Open source music notation is a thankless job - notation is <i>hard</i>, and when you're composing, you run into corner cases pretty quickly.<p>I'm personally a big fan of lilypond because I'm also a programmer (and I also like LaTeX, which has a similar model), and I love that with lilypond I get both superior output, and source files that I can track with git, which is great when I have different versions of some of my works - I can actually compile them.<p>Here's a sample of a simple full-orchestra film cue I notated with lilypond which made me appreciate how easy it was to override default behavior: <a href="https://github.com/tunesmith/TheForgivingSea/blob/master/1M2/pdf/1M2.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/tunesmith/TheForgivingSea/blob/master/1M2...</a><p>Browsing the git repo above shows how scores and parts can be structured - from the same codebase, that repo can generate the parts for the individual orchestral instruments, similar to how many other notation packages can, except with lilypond I have total control. And it's the only notation solution I've tried that makes me comfortable that I'll have decades of compatibility - I can't even open most of my old Finale/Sibelius scores from college since I stopped paying for upgrades. Many composers also believe that Lilypond has the best engraving quality of all notation software.<p>But lilypond's been stuck on MusicXML support for years, and with pretty poor sound output options. On the other hand, sound output isn't a major priority for me, I usually use a sequencer or a piano to sketch out ideas, and I think there's something of an impedance mismatch between notation and sequencing anyway.<p>For MuseScore to go in this direction implies that they must be thinking they're already nailing the notation side. I'll try it out at some point to see if the UI ease-of-use makes up for the other things it loses - maybe I can use it for lead sheets - but I kind of doubt they're moving in a direction to be able to support serious composers.