NOTATIO

Fred G. Unn wrote: 27 Jul 2026, 13:01 For example, if I was his copyist, I would have told Mr. Berg that it wasn't a good idea to notate the same rhythm three different ways in the same bar! Let's pick one and go with that.

This may have been on purpose. Different instruments have their preferences for rhythmic notation. There was a recent discussion at the Dorico forum. https://forums.steinberg.net/t/dotted-n ... ers/926544

sugarfree wrote: 27 Jul 2026, 18:34 There was a recent discussion at the Dorico forum. https://forums.steinberg.net/t/dotted-n ... ers/926544

Yeah, I had remembered this example from somewhere in the back of my brain (old Finale forum? MET?) and posted it in that Dorico thread first, then thought it would be a humorous example to post over here too.

The Horn example is the one that seems inexcusable to me. He even uses dotted eighths in the very next bar so why not go ahead and establish the pattern in an easier to read way?

Because the dotted eighths in the next measure are not duplets either. As I mentioned, they are part of a composite rhythmic pattern that runs between the horns and trombones: to be felt in three eighth note beats per half measure, not duplets.

I would be interested to see what the parts look like at this point. In the Lyric Suite parts he shows such interactions between the instruments by means of a second staff.

Hey, all! I agree with Fred here regarding the Wozzeck excerpt that three different ways of notating the same rythm in the same bar is complicated, but it seems that Alban Berg, like John writes, adapted the notation to what is going on in the respective sections of the orchestra: the singer stands alone so he gets the normal duplets; the horns have to have eighths and sixteenths like the trombones; and the five upper string parts have to use eighth notes since that is what the contrabass part has.

Sometimes composers just make mistakes that copyists/editors don't catch. Ravel can't have contradictory tuplets here with both 4:3 and 4:6 in sequential bars. One has to be a mistake. (I would say the 4:6 is the mistake.)

Fred G. Unn wrote: 28 Jul 2026, 16:12 Ravel can't have contradictory tuplets here with both 4:3 and 4:6 in sequential bars.

But he has. He mixes tuplet notation systems here "System A" and "System B"', "deficit" and "surplus", and it doesn't look good. Like many readers here already know, I prefer the surplus notation, 4:3 as you write, Fred.

To me, that Ravel example just seems like a classic example of something the copyist or editor should have caught.

LSL2026 wrote: 20 Jul 2026, 18:21 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”?

For years I did a lot of pop/commercial/studio/film orchestra work for some really great composers and arrangers. Everything of course was rushed and on a deadline. Here's a sample manuscript page by an arranger that still was using pencil. This particular arranger has a very clear notational style, but there is lots here that the copyist is simply expected to fix and fill in.
There are plenty of "col" indications, runs where only the first and last notes are given, repeated notes where only the stems are given, shorthand notation for chord symbols (the triangle will be written out as Ebmaj9), etc. Obviously we had a great working relationship by this point so he didn't need to explain any of that. For any composer providing a concert score, they are also relying on the copyist to make logical enharmonic accidental choices for the transposed parts as well.

Other times you work for composers who are writing in notation software, but write in concert and don't pay any attention at all to logical enharmonics, so the copyist sees this when they switch the provided file to transposed:
This particular composer has a habit of simply writing a 16th so he hears the playback correctly, when an 8th with a staccato is much easier for the performers to read and will be played the same way. I worked with him for years too so he would just send me a mess and trust I would make it readable.

Obviously trust is learned/earned over time so a first time experience with a composer would be different, but yeah, there are definitely "questionable things" that a composer will rely on the copyist to correct.

I don't agree with the proposition that because composer A made a lot of notational errors, composer B is also guilty of errors whenever they write something unusual. I've seen too many cases where unusual notation intended by the composer has been disregarded by editors. Every composer and every case has to be taken on its own merits.

John Ruggero wrote: 29 Jul 2026, 13:58 I don't agree with the proposition that because composer A made a lot of notational errors, composer B is also guilty of errors whenever they write something unusual.

Where has that proposition been made?

My late composition professor, a Francophile who studied with Messiaen, used to tell me that French scores were generally the most error-prone.  OTOH, he claimed that Russian scores were the most accurate.

I am sure for the first claim to be correct.