On 18 Apr 2005, at 11:13 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
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?
Well, that's just not my experience as a copyist. When I copy for any composer, there's always quite a bit of back-and-forth about notational practice, questions going far beyond mere typography and layout. (I worked on some of Christian Wolff's music last year -- if you know what his manuscript looks like, you know the kind of questions we were dealing with.) Also, it goes without saying that if I find anything in the manuscript that is notationally unclear, or looks like a mistake, or represents nonstandard practice, I will ask about it.
This is part of the job definition for a copyist, IMO. The only difference when working with an editor is that instead of asking the composer directly, I would flag my concerns for the editor to follow up on.
- Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
