NOTATIO

I would be very interested to know how Notatio members handle proofreading. Do you have a system?

And publishers seem to exhibit various levels of accuracy. Why, for example, are Henle and G. Schirmer editions (at least the old ones) so accurate and yet Wiener Urtext and Durand less so? Does anyone have a theory?

Here's Ted Ross's proofreading system (which I have used quite successfully):

1. All notes from the score
2. Clef signs
3. Key signatures
4. Time signatures
5. Tempo indications
6. Ties, slurs and phrase marks (especially those extending from one staff to the following staff)
7. All symbols (rests, notes, etc.) for proper position in the staff
8. All symbols for vertical alignment on two or more staves
9. Auxiliary markings (dynamics, accent, cresc., etc.). Be sure all parts in the same section or family coincide.
10. Credits (composer, arranger), copyright, etc. (If these are pasted on the copy, be sure they are proper alignment)
11. Count measures in all parts making sure all parts have the same number of measures and match the score
12. Check lyrics for:
    1. Capital letters
    2. Spelling
    3. Punctuation
    4. Syllabification
    5. Melisma lines

Thanks, tisimst. More questions:

Do you proof from a printed copy, marking it in pencil in the traditional way?

Do you make a separate pass through the score for each item?

And does anyone use playback as part of proofing?

John Ruggero wrote:Thanks, tisimst. More questions:

Do you proof from a printed copy, marking it in pencil in the traditional way?

Almost always. There's something to be said for getting away from the screen and on paper.

Do you make a separate pass through the score for each item?

Yep. I usually notice more obvious errors (in other steps) when I'm going through each pass, but the list keeps me on track to catch the rest I hadn't seen yet.

And does anyone use playback as part of proofing?

Definitely, but usually only for correct notes. This will usually be the first indicator of an error.

Just today I am finalizing a set of parts for small orchestra of a 24-movement oratorio, 2 hours in length. I have managed to get through the entire project, including Piano/Vocal score, without any paper. But I have made use of my iPad for reviewing and proofing away from my desk, and as a second screen next to my laptop for comparing pages.

My methods are haphazard compared with traditional engraving houses, because I work alone. I find errors and collisions and spacing that could be improved naturally in the course of reading for content. And then some of the things I find generate searches throughout the score for similar cases. This particular composer works in Sibelius, so I just concatenated her files and began editing, (which I generally hate to do; it would have been a much cleaner job if I’d entered all the music myself).

In this project I found lots of cases of rhythms notated unusually or confusingly, such as 4 with the middle 2 tied instead of , or tied to in place of , improper use of (see other recent topic), beaming not consistent with the meter, etc. It was quite laborious to pick them all out by eye. All of these things are automatically handled in Dorico unless you override them.

I’m rambling after a long day’s work; I’ll let someone else have the floor.

tisimst wrote:Here's Ted Ross's proofreading system (which I have used quite successfully):

Thanks for sharing that. Of course, some of these are a bit outdated with the digital engraving, but anyway good to keep in mind!

I always compose by hand and I have a copyist that does the basic job for me.
So I use following ways for the proofreading:
- Print out - always, + red pencil
- very small scores (staff sizes) to be printed double sized (A3 portrait on 2*A3 landscape), and than red pencil.
- in Finale I use 600%-1000% zoom for controlling graphical mistakes. Two pass: the first pass by each instrument (horizontally) the second pass by each measure (vertically).
- in the parts extra focus is on instrument changes, pizz/arco, mute changes
- I really don't use playback proofreading, since my music is not playable so easy by comp (glissandos, double trills, aleatoric measures...). Actually I used the playback for my arrangements of Piazzolla!
- on the first rehearsal I need to have a spreadsheet with fields: Movement | Measure | Instrument | To Edit |Fixed-checkbox - so that I can quickly enter whatever that is wrong and so easy to access when editing.

Basically there are two different layers of proofreading: graphical and "musical".
In Finale I struggle extra with the graphical proofreading: items get misplaced when transposing instruments, or in parts the Smart Shapes are misplaced etc. Also, some things get misplaced such as distance between staves, things can get missing and so on.
The "musical" proofreading is the correctness of music itself. Some times I find I forgot in my manuscript to change mutes or I continue notating from Bb trumpet into A clarinet in the trumpet transposition (some notes or some measures!) especially when I am super-tired missing the deadline.

The proofreading job is extremely difficult, I might say...

Thanks, MJCube. I am similarly "haphazard", which is why I started this thread. I think I need more method to my proofreading. I can relate to your frustration with all of the notational mistakes of others. During my hand-copying days we dealt with this kind of thing constantly.

OCTO., I can certainly understand the tremendous difficulties in proofing highly complex contemporary music. It must be a nightmare.
I also love the high zoom possibilities of computer engraving and go through the score at the end checking everything at high magnification. My practice thus far is to proofread at the piano on hard copy only after the piece is completely done. I seem to catch things better than at a desk. All earlier proofing is done onscreen. But that may change given the suggestions.

John Ruggero wrote: My practice thus far is to proofread at the piano on hard copy only after the piece is completely done. I seem to catch things better than at a desk.

Wonderful.
The playback can check almost only the pitches. What about missing hairpins, missing slurs... Playing the score is one of the most crucial ways for proofreading. You can even feel other things such as spacing or page turns. I will definitely use more of that technique.

OCTO wrote:I always compose by hand

I do too. In a sketchbook in landscape orientation. At least the initial sketching. After that, I go directly to the computer because it is so much easier to lay things out and make changes.

OCTO wrote:Playing the score is one of the most crucial ways for proofreading. You can even feel other things such as spacing or page turns. I will definitely use more of that technique.

Thanks, OCTO. Maybe I am doing at least something right!

Anyone interested in a thread on work-flow? How one works definitely impacts proofreading. One of my greatest problems is getting over my Arnstein training. We did everything at once; this was one of his basic principles: never leave anything until later, or you will leave things out. So we were essentially proofreading as we went and making very few errors. Computer input makes this work-style difficult since one tends to make many passes through the music, notes the first time, markings the second time, then formatting etc. Even proofreading takes several passes.

John Ruggero wrote:Anyone interested in a thread on work-flow? How one works definitely impacts proofreading.

Yes, a great idea! In months to come I will do a massive work, and that would be of a great help (also sharing my experiences!).

John Ruggero wrote:One of my greatest problems is getting over my Arnstein training. We did everything at once; this was one of his basic principles: never leave anything until later, or you will leave things out. So we were essentially proofreading as we went and making very few errors.

One of my first attempts to use Finale seriously was more than 15 y.a. when I did my Piano trio in Finale. Since I was copying everything by hand until than, I used that same approach: each measure must be done completely, and when one system was done, everything was controlled once again.
Looking now at that score I find it extremely beautiful. I used just plain default settings and fonts from Finale (Maestro, Times NR), and I even didn't know for many hidden features of that "Finale 2000".
I think that the beauty is hidden somewhere else, in the way music is engraved and proofread, how everything was fine tuned and, since only one person was doing that, the same aesthetic decisions were made across the score. Many of the current plugins were not developed at that time, and it was impossible to apply on the document level "beautifying beams" or whatever else.
All automation done when it is impossible to see how it changes at all pages, is actually a double sword: you must apply automation only at the things at the level you can see and notice; and keeping in mind that automation is not an experiment but the automation exactly defined by your aesthetic and technical demands. Many scores get full of mistakes, only because we believe that a plugin will "fix" something, when actually it doesn't.