NOTATIO

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.)

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:

John Ruggero wrote: ↑31 Aug 2021, 14:31 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.

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.

John Ruggero wrote: ↑07 Sep 2021, 12:38 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!

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.

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.

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

OCTO wrote: ↑07 Feb 2022, 13:37 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

MalteM wrote: ↑07 Feb 2022, 14:22 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!