I'm No Luddite, But…

[cGilmore]

I don't have a problem with more people being able to typeset music using computers and that computers have removed the need for the masses to come to grips with notation rules—letting the software carry that burden.

I undestand that knowing Finale/Sibelius/Lilypond/etc doesn't make you a professional engraver any more than knowing how to use Photoshop/Illustrator makes you a graphic designer.

I even get that people who feel comfortable with the previous mentioned applications can feel as though they're capable of doing music typesetting professionally, or at least as a pro-am, perhaps freelance. I would honestly count myself in this category. I know enough to know that I shouldn't do it professionally for certain, but I also know that I'm more aware than the average bear.

What I don't understand is how well-known publishing houses professionally release music that was either not engraved by someone who actually knows what they're doing or… I don't know what else.

I get that there is music that just needs to sell; that publishers are playing a numbers game trying to flood the market with sheet music with certain titles. I understand. I really do. But I feel like there appears to be a lack of need for the quality of the engraving to be at a higher quality than is being released.

I think of the Kindle. We as a species have figured out how to make really high quality typesetting of text. However, that hasn't translated into the mobile realm yet. The typesetting on the Kindle is rough. It's an obvious step backwards in quality. It isn't a digital vs analogue problem. Tex was released in the 70s, and InDesign is capable, so it's not like quality digital is outside our reach. It's simply that the Kindle's ethos is one where it's good enough. The people—the masses—don't actually care.

Are we getting to that mindset, where publishers think software output is good enough? That maintaining a standard that was reached in previous generations of music engraving isn't actually necessary like we think it is? Great engravers that are capable of high quality output are absolutely out there; there's plenty of proof of that from the members of this forum.

Am I imagining an issue that isn't actually there? Is this like the difference between Apple customers and Apple themselves in how each group feels about their software QA as of late, where I'm just complaining but actually things are just fine; nothing to see here; move along…?

[cGilmore]

What set me off on this (even though it's been brewing for a bit) is browsing through Boosey's online scores. Looking at their two versions of The Rite of Spring is just maddening to me. Their modern, 2013 edition is so, so inexcusably worse than the 1967 edition. The problem isn't that it was engraved using Sibelius. I don't know what the problem is, hence this post.

The easy answer is cost. It's easier for someone to do a quick job vs a great job. But I don't buy that as the actual answer, only part of something perhaps bigger.

[tisimst]

It's called "out-sourcing" to cheap and "good-enough" labor. Really sad, but true. An unfortunate side-defect of exactly what you described--that,in general, people are perfectly fine with non-professional quality scores.

[cGilmore]

@tisimst

But couldn't publishers have simply chosen this route earlier? Couldn't they have settled with engraving that was good enough back then too? Are modern editors like, "Meh, optical spacing? It's overrated. Just squeeze in another measure on that line so we use less ink and paper."

[tisimst]

Good question. Why didn't they? Because there was a time when craftsmanship was highly regarded under the hands of a master engraver. It was an art form in an of itself. Not so much any more. Anybody and their dog can do it now. You don't have to be a master engraver/artist because many people just don't care enough. That being said, I believe there still are people who do (i.e., anyone who contributes on this forum or any like unto it). Is it enough, though? Should we keep the art form alive? These are deeply personal questions each person needs to answer.

[DatOrganistTho]

I wouldn't get too much in rut:

When the printing press was invented, many, MANY people complained of the same thing. People ascribed what was the best achievement of book publishing to the monks and scribes that made books. The first typeface was barely legible compared to the scribes who did it for a living. And many people believed that "anyone could become their own publisher without knowing the ins and outs of the profession."

Yet, fast track a few hundred years later and books are at the pinnacle of their beautification, etc...

So, yes, you are very right, and I think you can call it the "Inverse relationship of typesetting technology to standards" rule (something I'm coining ). Every time a new technology innovates a proven and tried-and-true field, the more you can expect that field to slouch and sag in quality in the initial development years. This has to do with STANDARDS, not ABILITY. Sure, we have inDesign, TeX, etc, but that doesn't mean people are willing to utilize them to their best ability. It takes time, time for peoples standards to rise above their ability to "plug and play" with typesetting.

In fact, we should expect this in any field where there is innovation, but especially in written languages like music and speech.

[DatOrganistTho]

What set me off on this (even though it's been brewing for a bit) is browsing through Boosey's online scores. Looking at their two versions of The Rite of Spring is just maddening to me. Their modern, 2013 edition is so, so inexcusably worse than the 1967 edition. The problem isn't that it was engraved using Sibelius. I don't know what the problem is, hence this post.

The easy answer is cost. It's easier for someone to do a quick job vs a great job. But I don't buy that as the actual answer, only part of something perhaps bigger.

This gets my blood boiling too.

I bought an "urtext version" of Rachmaninoff's Op. 30, and to my dismay (because I couldn't see the inside for a preview), the edition was typeset with default values of Finale, including their font. ACCCH! I much rather read the 1930s engraving which has many optical abnormalities but reads so much more kindly than this awful edition.

[cGilmore]

A while back, reading Urs Liska's "Plain Text Files in Music" he brought up crowd editing. I wonder if publishers would ever go for a structure like this, and if it would be possible* with WYSIWYG applications? The act of entering notes into the computer can (should?) be farmed out for not much money—perhaps outsourced/contracted** to college students looking to make some money here and there. That way the actual editing, taking it to publication quality, could be handled faster and more efficiently since the engraver isn't having to bother with the mundane act of inputing notes first.

Just thinking out loud…

_____________
*I say this because of first hand experience trying to work with scores entered by others. I eventually would just re-enter it myself since something they did made changes not work they way they should. Plain text software allows you to see the actual source code of how the music was entered.

**This may seem contradict my previous footnote, but much like a house style, publishers could have a document that could be followed, making sure music was entered correctly, according to their standards.

[cGilmore]

I wouldn't get too much in rut:

When the printing press was invented, many, MANY people complained of the same thing. People ascribed what was the best achievement of book publishing to the monks and scribes that made books. The first typeface was barely legible compared to the scribes who did it for a living. And many people believed that "anyone could become their own publisher without knowing the ins and outs of the profession."

Yet, fast track a few hundred years later and books are at the pinnacle of their beautification, etc...

So, yes, you are very right, and I think you can call it the "Inverse relationship of typesetting technology to standards" rule (something I'm coining ). Every time a new technology innovates a proven and tried-and-true field, the more you can expect that field to slouch and sag in quality in the initial development years. This has to do with STANDARDS, not ABILITY. Sure, we have inDesign, TeX, etc, but that doesn't mean people are willing to utilize them to their best ability. It takes time, time for peoples standards to rise above their ability to "plug and play" with typesetting.

In fact, we should expect this in any field where there is innovation, but especially in written languages like music and speech.

I'm totally with you here. I was sure part of my thinking was along these lines, and I was over-thinking it. Just curious what others thought.

I look forward to the renaissance.

[cGilmore]

So, yes, you are very right, and I think you can call it the "Inverse relationship of typesetting technology to standards" rule (something I'm coining ).

That just rolls off the tongue. lol

IRTTS or IRoTTtS. Yeah, I could see that catching on… :D