CV - Further suspected Errata

[GJG]

Despite assertions to the contrary, I remain unconvinced that all of the errors in the Score/Parts of "Coventry Variations" have been fully identified/corrected.

For the benefit of anyone who may be interested, here is a copy of an e-mail I sent to Rosehill Music earlier today; I believe some of the errors to be self-evident; others are more a case of "suspicious inconsistencies"

I make no claim that the list is in any way authoritative, and I await clarification from the publisher.

"Dear Sirs,

Further to the issue of Errata sheets 1 & 2 for "Coventry Variations", I have discovered further apparent errors/inconsistencies in the score; I would be grateful if you could advise on the following:

Bar 51: Should not the Euph.'s also have a diminuendo starting on beat 2, in line with horns/bari.'s ?

Bars 52-54: there are inconsistencies between Rep./2nd/3rd Cornets re: staccato markings; should not all parts have uniform stacc. on first & last quavers of each bar ?

Bar 80: Is Soprano really supposed to be still fortissimo on the first quaver of the bar, when all other parts are subito piano ?

Bars 156-172: Cornets & Trombones; in order for these chordal passages to be consistent, should not the following notes on Solo Cornet be 'A's and not 'G's?
i) Bar 160: 3rd quaver
ii) Bar 168: 3rd quaver

Bar 215: 2nd Cornet (part only) - upper part on divisi, dotted crotchet on 4th quaver should be 'Gb' not 'F' ?

Bar 223: Solo Cornet, lower part on divisi should descend to 2nd line 'Gb', not jump to unison high 'Gb' ?

Bar 321: 1st quaver - Since lower divisi 2nd Cornet has been corrected to 'C' natural, should not 1st Horn also be corrected to 'G' natural ?

Bar 321: Should not 1st Trombone Gliss. begin on 'E' flat, not 'E' natural, in order to be, i) consistent with Solo Cornet (1), and, ii) consistent with Bar 325 ?

Bar 325: Again, for reasons of consistency, should not 1st & 2nd Horns have quaver 'Gb' and 'Eb' respectively on first quaver of bar, in line with Bar 321 (and in line with lower cornets in 325) ?



Many thanks for your time and patience.

Gareth"

 

[WoodenFlugel]

I totally understand what your saying here, but I think maybe it's time to move on, as someone else has said on another thread "lets start finding the music". Bearing in mind that the first Areas are uuuummmm 4 days away, I don't think Rosehill will respond in any other way than "well, it's been checked twice now so it all the erroros wil have been found".

I just hope that all publishers, and Rosehill in particular have learnt something from the way this whole errata thing has been dealt with.

Then again I can live in hope I suppose....... :roll:

 

[WoodenFlugel]

I don't think Rosehill will respond in any other way than "well, it's been checked twice now so it all the erroros wil have been found".

....do you see how easy it is......... :roll:

 

[GJG]

I don't think Rosehill will respond in any other way than "well, it's been checked twice now so it all the errors wil have been found

I don't think it has been comprehensively checked at all, let alone twice; as far as I can see, Rosehill have simply responded on a case-by-case basis to individual queries raised by persons such as myself. That's why I believe we have to continue pressing for corrections to be confirmed.

I seem to recall Errata for "Prague" being issued virtually up to the day before the Contest.

G.

 

[WoodenFlugel]

I don't think Rosehill will respond in any other way than "well, it's been checked twice now so it all the errors wil have been found

I don't think it has been comprehensively checked at all, let alone twice; as far as I can see, Rosehill have simply responded on a case-by-case basis to individual queries raised by persons such as myself. That's why I believe we have to continue pressing for corrections to be confirmed.

I seem to recall Errata for "Prague" being issued virtually up to the day before the Contest.

G.

OK OK I agree with you on that point. This whole thing has been dealt with badly by Rosehill (IMHO). What I'm trying to say is that CV is a fantastic piece, marred, in this instance by silly and unneccassary cock-ups. I still find it hard to believe that a) the first errata only came out a few weeks ago and b) even that was wrong!

But "our" Area is on Saturday. Can you imagine the farore that yet another errata so close to the contest would cause? It's unfair on the bands that have to play this weekend to change things now, and in the interest of a level playing field I would hope that Rosehill would not publish any more erratas. Lets all play the piece to the same erratas, whether that is how Bram Tovey intended the thing to sound or not.

It will be interesting to hear and read the adjudicators comments on Saturday night, but bearing in mind the score notes about re-writing parts I would play safe and play what the copies say!

 

[bassinthebathroom]

I seem to recall Errata for "Prague" being issued virtually up to the day before the Contest.

Not that you'd notice the difference anyway!

 

[Tuba Miriam]

It's unfair on the bands that have to play this weekend to change things now, and in the interest of a level playing field I would hope that Rosehill would not publish any more erratas. Lets all play the piece to the same erratas, whether that is how Bram Tovey intended the thing to sound or not.

The whole fiasco over the CV errata presents a dilemma: on the one hand I agree that it's very difficult for bands to have to cope with errata sheets being published up to (and possibly after!) the date of the contest, but what about musical integrity? Bram Tovey has given a directive to adjudicators saying that bands who change the score should be penalised; this means bands will have to play the piece knowing certain passages to be incorrect. This creates an even greater musical imperative, therefore, to issue further errata if, and when, they become available.

I don't know, maybe the issuance of further errata sheets should be withheld until after the first areas this weekend, in the interests of a level playing field at those area contests. But, theoretically, how can withholding errata sheets be musically justified?

Perhaps it's just evidence that contesting has only a passing association with music making.

 

[JamesResurgam]

Dear Gareth “Sherlock” Green,

I agree totally with your findings, and made the changes a few weeks ago. I think we’ve made the level of the playing pitch as benign as possible; good luck to all the batsmen, especially those in Yorkshire this weekend. Remember the Headingley slope, and watch for the cracks in the pitch.

I’m thoroughly enjoying the music, and good luck to all the bands in Scotland; may your horn blow true and rhythmic.

Gareth, I can see you ending up an old fart like me; we need to get out more. Good luck with your area.

Dafydd ap Iago

P.S. Rosehill will love you more than me, I’m jealous. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[jimmythesaint]

Despite assertions to the contrary, I remain unconvinced that all of the errors in the Score/Parts of "Coventry Variations" have been fully identified/corrected.

"

Whilst I am disgusted that this problem is still not resolved by Rosehill, it makes me feel better following my rant and rave previously! :x

Good luck to all and I hope we get everything resolved :wink:
James Pearson
Jackfield Elcock Reisen Band