On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sure, Lilypond is nice - but typesetting it is a lot
more work than
simply screenshotting an existing PDF. And IMHO old publications (eg,
1902) look nicer than Lilypond...
Fwiw, the workflow I've ended up going with goes like this:
1. Load up the PDF for one opus (generally 2-3 compositions)
2. Screenshot 2-3 excerpts per piece
3. Upload all the screenshots, tweaking the contents of an info
template, rather than filling in fields
4. Stick all the screenshots in the relevant article.
In other words, batching each phase of the operation, rather than
doing the whole cycle for each excerpt. I've now done all the
nocturnes except the last two posthumous ones. Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnes_Op._9_(Chopin)<http://en.wikipedi…
I understand. And the necessity of editable notation, presentation as an
image, and output as audio media is not yet substantiated for any WikiMedia
projects. Someone would have to demonstrate that such editable notation was
useful in some way, like for transcribing certain motifs, phrasings, etc.,
or helping music education overseas.
-S