Oh, you can expound here - I just thought you'd get a better discussion on the MusicXML list. I'm curious to see what you think the valid criticisms are. The interview criticisms that I saw were either 1) generic anti-XML, 2) ignorant about MusicXML, or 3) valid criticisms for using MusicXML as a native format for some applications, but not for its intended use as an interchange format. And MusicXML support has been part of Finale for Windows since Finale 2003.
And thanks very much for your earlier Slashdot story!
I think Han-Wen's real criticism of MusicXML is revealed when he says:
As a developer of notation software, I prefer to deliver the features that make users happy. Then they will continue using LilyPond. By contrast, the main asset of having MusicXML-output is that users can migrate away from LilyPond more easily, and that doesn't give me warm fuzzies.
In other words, here is another developer who wants to lock you into his own program and format. Data can flow into Lilypond, but it should never leave. MusicXML's whole purpose is to exchange symbolic musical data between applications. So people who have a proprietary data mindset will naturally find reasons to criticize it.
People can work on an open source project and still want to lock you into their proprietary format. Plenty of open source projects use MusicXML even if LilyPond doesn't.
I don't understand how "MusicXML fails in many ways", but that is probably a question best discussed on the MusicXML discussion list rather than here.
Wow - thanks for all the interest. Especially in such a specialized area like music notation!
Folks outside the field may not realize that MusicXML already works with the two market leaders in music notation software. Finale can both read and write MusicXML files, while Sibelius can write a more limited type of MusicXML. The Finale support is currently Windows only, but we are busy working on the OS X port. MusicXML is already second only to MIDI in its adoption by music notation applications. It's nowhere near as universal as MIDI (yet), but it's a lot more complete for music notation!
One point that seems to have been missed in the discussion is that standards can reduce the barrier to entry for innovative applications. With MusicXML, you can use programs like Finale as your "notation engine" handling the standard parts of music editing and display, while your own application more innovative work. So electronic music stands like MuseBook Score use MusicXML for input, while algorithmic composition programs like JMSL use MusicXML for output. More details about MusicXML support are here.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard about Phidgets - USB sensors, motor controllers, and the like - from the JMSL mailing list. They look cool - has anyone tried them out?
Oh, you can expound here - I just thought you'd get a better discussion on the MusicXML list. I'm curious to see what you think the valid criticisms are. The interview criticisms that I saw were either 1) generic anti-XML, 2) ignorant about MusicXML, or 3) valid criticisms for using MusicXML as a native format for some applications, but not for its intended use as an interchange format. And MusicXML support has been part of Finale for Windows since Finale 2003.
And thanks very much for your earlier Slashdot story!
I think Han-Wen's real criticism of MusicXML is revealed when he says:
In other words, here is another developer who wants to lock you into his own program and format. Data can flow into Lilypond, but it should never leave. MusicXML's whole purpose is to exchange symbolic musical data between applications. So people who have a proprietary data mindset will naturally find reasons to criticize it.
People can work on an open source project and still want to lock you into their proprietary format. Plenty of open source projects use MusicXML even if LilyPond doesn't.
I don't understand how "MusicXML fails in many ways", but that is probably a question best discussed on the MusicXML discussion list rather than here.
Folks outside the field may not realize that MusicXML already works with the two market leaders in music notation software. Finale can both read and write MusicXML files, while Sibelius can write a more limited type of MusicXML. The Finale support is currently Windows only, but we are busy working on the OS X port. MusicXML is already second only to MIDI in its adoption by music notation applications. It's nowhere near as universal as MIDI (yet), but it's a lot more complete for music notation!
One point that seems to have been missed in the discussion is that standards can reduce the barrier to entry for innovative applications. With MusicXML, you can use programs like Finale as your "notation engine" handling the standard parts of music editing and display, while your own application more innovative work. So electronic music stands like MuseBook Score use MusicXML for input, while algorithmic composition programs like JMSL use MusicXML for output. More details about MusicXML support are here.