On Apr 17, 2005, at 4:33 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 17 Apr 2005 at 11:43, Andrew Stiller wrote:
With a concert-pitch score, the copyist will need to exercise more initiative than usual in deciding clef change issues, because quite obviously instruments with big transpositions will have parts that lie entirely differently on the staff in the part than in the score.
I don't quite understand the distinction between "engraver" and "copyist" inherent in your discussion.
In these days of Finale, isn't the engraver of the score the same as the "copyist" of the parts? Is it not the case that the engraver of both then has to act as editor and create parts that are most likely to produce the best performance with the least amount of confusion? Why shouldn't the conductor get the same consideration as the performers?
While it is perfectly true that the line between copyist and engraver has vanished, I don't see how that affects my analysis. If I am a copyist/engraver, and a composer hands me an MS to engrave and extract parts from, my job (unless instructed further) is to put all the provided notational elements into Finale, changing nothing but typography and layout (broadly defined). Same goes for the parts, except inasmuch as a transposition may have to be provided if the score is in concert pitch.
Where's the problem?
Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
