Proofreading suggestions

Discuss the rules of notation, standard notation practices, efficient notation practices and graphic design.
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: Proofreading suggestions

Post by 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.)
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Proofreading suggestions

Post by 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
Scarbo Peters.jpeg (130.35 KiB) Viewed 3227 times
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1742
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Proofreading suggestions

Post by OCTO »

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.
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 27.3 • Sibelius 2023.5• MuseScore 4+ • Logic Pro X+ • Ableton Live 11+ • Digital Performer 10+ /// MacOS Monterey (secondary in use systems: Fedora 35, Windows 10)
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Proofreading suggestions

Post by 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.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
Anders Hedelin
Posts: 274
Joined: 16 Aug 2017, 16:36
Location: Sweden

Re: Proofreading suggestions

Post by Anders Hedelin »

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!
Finale 26, 27 on Windows 10
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: Proofreading suggestions

Post by Fred G. Unn »

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

Image

Image

Also, all other sources date this 1913 too. Sheesh.
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1742
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Proofreading suggestions

Post by OCTO »

This is scandalous. :eek: :eek: :eek:
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.
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 27.3 • Sibelius 2023.5• MuseScore 4+ • Logic Pro X+ • Ableton Live 11+ • Digital Performer 10+ /// MacOS Monterey (secondary in use systems: Fedora 35, Windows 10)
MalteM
Posts: 67
Joined: 07 Aug 2018, 18:26

Re: Proofreading suggestions

Post by MalteM »

Not only Peters makes such mistakes but also Hansen with Poulenc’s “Sex tour”: https://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/se ... c/16656583
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: Proofreading suggestions

Post by Fred G. Unn »

OCTO wrote: 07 Feb 2022, 13:37 This is scandalous. :eek: :eek: :eek:
:lol: 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
User avatar
Fred G. Unn
Posts: 435
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 13:24
Location: NYCish

Re: Proofreading suggestions

Post by Fred G. Unn »

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! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Post Reply