"What does a copyist do?"
Being a professional copyist, having done work for James Galway and wind
composer Roger Cichy, I've never had to edit anything that they have given
me, as I have just reset editions that have been given to me.
However, there are time when I have worked with other clients, one vocalist
in particular, who knew nothing about notation, and sent me typed-out
syllabic lyrics and note letter names, along with a CD, and I had to create
a 7-piece score (with vocals) for use as a sacred psalm. So, in that case,
it was more than just copying.
I believe it's the copyists job to catch those errors, if there are typos or
tessitura errors and such. Anyone want to revisit this discussion?
----- Original Message -----
From: "dhbailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <finale@shsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Finale] what does a copyist do?
shirling & neueweise wrote:
"From a copyist, composers generally [expect] their score to be copied
exactly as they gave it, no more and no less."
i won't say where this came from other than to mention it is from a
composer and was sent to an experienced and diligent copyist i know.
i know there are copyists that also feel this way, but i've always felt
that the copyist's most important role is to improve the performers'
relation with the music, which means in some cases slight editing and
corrections (notational standards, obvious typos/errors etc.) and in
others actually arguing points with the composer that you know to be
true, because you have spoken to dozens upon dozens of composers,
performers, copyists and musicologists and have gleaned and considered
various perspectives on notation standards, tendencies, alterations etc.
and have a braod understanding of what the norms are and when it is
pertinent to break them and when it is not.
further, in my view -- as a composer and as a copyist -- the composer is
not always the person who "knows best" about their scores exactly because
of the fact that they have spent so many months on the composition that
they cannot distance themselves from things that actually hinder a proper
rendition of the score by a performer who has not spent the same kind of
obsessive focus (tunnel vision?) on the score. (this is not a comment on
performer disengagement, that is another discussion altogether).
but i'm just one measly copyist, what do the collective you think about
all this? i'll start the list:
1. poor composer.
2.
I think that generally whenever anybody says "generally" that whatever
they say is only true in a general sense and when examined more closely it
often falls apart.
For *some* composers that original quote is true, but for many others,
they welcome the corrections that copyists can provide. And arguing
points from the perspective of a performer to help a composer clarify what
is being communicated on the printed page should, in my opinion, be
welcome by any and all composers. As long as the copyist realizes which
sort of composer he/she is dealing with and ultimately adheres to the
"client is always right (until the check clears)" mentality. Composers
need to be allowed their idiosyncracies -- otherwise what will the
musicologists of the 2200s have to argue about and write dissertations
about? ;-)
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
