Proofreading suggestions

[Fred G. Unn]

Yeah, I have a few Dorico-specific proofing steps too including a couple of bar number issues.

1) There's a bug where the saved default Layout Options don't always apply correctly. For a lot of people this affects page size but for me it often unchecks "Show bar numbers at rehearsal marks" so I always proof that. (Daniel has said this is fixed in 4.0)

2) Another bar number issue can potentially crop up because barlines/meter/bar numbers are all interrelated in Dorico. If I've manually positioned any bar numbers to avoid a collision, adding an explicit barline or changing the barline type anywhere in the project before that will wipe out all manual bar number adjustments up to the next explicit barline. I had a composer decide to remove a double barline in a piano piece late in the revision process and I didn't realize that would wipe out my manual bar number positioning several pages later until I had sent it back to him, ugh! (At least it was caught before going to print.)

[John Ruggero]

Thanks so much for the Schirmer system, "Fred". I am embarrassed to say that I suddenly discovered that I had posted on this very topic previously and will again look over the excellent suggestions that were offered back then as well the current ones.

In honor of proofreaders everywhere, I dedicate the following missing ledger lines in m. 268 from the Peters urtext edition of Ravel's Scarbo:

Scarbo Peters.jpeg (130.35 KiB) Viewed 13826 times

[OCTO]

I notice that you didn't mention having the software play it through to catch wrong notes. Any reason?

Yes, I do playback, but only when I do arrangements, and it is not so often.
My music consists of a large number of trills, glissandos, harmonics, graphic symbols, approximate pitches, etc., alone or in combination. Using playback for that makes no sense (often you can't get the actual pitches), therefore I never use the playback for my music. So, all my proofreading is "visual" by default. Using separate colors in Finale has definitely made the proofreading process faster.

[John Ruggero]

Thanks, OCTO. I've found that playback can be deceptive, but is good to catch the most blatant note errors.

On a completely different subject, I just noticed the editorial 16th-rests in the Scarbo example above. This is so typical of editors who are like accountants and think that a piano score is like an orchestral score where every voice has to be complete rhythmically.

[Anders Hedelin]

On a completely different subject, I just noticed the editorial 16th-rests in the Scarbo example above. This is so typical of editors who are like accountants and think that a piano score is like an orchestral score where every voice has to be complete rhythmically.

Quite. Very important that the maths add up - never mind the notes!

[Fred G. Unn]

The Schirmer method explicitly mentions Titles. Perhaps someone could teach that method to the folks at Peters.





Also, all other sources date this 1913 too. Sheesh.

[OCTO]

This is scandalous.
I am glad that I didn't accept their offer to get published by them. I was warned several times by other composer-friends not to do it.

[MalteM]

Not only Peters makes such mistakes but also Hansen with Poulenc’s “Sex tour”: https://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/se ... c/16656583

[Fred G. Unn]

This is scandalous.

They've even taken the image off their site. Clicking on it just shows "Image Currently Unavailable" LOL

https://www.edition-peters.com/product/ ... ute/ep9160

[Fred G. Unn]

Not only Peters makes such mistakes but also Hansen with Poulenc’s “Sex tour”: https://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/se ... c/16656583

That's amazing!