They don't put up scores with incompatible licenses and take
down content when they are notified of the content being improperly
labelled or submitted.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: A big advantage to lilypond

[Andrew Bernard]

Hello Daniel,

IMSLP strictly enforces copyright, and respects that law in all the various 
international jurisdictions.

Andrew


On 22/03/2016, 11:59, "Redwood (Daniel)" 
 wrote:

Maybe, but then putting them on IMSLP?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: A big advantage to lilypond

[Redwood (Daniel)]

Hi Abraham,

Now you’re talking. I knew I was missing on out something… Thanks.

-d
> On Mar 21, 2016, at 6:00 PM, Abraham Lee  wrote:
> 
> Check out: www.mutopiaproject.org 
> 
> Best,
> Abraham
> 
> On Monday, March 21, 2016, Redwood (Daniel)  > wrote:
> Maybe, but then putting them on IMSLP?
> 
> I suppose.
> 
> -d
> > On Mar 21, 2016, at 5:54 PM, David Kastrup > 
> > wrote:
> >
> > "Redwood (Daniel)" > writes:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I’m converting from Sibelius. Not a simple, quick project. I have
> >> probably more than a hundred scores in Sibelius. So I’m looking for
> >> reasons to do this, aside from the difficulty of their licensing
> >> scheme.
> >>
> >> One thing I love about lilypond: when I find a file on IMSLP with the
> >> source. Then I can make my own modifications.
> >>
> >> But I wonder: why aren’t more lilypond authors posting more of their
> >> sources to IMSLP?
> >
> > I consider it likely that quite a number of sources for personal use are
> > derived from proprietary material still under copyright.  So they may
> > not be distributed.
> >
> > --
> > David Kastrup
> 
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org 
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user 
> 

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: A big advantage to lilypond

[Abraham Lee]

Check out: www.mutopiaproject.org

Best,
Abraham

On Monday, March 21, 2016, Redwood (Daniel)  wrote:

> Maybe, but then putting them on IMSLP?
>
> I suppose.
>
> -d
> > On Mar 21, 2016, at 5:54 PM, David Kastrup >
> wrote:
> >
> > "Redwood (Daniel)" > writes:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I’m converting from Sibelius. Not a simple, quick project. I have
> >> probably more than a hundred scores in Sibelius. So I’m looking for
> >> reasons to do this, aside from the difficulty of their licensing
> >> scheme.
> >>
> >> One thing I love about lilypond: when I find a file on IMSLP with the
> >> source. Then I can make my own modifications.
> >>
> >> But I wonder: why aren’t more lilypond authors posting more of their
> >> sources to IMSLP?
> >
> > I consider it likely that quite a number of sources for personal use are
> > derived from proprietary material still under copyright.  So they may
> > not be distributed.
> >
> > --
> > David Kastrup
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org 
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: A big advantage to lilypond

[Redwood (Daniel)]

Maybe, but then putting them on IMSLP?

I suppose.

-d
> On Mar 21, 2016, at 5:54 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> "Redwood (Daniel)"  writes:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I’m converting from Sibelius. Not a simple, quick project. I have
>> probably more than a hundred scores in Sibelius. So I’m looking for
>> reasons to do this, aside from the difficulty of their licensing
>> scheme.
>> 
>> One thing I love about lilypond: when I find a file on IMSLP with the
>> source. Then I can make my own modifications.
>> 
>> But I wonder: why aren’t more lilypond authors posting more of their
>> sources to IMSLP?
> 
> I consider it likely that quite a number of sources for personal use are
> derived from proprietary material still under copyright.  So they may
> not be distributed.
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: A big advantage to lilypond

[David Kastrup]

"Redwood (Daniel)"  writes:

> Hi all,
>
> I’m converting from Sibelius. Not a simple, quick project. I have
> probably more than a hundred scores in Sibelius. So I’m looking for
> reasons to do this, aside from the difficulty of their licensing
> scheme.
>
> One thing I love about lilypond: when I find a file on IMSLP with the
> source. Then I can make my own modifications.
>
> But I wonder: why aren’t more lilypond authors posting more of their
> sources to IMSLP?

I consider it likely that quite a number of sources for personal use are
derived from proprietary material still under copyright.  So they may
not be distributed.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user