Volunteer for a One-Off Proofread of a Typeset Score?

[GenericType]

Hello IMSLP community,

I recently worked on this piece, at the piano:

https://imslp.org/wiki/Ballade_et_Danse ... ,_Joachim)

However, I found the IMSLP scan somewhat unclear to work with, especially when viewing the differences between sharps and naturals, at first glance.

My solution was to type up the entire score on MuseScore––which took quite a number of hours––where I tried to keep close fidelity to the original score.

Now that I’ve done so, I figure I might as well share the score with others, and hopefully help out other people who'd like a clear clean score. And so I’d like to freely distribute my typeset copy on IMSLP.

But before I upload the score to IMSLP, might anyone be able to go through it page by page and check for any mistakes or deviations I've made from the original score? I've been looking at it so long that a fresh pair of eyes would make a big difference.

If there is anyone kind enough to volunteer, could you please let me know?:

- The part (piano + flute pdf, or just the flute pdf)
- The bar number
- What the mistake/difference is

You can find the draft piano part here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jzb8VE ... lrobhp_ba/

And the draft flute part here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15IsHCE ... z0ntLaAqR/

Thank you.

[coulonnus]

I will proofread both parts but give me a week or so to do it carefully

[coulonnus]

The Sibley-Rochester project has a probably better scan: https://urresearch.rochester.edu/instit ... emId=11008

[GenericType]

I will proofread both parts but give me a week or so to do it carefully

Thanks! That's very kind. I appreciate the time it'll take you.

The Sibley-Rochester project has a probably better scan: https://urresearch.rochester.edu/instit ... emId=11008

That's certainly a far clearer scan, and I wish I had that one to work with, initially. It's great you found it.

That said, if you're still happy to proofread, I myself am happy to engage in a 'sunk cost fallacy' and finish off my typeset version for a couple of reasons:

- I've already completed the typesetting.

- I'm going to make the engraving file publicly available so that others can alter, correct, fix, update, or reformat it as they see fit.

It looks like you've already uploaded the Sibley-Rochester version onto IMSLP now, so I'm glad that visitors will get a chance to see and download that clearer version in future.

[coulonnus]

Note the the Sibley piano part misses pp. 4-5. I tried a message to them.

[coulonnus]

I am aware such messages look in a very unpleasant tone to whoever is not familiar with this proofreading job

meas. 33: review vertical alignments.

meas. 4: 2nd beam 1st note, put a natural.

meas. 45: rh: low voice, penultimate note should be E sharp.

meas. 46: some publishers had a stupid habit: when a double sharp is followed by a simple sharp they would put an unnecessary natural before this one.
This dates probably from when accidentals where invented because you would use a flat to cancel a sharp instead of a natural. Same, meas. 215

meas. 65: lh last chord misses a F

meas. 293 and 295: flute: 1st note: the flat is unnecessary:

meas. 309: review rh.

meas. 338, flute: misses cresc.

meas. 375, flute: 1st note wants a natural.

mes. 404, 405: beams accross measures mean something for the phrasing. Is it possible to expand the last beam of meas. 404 beyond the bar and that of meas. 405 before the beginning of this bar?

bar. 493: lower part wants a natural.

Flute, meas. 345-347: change cres into cre.

Flute part, in general: The source had a cover, putting rests for convenient page turns at the bottom if even pages. However prints your part in booklet will obtain nasty page turns. So either add a cover page of put page turns at convenient places.

[GenericType]

Fantastic. Thanks for that.

I am aware such messages look in a very unpleasant tone to whoever is not familiar with this proofreading job

Haha no worries. You being straight to the point means I can read it easily and check off each thing you say.

meas. 4: 2nd beam 1st note, put a natural.

