Coventry Variations - Second Errata

Discussion in 'The Rehearsal Room' started by Owen, Feb 24, 2004.

  1. Owen

    Owen Member

    Dear All

    a second errata for Coventry Variations has been issued. For those of you that emailed Rosehill, they should send this through to you directly.
    The changes are as follows - the odd squiggle should be a natural and the boxes have appeared next to stylised text...hopefully this makes sense!

    ERRATA 2
    The following alterations should be made to score and parts.
    Bar Correction/Alteration
    72 & 74 Insert accent to last crotchet where applicable
    80 Solo Cornet: insert p(beat 3)
    Soprano Cornet: Insertf(beat 6)
    86–88 Bass Trombone insert diminuendo on first beat
    (as at bar 83)
    89 Flugel: 5th note F not A (as Repiano Cornet)
    2nd Horn: delete # to 3rd note
    93 & 97 Percussion 1 (Xylophone): Insert §to last crotchet G
    117 Solo Cornet: insert f on beat three
    2nd Cornet: insert §to last note (A§)
    125 1st Euphonium: insert §to last note (D§)
    129 Euphoniums: should be as Baritones
    132–34 Bass Trombone: insert §to second note (E§)
    144 Bass Trombone: should read Eb Fb Db Eb
    146 Bass Trombone: insert #(F#)
    174 Bass Trombone: insert #to last note (E#)
    196 2nd Solo Cornet: insert § to C (slur from b.195 not tie)
    205 1st Baritone: insert #to 5th note (G#) in part only
    215 2nd Baritone: last quaver should be Db
    216 2nd Euphonium: insert § to first note (G§)
    287 Bass Trombone: delete #to second note (D)
    321 2nd Cornet: insert § to first quaver C
    325 2nd Cornet: insert C§ below first quaver Eb
    5th beat insert §to top part (E§)
    326 Bass Trombone: insert fff
    362 Soprano Cornet: should be a tone higher (A# G#)
    376 Soprano Cornet: should be a tone lower (G# F#)
    394 Solo Horn: delete #(E§)
    395 3rd Cornet: should read as lowest solo cornet (C Bb)
    Percussion2 (Xylophone) should be a tone lower in these bars:
    311, 313, 316, 317, 352, 354, 357, 358.
  2. MRSH

    MRSH Supporting Member

    How unbelievably shoddy is this.

    Let's wait for No.3 shall we?!?!
  3. WoodenFlugel

    WoodenFlugel Moderator Staff Member

    Thanks for putting this up....

    This errata is longer than the last one! I wonder, does it put right the dodgy notes caused by some of the previous "corrections"?

    So we've got TWO erratas - anyone care to count the total number of mistakes? I'll wager they number in the region of 50.

    ....And just two weeks before the first areas! Still I suppose it is only 4 1/2 months since the piece was announced.

    Errata No.3 due to arrive mid-April :!:

    :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
  4. Owen

    Owen Member

    I just hope for the sake of all the bands that have played this out this year that the Xylophone players noticed that they were in the wrong key in a large number of bars!!!

    The email I got from Rosehill had both Errata 1 and Errata 2 attached for completeness.
  5. Cornishwomble

    Cornishwomble Active Member

    They still haven't added the errata that says Variation 6 should be slower, damn :(
  6. traceybostwick

    traceybostwick New Member

    Thanks very much for bringing this info to the attention of everyone.

    It seems as if it should have been made public by rosehill much earlier.
  7. Moy

    Moy Active Member

    At least I now know I will not get penalised for playing the corrected horn note now....phewwwwww :wink:
  8. tim

    tim Member

    Was it prague last year that had all the errata???
  9. shedophone

    shedophone Member

    Yes it was Prague that had loads of errata (erratae, errati, erratas...?)
    We kept getting more mistakes sent right til the rehearsal before the area!

    (not that you would have noticed much :twisted: )
  10. WoodenFlugel

    WoodenFlugel Moderator Staff Member

    Promting Steve Sykes to say after his adjuication at the Midlands - "the one error they missed was "substitute the R for an L in the title"" :lol:
  11. PeterBale

    PeterBale Moderator Staff Member

    "errata" is fine, as it is already plural (one erratum, several errata) :wink:
  12. jimmythesaint

    jimmythesaint Member

    We must look on the bright side... it could have been expensive to buy, then you would really begrudge receiving errata so late on!
    Jackfield Elcock Reisen Band
    PS I could have sworn that the top Eb and Db on sop were mistakes, if they weren't, they will be next Saturday!
  13. Anglo Music Press

    Anglo Music Press Well-Known Member

    That's 'till' (see how easy it is??????) :lol:
  14. jimmythesaint

    jimmythesaint Member

    Great come back Mr Sparke!
  15. GJG

    GJG Well-Known Member

    In fairness, according to the covering note received along with the Errata sheets, It would seem that the delay has been caused not so much by Rosehill directly, rather by them having to wait for Mr. Tovey to respond with clarifications to their requests.

  16. horn1

    horn1 Member

    I know!! I can sleep easy tonight now!! :wink:
  17. jimmythesaint

    jimmythesaint Member

    In fairness, regardless of whether Mr Tovey cooperated as soon as possible or not, as publishers and suppliers, the responsiblilty falls to Rosehill.
    We were sold a faulty product, that failed to be repaired until the second attempt. (Am I speaking too soon, touch wood and all that!)
    This may seem a little harsh, but considering the price, which I do believe to be fair, would only be acceptable if we were receiving a quality and error free product.
    Sorry to go on.
    James Pearson
    Jackfield Elcock Reisen Band
  18. GJG

    GJG Well-Known Member

    I'm not disputing the fact that the quality of typesetting and proofreading in the original product release leaves a lot to be desired. Nevertheless, if it were subsequently found necessary to issue Errata sheets, and in order to do so the publisher had to seek guidance from the composer (This seems to suggest that some of the errors were possibly not typesetting errors, but existed in the original manuscript), then the publishers may not be entirely to blame for delaying the issue until answers are received from the composer.

    I am not attempting to defend the initial quality of the publication, but I am commending the publishers, if this is the case, for wanting to obtain clarification from the composer before releasing errata, instead of "taking a guess".

  19. Maestro

    Maestro Active Member

    From what Rosehill have told me Gareth, you are right to commend Rosehill for not taking any 'guesses'. I second you on this, for what it's worth.

    See you in the bar on the 20th perchance?
  20. jimmythesaint

    jimmythesaint Member

    Any clarification with the composer should have been made before publishing. My point was, that Rosehill shouldn't have published the piece in that state in the first place.

    By all means, commend them for hopefully getting it right...

    Not the first time when it was published...
    Not the second attempt when the first errata was released...
    But the third time when the 2nd errata was released!!!

    Yes, they do need a little commendation for getting it right this third time!