NOTATIO

I am wondering what methods, techniques, tools etc. readers use for proofing their work.

This comment may not be much use for you, but I once had a wife who was a brilliantly secure and accurate proofreader of music (and of just about anything else). I on the other hand am completely useless at it. The point I make is that I suspect that by far the best solution, if available to you, is not so much to find a tool as to find someone who, for whatever mysterious reason, has both the knack and the patience.

Thanks, David. My wife has actually done quite a bit of proofing for me and is also very good at it, but for text only, since she is not a musician. I can't afford a professional, and it may well be that only I can do this because of the complexity of the sources etc. But I think I need a better method than I have used in the past. Suggestions would be very welcome.

@ John Ruggero
Oh, proof reading!
This and drums + percussion notation are for me the most tedious things to do in music notation!

Considering the high level of music notation skill you show on this board I find it interesting that you ask this question.
I assume that your proof reading is more about perfect graphic layout.
Mine is not, as a composer and musician who had/has to notate his music in order to communicate with others, music notation is the last thing in the chain that I do and I am glad if the musical content is correct.
Asthetic is great of course but for me only a bonus.

This said I believe that proof reading either for aesthetical reasons or content reasons possibly share similar things.

Looking at everything in one pass leads for me to unconcentrated work.
I prefer to make one pass for each thing I am checking.
Even if at first sight doing a dozen passes seems to take much longer than one pass chasing at everything, in my case at the end I can work much faster this way.

I do mostly 8 passes nowadays converting scores from Finale to Dorico.
Though the scores were finished in Finale, the conversion needs the same proof reading procedure as if the piece was new!

1. PITCH AND RHYTHM
Playing the whole score with the included play features of Dorico.
This is for me the best and fastest way to hear if something is wrong.
Note that this is always my own music, therefore I mostly know how it should sound.
Sometimes I must do several pass for complex drums and percussions.

2. TIME SIGNATURES
During the conversion from Finale to Dorico it can sometimes happen that some time signatures are missing. This has to do with the way I copy the music from one program to the other.

3. KEY SIGNATURES AND TRANSPOSING INSTRUMENTS
Also during the conversion from Finale to Dorico, depending on how I copy the content, it can happen that key signatures are forgotten.

4. ARTICULATION DISTRIBUTION between instruments playing the same rhythm
For example one instrument is written with quarter notes and a staccato articulation and another instrument playing the sam rhythm is written with 16th.
I then try to keep it consistent when possible

5. LYRICS
Taking care that lyrics are not all of a sudden shifted!
Unfortunately this can faster happen as one thinks.

6. CHORD SYMBOLS AND THEIR SPELLING
Writing scores for Musicals, the whole music is notated with chord symbols.
Being proficient playing chords from chord symbols I play them by myself to check if they are correctly notated.

7. CHORD SYMBOLS AND ENHARMONIC
Assuring that chords and melodies enharmonically match together

8. ITEMS STICKING OUT OF THE RIGHT MARGIN
These are mostly lyrics.
This check is for me a good example to illustrate this multi-pass method.
It is very fast to just scroll through the score concentrating on the right margin only.
This way I can see very fast if some items are sticking out.

I don't know if this answers your question, but this is the way I do my proof reading: a 8-pass method

That's exactly what I was looking for, teacue, and very helpful to know that you find multiple passes more efficient. As you said, it's very hard to concentrate for long periods when looking everything over. I was wondering if playing with the software was often used now to check pitches and rhythm, and how reliable that would be if one is aiming at publication.

I use these 4 options:
1. Print it on "paper" (not as PDF on a tablet!) and play through in a very slow tempo.
2. Proofread only one thing at the time: In Finale select black color for all items. Than use RED color only for a certain tools, for instance "Expression" and go through the score. Than turn off red for the expression and turn on red for articulations. And so on for the each tool.
3. In Finale use only black color. Zoom to 600% or even 800% and go from measure to measure. (Do not change the color.)
4. Give it to someone else to look at it.

I find No2 as the most efficient to clear up errors.

Thanks, OCTO. That's a great suggestion about using colors. I'm definitely going to do that from now on. And also about doing single measures at 800%. Have you tried working backwards?

I do no. 1 in printed form and catch a lot of things that way, but also tend to "see things that aren't really there" when I play through at the piano.

I notice that you didn't mention having the software play it through to catch wrong notes. Any reason?

Also wondering how long people proofread at a time.

Both Schirmer and Ross have good chapters on proofreading too. I assume most people here probably have Ross so check out pages A22-A24. In the late 90s/early 2000s I used to work for a woman who used the Schirmer method. I still basically use it, although I don't literally check off the letters anymore, and I obviously spend more time checking the types of mistakes I know I make. Anyway, here's the Schirmer chapter since I know that manual is a little more uncommon.

Note that on page 73 of the Schirmer manual there are items specific to SCORE.

This brings up the issue that some music apps have idiosyncrasies (ahem...bugs) that one needs to be aware of.

For example, In Dorico there is a bug pertaining to divisi staves where the software may add extraneous naturals, and more importantly, will occasionally leave out a sharp or flat. Normally when the score is proofed you might automatically assume the linked parts will be OK, but in this case, all divisi staves need to be carefully rechecked.