Composers as infallible?

[LSL2026]

I’m curious: Those of you who’ve worked from manuscripts of composers, or even digital files they’ve done, that are either laden with errors or just have questionable things…do you just “do them like they wanted” or do you “correct their mistakes”?

I’m particularly interested in the past - the composers we put on pedestals as genuises…and can do no wrong…but I find that to be a really silly way to look at things.

John’s work on the Ives is a good example:

Could it have been that Ives just simply didn’t have the notation ability and what he wrote was all kinds of messed up? I know, blasphemy right? But surely, while he was writing music that did very new things at the time, could there ALSO have still been some kinds of “lack of awareness” of how to deal with even some basic notation things?

We know typos and errors are common, but how many of the errors we see in final scores are introduced by the engraver, and not the composer?

Is the composer just as likely to have made an error, that the engraver had to go with because you don’t dare question genius…

I mean, most composers are not committing Gould to memory, and I never had any “notation” courses in college - certainly plenty of music to play from, and theory courses about durations and so on - but those tend to be pretty basic fundamentals and not go into even the level of rhythmic notation that percussionists love to trip you up on…

So this idea that "the composer is always right…” What’s your take, and experience?

[sugarfree]

Gould is not always right either.

[Vogel]

I've seen correspondence between famous composers -- Elgar, Verdi, etc. -- and their publishers. There's an editorial process. The galley proofs are sent to the composers, who review and correct them. I don't think they always get their way, but like any publication business, their sway is probably equal to how famous they are.

[benwiggy]

John Ruggero has posted here many examples of composers using "non-standard" notation to elucidate particular meaning, which has been "corrected" by publishers to ill-effect.

That having been said, there are plenty of composers who write gibberish, sloppy or needlessly convoluted notation, and who need a competent editor to present the material to performers, if they are going to read it.

All of us are human: some composers will have a greater command of notational language than their publishers; and the opposite is equally true.

Gardner Read's famous quote suggests that composers were in need of some reprimand:

If the composer says in effect to the performer: "I do not care whether you perform my music or not," we cannot argue the matter. But if he indicates: "I want you to perform and respond to this music," then his fundamental duty is to write his music so that it is accessible to interpretation. When the performer cannot approach the composer's meaning because of capriciously obscure notation, he may in effect say to the composer: "Why should I bother to puzzle out your music?"

I have done some work for large publishing houses, working on living composer's original files. Sometimes, I made corrections as I saw fit; other times, I raised a query about what the intent was.

In the world of literature, many of the greatest authors required (or received) editorial help on the way to publication. (Famously, Anthony Burgess's manuscripts never needed any work.) JK Rowling's first books were subjected to considerable edits, until she became "too big to fail", and you can observe how much larger the books became, as the prose was subject to less pruning.

GB Shaw once had a split infinitive corrected by a desk editor, of whom he said "I don't care if he goes quickly, or quickly goes: but go he must!"

[LSL2026]

Gould is not always right either.

I agree.

[LSL2026]

their sway is probably equal to how famous they are.

yeah that’s my take on it too.

[LSL2026]

If the composer says in effect to the performer: "I do not care whether you perform my music or not," we cannot argue the matter. But if he indicates: "I want you to perform and respond to this music," then his fundamental duty is to write his music so that it is accessible to interpretation. When the performer cannot approach the composer's meaning because of capriciously obscure notation, he may in effect say to the composer: "Why should I bother to puzzle out your music?"

I’ve got the Read but haven’t um, re-read it readcently.

But this is something I try to convey to beginning composers - if you want people to play your music, you have to make it “playable” - both in terms of technical playability and readability!

[OCTO]

John Ruggero has posted here many examples of composers using "non-standard" notation to elucidate particular meaning, which has been "corrected" by publishers to ill-effect.

That having been said, there are plenty of composers who write gibberish, sloppy or needlessly convoluted notation, and who need a competent editor to present the material to performers, if they are going to read it.

All of us are human: some composers will have a greater command of notational language than their publishers; and the opposite is equally true.

Gardner Read's famous quote suggests that composers were in need of some reprimand:

If the composer says in effect to the performer: "I do not care whether you perform my music or not," we cannot argue the matter. But if he indicates: "I want you to perform and respond to this music," then his fundamental duty is to write his music so that it is accessible to interpretation. When the performer cannot approach the composer's meaning because of capriciously obscure notation, he may in effect say to the composer: "Why should I bother to puzzle out your music?"

I have done some work for large publishing houses, working on living composer's original files. Sometimes, I made corrections as I saw fit; other times, I raised a query about what the intent was.

In the world of literature, many of the greatest authors required (or received) editorial help on the way to publication. (Famously, Anthony Burgess's manuscripts never needed any work.) JK Rowling's first books were subjected to considerable edits, until she became "too big to fail", and you can observe how much larger the books became, as the prose was subject to less pruning.

GB Shaw once had a split infinitive corrected by a desk editor, of whom he said "I don't care if he goes quickly, or quickly goes: but go he must!"

It is a great post, worth printing!

The "old" scores are easier to understand as a copyist/editor.
But new music can be extremely hard. Being a composer myself I know it is not easy and we composers often discuss it, I know some composers having 5 versions of the same score, since it is always re-edited after a performance. I talk about a complex score.

[benwiggy]

But this is something I try to convey to beginning composers - if you want people to play your music, you have to make it “playable” - both in terms of technical playability and readability!

Scoring is also a consideration. I've seen works by recent composers that have been scored in such a way that after the "world premiere", they'll never get performed again; or certainly not as frequently as their merit might suggest. (E.g. a commission for an English cathedral choir, supplied as SSSAAATTTBBB. Most cathedral choirs have 4 people on the ATB parts, so you've got decisions to make about whether you leave people out altogether, or how you cope with the balance; or whether you bother with it at all.)

Particularly in choral music, I've seen a lot of new music that shows little understanding of the voice as an instrument.

On the other hand, I've also seen very good music spoiled by very bad publishing decisions from some of the supposed "big names".

[Mr_Incognito]

I've seen works by recent composers that have been scored in such a way that after the "world premiere", they'll never get performed again;

Most of the new works get only 'premiere'.

The composers of today are in a peculiar situation - editors and even copyists used to take off the burden of some 'mundane' work in the past.