Discussion in 'The Adjudicators' Comments' started by markh, Sep 16, 2010.
I presume your typos and spelling errors are an attempt at irony given the subject matter...
The typos and spelling m,istakes are completely honest! No irony was meant!
In all fairness if 'Olympus' is missing one dynamic on one part in the whole piece, that's a pretty good show. I think we only found one or two mistakes in the whole of 'Kingdom of Dragons' as well - So Harper's are clearly doing their bit.
As regards cross patonce, this sort of thing also happened with James Cook when they reissued the flugel part and 'corrected' it. This involved including bar number 69, which is famously omitted from the original. Unfortunately, this meant the new part disagreed with the old part for roughly three quarters of the piece. In situations like this, a lot of the old mistakes have already been found over the years, so issuing an errata list is preferable where completely re-typing the whole piece isn't really an option for cost reasons, and re-typing a single part is clearly counter-productive.
Based on what Andycat's saying it's pretty disappointing about mountain views though. I mean that's a box-fresh piece isn't it? Surely it's not too much to expect better. After all, Harper are already doing it and Jagrins have been rightly proud of releasing pieces without any mistakes at all in the past, so it proves it can be done.
The thing about "Mountain Views" is that it's not just errors. The standard of typesetting is abysmal; to the extent that some of the most basic rules of music notation have been ignored, in particular with regards to vertical alignment of rhythms. This can be especially misleading from a conductor's perspective, since it appears that different instruments, or groups of instruments are entering at different times, when in fact they are supposed to be playing in rhythmic unison. Other typesetting/notational errors include poor/misleading spacing (a 2/4 bar takes the same horizontal space as a 3/4 bar, despite containing similar note values), and many other examples of poor notation, almost too numerous to mention (the "let ring" ties on the percussion parts are particularly irritating, since they appear to be slurs to a different note pitch!). We see misplaced accidentals, inconsistently positioned dynamics, collisions between articulations and slurs, etc. etc. ... Additionally, on a few parts, the print layout is faulty, such that the bar numbers on the LH edge of the page are partially cut off. Since there are no rehearsal figures, these bar numbers are effectively the only means of navigating the part, so when I call that we are re-starting from a particular bar number, some players have no easy way of finding the place. (We did contact the publishers about this, and they promised to issue corrected copies, however nothing has been forthcoming so far ... ). The overall impression is of the piece having been typeset by someone who has been using Sibelius for only a few days, and hasn't read the manual yet. (except that knowing notation software as I do, they must have worked incredibly hard to get the vertical alignment overidden as they have, since all notation software is programmed to preserve such a basic principle)
All in all, pretty poor, considering the price.
Absolutely. We've only run it a couple of times, but on my part alone there are missing dynamics, badly grouped quavers, misleading cresc (attached to the wrong stave almost) and the numbering is poor.
Well, that's something to look forward to for Thursday...
This is appalling
Mind you - I've no idea as to why Mountain Views was ever chosen - is there anyone out there who believes it is more difficult than Cross Patonce?
I find this terribly depressing - I would have thought that after the debacle that surrounded the printed parts to "The Perfect Fool" at Harrogate a few years ago, we would be no longer having to beg for Area/Finals errata - and all this with a new piece.
In 2012 for god's sake
Friday for me. With respect to the piece we've just done, I fear it'll be a case of similar subject matter, vastly inferior writing and typesetting....
For the very same reason we end up talking about the same few subjects every year - there is no brass band 'movement', more a series of discrete and disparate organisations, all with their own priorities and agendas. Until we have some sort of body at the top of banding driving all these issues forward to an adequate conclusion for all, we will continue to be talking / moaning about the same few subjects for as long as I have a botty hole....:-?
I seem to remember there was a proposal once that seemed like a good idea....
Indeed there was - and alas it was torpedoed by an alliance of "discrete and disparate organisations, all with their own priorities and agendas." (A quote I thought too good to even think about paraphrasing.)
and the bass bone part doesnt have enough beats in places - easy to sort out bit still annoying on initial run throughs!!
ps sorry - forgot to include the quote from the previous CP debate - will add bar nos to this later but am sure its all sorted!!
YORKSHIRE REGIONAL - SECOND SECTION BANDS
Would all contacts for my Second Section Bands please note that an errata sheet together with solo cornet part (as a pdf) for Cross Patonce has been emailed out to you.
This has been supplied today by Alan Hope, Secretary, Kapitol Music Panel to the secretary of each region.
Band contacts - please check your emails.
i have received mine this morning.
Ours has arrived too, but it's noticeable that only errors in some solo cornet parts have been acknowledged. The other odd ones noted by previous correspondents have been ignored.
If you haven't been sent it yet you can download it here:
Out of interest where did you e-mail Harper Music? I e-mailed via their website contact page days ago and haven't yet received a reply!!
And just a BTW - at the front of the score the 'percussion requirements' lists that a triangle is needed but I haven't yet been able to spot it in the score!!!!
And being a complete pedant it also states Tenor Drum but in the score says Floor Tom!!! Two different instruments - which is it?
Just for the record, some publishers have always had an issue with editing and engraving quality. Historically they have skimped in this area. The publisher of the 2nd Section Test Piece are particularly notorious for it, despite having some very, very fine editors! New technology hasn't really improved the situation much as they don't have the skills to use it properly, and often refuse to buy the most up to date software, which could help them reduce errors...
Engraving is a skill in itself and is just another word for musical typsetting. Due to the costs of engaging someone to do this job, most publishers don't bother as they dont have the margins to do it. It's a shame really, you need a good eye for detail and extensive musical knowledge. Rare qualities perhaps?
Quite frankly, I would think that Philip Harper is probably amongst the best at it!
but when you are paying £60+ for one piece of music for THE lower grade competition of the year (excluding the nationals) then you would have thought that there would be slightly more focus than for a piece of programme fill that they churn out on a regular basis................
Listen, there's no excuse for a lack of care, but £60 isn't much for a serious work that may have taken months to write. Even if it didn't, that doesn't make it expensive. If someone studies for years and devotes a large part of their life to becoming a composer, aren't they worth paying? If they are lucky, the composer will get about 15% of the sale price as royalties. Assuming they have found someone to publish it in the first place.
In the case of Cross Patonce, Pilkingtons paid Goff to write it. A full score probably costs about £25 , so if you have about 30 parts at about £1.20 each, surely thats decent value?
I don't think the price is the issue here. It's simply good editing and typesetting.
thats not really the point that i am trying to make - if we all paid a price based on number of hours taken to write a piece at an hourly rate and then divided by the expected sales we would all be paying a lot more for a number of the pieces that we play. And a lot less for some of the others!!!
The point is more that the publishers knew that this was a key piece of music for the year, to be played by in excess of 80 bands across the country in a competition that will ultimately determine their grading. These pieces will generate significant revenue for them, and should be a showcase for their quality. The concern is that most test pieces that we get need checking to the score on a regular basis and often there are errors throughout.
I am simply stating that given the volume of these pieces that are being sold it should be easy enough to get someone to proof all of the parts before sending them out (and making sure that the parts issued are consistent.....................)
Separate names with a comma.