The Perfect Fool (1st section finals) - Corrections?

[winterman]

Our copy of Perfect Fool arrived yesterday (despite Royal Mails best efforts to destroy almost the entire packaging and slight water damage to the contents, they did bag it up with an apology though). Can anyone tell me how many copies of the Solo Cornet part there should be, 3 or 4? We need to know for the possible compensation claim against Royal Mail.

Have just spoken to Band Supplies and they have told me that the score is officially wrong and that a new one will be being sent out (when we don't know).

From a very quick look through the parts last night it looks like the Cornets and Percussion are in for an interesting time, leaving the rest of us to count many repetious bars of quavers and sort out the odd niggly run here and there, but as I say that is a quick flick through to check for damage mainly.

 

[stotty74]

Can anyone tell me how many copies of the Solo Cornet part there should be, 3 or 4? We need to know for the possible compensation claim against Royal Mail.Have just spoken to Band Supplies and they have told me that the score is officially wrong and that a new one will be being sent out (when we don't know).

Ours also had just the 3 copies, so no chance there. So, does this mean that as we're not allowed to copy parts, every band in the 1st Section will have to order an extra Solo Cornet part, despite the fact that we have already payed for a full set which, forgive my ignorance if i'm wrong, usually means 4 Solo Cornet parts for the 4 Solo Cornets that usually make up the standard brass band in Britain?!?!?
Don't suppose they mentioned anything about the parts being incorrect? I know mistakes can happen, but with the amount of errors we spotted last night and i'm sure others will spot more aswell, then will there be a reprint? Has this ever been done before?



From a very quick look through the parts last night it looks like the Cornets and Percussion are in for an interesting time, leaving the rest of us to count many repetious bars of quavers and sort out the odd niggly run here and there, but as I say that is a quick flick through to check for damage mainly

 

[winterman]

Ours also had just the 3 copies, so no chance there. So, does this mean that as we're not allowed to copy parts, every band in the 1st Section will have to order an extra Solo Cornet part, despite the fact that we have already payed for a full set which, forgive my ignorance if i'm wrong, usually means 4 Solo Cornet parts for the 4 Solo Cornets that usually make up the standard brass band in Britain?!?!?

Thanks for that, will ring the publishers and enquire on that one.

Don't suppose they mentioned anything about the parts being incorrect? I know mistakes can happen, but with the amount of errors we spotted last night and i'm sure others will spot more aswell, then will there be a reprint? Has this ever been done before?

No mention of the parts being incorrect, but based on pretty much every test piece I have ever played we can be sure there will be a fair few and some may only come to light a couple of days before the contest.

 

[brassneck]

Just been reading the last few posts and I cannot believe after all the criticism thrown at publishers regarding errata during the last few years that they are not getting their proof-reading sorted out. Bands should get together and file a claim for the inconvenience caused! (... rant over)

 

[winterman]

Had it confirmed today that BOTH the score AND the parts are quite badly wrong in places. Apparently they are going to be sending out the new parts and score in the next week or so.

What gets me is how the parts and the score can be wrong in so many different ways, surely using the modern engraving packages a professional publisher would be producing the parts automatically from the score so at least they match up and save them the time of reproducing each part individually.

 

[winterman]

Well, the new score and parts have arrived.

The Soprano solo is now complete on the score and we recieved new copies of all 3 (Solo, 1st & 2nd) Horn parts and still only 3 copies of the revised Solo Cornet part (1 very wonky copy from dodgy photocopying). No others as yet, but who knows what we'll find.

As a side note, if you think you have what it takes to help us find the errors and put them right before the Nationals whilst waving a little white stick then check out http://www.themouthpiece.com/vb/showthread.php?t=22194

 

[Northants_tuba]

I am enjoying putting the majority of the dynamics for Perfect Fool onto the BBb Bass part as it has very little dynamic contast compared to the Eb bass part but at least I wont have to write on my part as i wont be able to through the erratas i need to put in, i also found a nice part in the BBb 7/8 bars with some lovely questionable notes but its all good

 

[colin.moody]

Not only are there numerous errors on the parts, as expected, but comparing to the original (out of print) hand written parts there has also been some re-arranging!! Solo cornet lines have been moved on to back row and flugel (there may be others). Was this done by Major Parkes, or just at the request of the music panel? There has been a lot of tmp discussion regarding bands making 'rearrangements' to test pieces in order to get the best performance on the contest stage. The suggestion of many was that any deviation from the composers intention should be banned. So now we have a publishing company altering a score in order to make an existing piece of music harder?? Am I getting the wrong end of the stick here, or should Chandos really not have done this?

 

[you-ff]

Hi all,

Is anybody aware of a definitive list of corrections to The Perfect Fool? It seems that the haste to publish a score and set of parts has generated the usual number of proofing and/or printing errors. Of course half of the fun (?) of rehearsing a new test piece is to second-guess the corrections

Perhaps you kind folk could help collate a set of mistakes? Stuff like "bar 33, bass, euph and bari should be unison so the Eb semiquaver in bari part should be an E natural"?

 

[WoodenFlugel]

Hi all,

Is anybody aware of a definitive list of corrections to The Perfect Fool? It seems that the haste to publish a score and set of parts has generated the usual number of proofing and/or printing errors. Of course half of the fun (?) of rehearsing a new test piece is to second-guess the corrections

Perhaps you kind folk could help collate a set of mistakes? Stuff like "bar 33, bass, euph and bari should be unison so the Eb semiquaver in bari part should be an E natural"?

Hi you-ff and :hi to tMP.

As there were already a number of posts about the errors in the score and parts for The Perfect Fool, I've merged you-ff's thread and the posts together. I hope this thread makes some sort of sense still! :redface:

I haven't seen an official errata on here, or any sort of post listing (or attempting to list) all the errors, so maybe anyone due to play this piece in Harrogate might want to put their queries here. Also if anyone is sent an official errata, please feel free to post it here, for the benefit of everyone in the 1st section at Harrogate.

Any other (non-errata) comments or questions should be posted in this thread.

Thanks.

Ian

 

[backrowbloke]

Just done 2 rehearsal on this & I've got to say that the quality of the parts (as in the number of errors) is shcoking - probably the worst that I've ever experienced.
I can understand a few minor mistakes gettign through, but the sheer number / variety / glaring errors in IMHO unacceptable. It appears not only wrong notes but whole sections (horns at end for example) missing ?
Do we have any comeback on the publishers for this?

 

[Sir_Threepwood]

I simply don't get it why bands are not claiming full price back. We've done it once and it worked. You would bring back or claim price reduction for every other gadget or product being defective. Why note handle flawed sheets the same way?