TromboneChat

I'd rather an institution who has struck jackpot spend that money on commissioning new works, or having editions made of music that is not already available, to expand the repertoire. And then if spending money on improving existing score, start with the awfully engraved new compositions where the musicians get the printout direct from the composer's awfully edited Finale or Sibelius file. I personally find that old 19th and early 20th century prints, although they sometimes feature dated conventions and could be improved, are still often much better edited and easier to read than many recent computer-made engravings. Yeah there's some badly-engraved old editions, but also some perfectly legible and functional, for the most part. But rarely have I played new music for orchestra that didn't have major engraving issues, missing bars, pages full of individual bar rests instead of multirests, uneven and/or confusing horizontal spacing, suboptimal density and use of the page (typically way too much white space) and illogical enharmonic spellings, let alone rhythm notation that fails to follow conventions and obscures beats, and actual note-entry mistakes, etc.

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 7:25 am I'd rather an institution who has struck jackpot spend that money on commissioning new works, or having editions made of music that is not already available, to expand the repertoire.

100% yes

And then if spending money on improving existing score, start with the awfully engraved new compositions where the musicians get the printout direct from the composer's awfully edited Finale or Sibelius file.

Aren't those generally better suited for filling in the circular filling cabinet next to the library door?

.....let alone rhythm notation that fails to follow conventions and obscures beats ....

Like I said ...

It's like... "Haven't you ever actually played music before? Or do you just listen to the beep boop sounds coming out of your Roland midi?". Just bin it.

One of our divas took the existing computer score of a standard and transposed it to the key they preferred. The 8 bar phrases had 2 bar licks repeated once, followed by the same lick applied to another chord. This Einstein puts in fore and aft bar repeats every 2 measures as an “improvement.” Everywhere. And there is a ds. It belongs in the bin. I never see garbage like this on cruise ship charts, even if they’re off a software platform. Garbage in — Garbage out.

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:22 pm Then you should be prepared for those whose bar 87 is the 23rd bar of a 41-bar multirest not to come in at their next entrance or come in wrong.

Yeah, but there should not be any 41 bar rests; those should be broken up in smaller parts, following sub phrases or natural points of musical significance to facilitate just such situations. When I edit commercial notation, regardless of ensemble, I always try to avoid longer rests than 12 bars, and only occasionally use 16 bars rests if there are no other possibilities. A practice learned the hard way.....

And of course I agree with you on orchestras spending more money on new repertoire, but I am souring up on all the lousy notation that's been handed me over the years and would want to see a change in the attitude towards note engraving and the over all editing of sheet music.

I also agree on many composers and/or arrangers being atrociously ignorant with their notation softwares, and horrendously lousy and sloppy in their layout work, but that's a subject where I also can get a little worked-up, so I will abstain from venting my opinions on that; however much I share the same experiences.

The problem is that composer ≠ engraver, right? It means that now, potentially, but it's a separate skill.

Digidog wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 1:51 pm

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:22 pm Then you should be prepared for those whose bar 87 is the 23rd bar of a 41-bar multirest not to come in at their next entrance or come in wrong.

Yeah, but there should not be any 41 bar rests; those should be broken up in smaller parts, following sub phrases or natural points of musical significance to facilitate just such situations. When I edit commercial notation, regardless of ensemble, I always try to avoid longer rests than 12 bars, and only occasionally use 16 bars rests if there are no other possibilities. A practice learned the hard way.....

Yeah that works for commercial music, but it ain't gonna work for a 55-minute symphony in most cases, or a movement in 3/4 counted in 1 with hundreds of measures, for example. There are many, many situations in orchestral music where having very frequent rehearsal marks makes very little sense and would create more problems than it would solve. The available material for the majority of the frequently-played repertoire is perfectly adequate and no problem whatsoever to read for those who regularly do that kind of playing. It's a different feel and workflow to what you're used to perhaps, but it's really not difficult to get used to it.

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 3:36 pm Yeah that works for commercial music, but it ain't gonna work for a 55-minute symphony in most cases, or a movement in 3/4 counted in 1 with hundreds of measures, for example. There are many, many situations in orchestral music where having very frequent rehearsal marks makes very little sense and would create more problems than it would solve. The available material for the majority of the frequently-played repertoire is perfectly adequate and no problem whatsoever to read for those who regularly do that kind of playing. It's a different feel and workflow to what you're used to perhaps, but it's really not difficult to get used to it.

Sure, but even for symphonic music - or long works in general - there are ways to break down long multimeasure breaks into manageable sections and portions. It's not too often I do engravings for symphony-sized orchestras, but when I do I always look for ways to break long rests into the smallest possible parts, to facilitate keeping track of the counting without making it preoccupying. It's always a balance between fragmentation and overarching coherence, and the lack thereof can be heard, and is often heard.

Though I, myself, am quite used to count and keep track, it's increasingly vexing me to sight read poorly marked up music, with often rudimentary lead lines for queing in either a musical section or my own part. It's more a matter of me being annoyed with energy and focus unnecessarily spent (or misspent) - a phenomenon I hear even with the best professional orchestras - than execution.

My general view of this, is that the quality of format and information in sheet music too often is neglected as a serious and determining factor of the over all execution and apperance of the music itself - in many cases regardless of the level of professionality and experience of the musicians of the ensemble.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 3:01 pm The problem is that composer ≠ engraver, right? It means that now, potentially, but it's a separate skill.

Yes! Too often yes....