Mark D. Lew wrote:
[snip]
>>And we don't
>>have the engraver's opinion as to what was done being good engraving or
>>if it was simply following a misguided editor/boss's ideas.
>>
>
> It's not clear to me that the editor is more likely to be misguided than
> the engraver.
>
Well, the editor has the option of sending the proof back to the
engraver and saying "Change this" while the engraver does not have the
option of overriding the editor. So if something we feel to be
misguided ends up in the score, I would fault the editor every time,
unless I knew that the engravers did their work and their plates went
right into the press without review.
Of course, given all the multitude of errata which have been foisted on
a trusting public by the likes of Boosey&Hawkes, the work-flow may well
be editor->engraver->printer while the idealist in me would like it to
be editor->engraver->editor->engraver-for-corrections->editor->printer.
So you may well be right, the engravers may be responsible for more
errata than I would like to accuse them of, while editors may well be
less responsible than we would like to condemn them for.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