Could I ask you to clarify this? I'm guessing it's not a reference to measure 4, but forty-something, but I still can't figure out which one.

meas. 293 and 295: flute: 1st note: the flat is unnecessary:

That's true. I think I'll keep it for now simply because the original has it.

mes. 404, 405: beams accross measures mean something for the phrasing. Is it possible to expand the last beam of meas. 404 beyond the bar and that of meas. 405 before the beginning of this bar?

Last I checked, it's technically not natively possible in MuseScore, but there is a way to 'fake' it by literally drawing a line, which you might notice I did in bars 337-338. I've done the same for bars 404 and 405 now.

bar. 493: lower part wants a natural.

Are you talking about the G in the flute part? If so, I've fixed that now.

Flute part, in general: The source had a cover, putting rests for convenient page turns at the bottom if even pages. However prints your part in booklet will obtain nasty page turns. So either add a cover page of put page turns at convenient places.

I see what you mean about the page turns. I'll add a basic cover page, and leave it to the discretion of whoever uses the Flute pdf to make sure it's printed or displayed optimally for page turns. For now, I'm going to leave the page turns as they are, to match the original.



Everything else you mentioned, I've fixed now, and have fixed some other things. Thanks again for your time. Once I get your clarification on a couple of things, I'll treat this as ready to publish on IMSLP.

[coulonnus]

meas. 4: 2nd beam 1st note, put a natural.

Could I ask you to clarify this? I'm guessing it's not a reference to measure 4, but forty-something, but I still can't figure out which one.

Sorry it is Flute meas. 44! I should proofread myself:-)

[coulonnus]

Sorry it is Flute meas. 44! I should proofread myself:-)

In the complete Score. The flute part is OK.

[coulonnus]

bar 493: should be bar 495.

[coulonnus]

meas. 293 and 295: flute: 1st note: the flat is unnecessary:

That's true. I think I'll keep it for now simply because the original has it.

I think you should adhere to nowaday's engraving rules. Otherwise why not draw quarter rests as mirrored eighth rests and other archaisms?

[coulonnus]

Are you aware of the Billaudot 1983 edition?

[GenericType]

Sorry it is Flute meas. 44! I should proofread myself:-)

In the complete Score. The flute part is OK.

Cheers. Fixed now.

bar 493: should be bar 495.

Gotcha. Fixed now too.

meas. 293 and 295: flute: 1st note: the flat is unnecessary:

That's true. I think I'll keep it for now simply because the original has it.

I think you should adhere to nowaday's engraving rules. Otherwise why not draw quarter rests as mirrored eighth rests and other archaisms?

That's certainly a subjective decision by me, yes.

The biggest change I made is indeed probably changing the old style of crotchet rests to the modern way. That's a personal decision as I find that style of crotchet rest more straightforward to read. I suspect that's a common preference for others too.

There are other things I could probably change from the original typeset version:

For example, the standalone flute score compared to the piano + flute score spells some chromatic runs enharmonically. They are ultimately the same notes, but for some reason are written inconsistently, in different ways between parts.

Another example: Many beaming decisions by the original engraver seem internally inconsistent.

I could theoretically decide to 'fix' several aspects of the original version, or update them. But I won't for now. I'll treat the original as a baseline and leave it to others to alter in future if they like. That's part of why I want to make the engraving files available for others to reformat as they see fit.

Perhaps I'll change my mind and change things myself in future. Or someone else can create their own altered version for IMSLP. That's perfectly fine with me too.

As such, I don't think I'll remove the unnecessary sharps or flats from tied notes. I'm happy to regard them as serving a similar function to 'courtesy' accidentals, plenty of which are present elsewhere in this score.

In any case, thanks again for your proofreading. I aim to upload the pdfs + engraving files to IMSLP soon, with the hope that it helps out others.

I've changed my mind about adding a title page to the standalone flute score. For now, I'll leave it to the discretion and intelligence of the flute player to optimise for page turns.

Are you aware of the Billaudot 1983 edition?

I'm not familiar with it, no.

[coulonnus]

Thanks. I'm glad not to be the only imslp typeset-score contributor!