IMSLP Forums

Can someone answer this question.. Why on earth do people feel the need to create their own typeset set of parts and contribute to IMSLP when we already have the sets of parts up on most pages if not, pretty much all of every page that has a set of parts??

It's seems a complete waste of time, and space to have these sets up. Can we in future refrain or eliminate on those pages that has a typeset set of parts on it???

Misha

I mean, Vaughan Williams Thomas-Tallis that was just submitted. I know the earliest Curwen edition doesn't fulfill peoples' needs. Although I have a more current set of parts laying around here somewhere where the engraving is new. And most-likely under copyright.. I will have to check that out...

I have a suspicion that many people already had them at one point (either created them personally or were given them) when they had no access to an "official" or engraved set of parts. They may then upload them when they learn of IMSLP's existence because "why not; I have them".

My main issue with homegrown typesets when there are already established engraved editions available is it creates too much room for personal error introduced by the typesetter, and the quality standard is all over the map. In both of these regards, I think we owe it to the community to be more active in policing these user submissions because of these dangerous trends.

Another factor which may account for something like the VW parts we saw today is that such typesets are more easily read on tablet devices than scans of the printed parts. There are also a fair number of cases where we had typesets of varying quality before the scans finally appeared. Yes, there is no enforcement of the engraving guidelines which a number of folks here spent time and effort to research and post. It's kind of hard with the wide-ranging quality of the numerous arrangements and editions from the WIMA merger. The typesets that leave me shaking my head are ones made by some person who just got their new notation program so they just have to add another typeset of Bach's Prelude and Fugue No.1 from WTC. Thanks but no thanks.

At least typeset parts have measure numbers! I hope scans of already existing parts with added measure numbers are welcome.

I tend to not upload my own typesettings here, but I sometimes like to create my own parts to have it in a more malleable format. I can play with the font size, paper size, fix errors, correct page turns, add cues, add bar numbers, add in my own annotations, listen to a midi version (for reference), etc. From what I've seen many older editions of parts are pretty decent as far as including logical cues, rests, tempo markings in parts, and having good page turns (but I still tend to prefer creating my own part).

This may be unrelated to this discussion, but in my experience many current composers don't take the time to make their parts usable.

horndude77 wrote:This may be unrelated to this discussion, but in my experience many current composers don't take the time to make their parts usable.

And many current typesetters too! I often have to split a typeset score into pages, convert pages to tiff and rearrange them for good page turns.

I plead guilty to uploading typeset parts . However, I follow for myself these rules :

- I consider the work in question worthy of performance (if I change my mind about that during typesetting I won't download). Only chamber music so far.
- Parts for the work in question are either unavailable both from IMSLP or from publishers and/or the old editions are too difficult to use for musicians nowadays--lacking measure numbers and often rehearsal marks too, being printed much too tightly, containing numerous inaccuracies like too many or too few courtesy accidentals, rhythmic errors (that are easy to correct, but not while sight-reading), piano parts without the other instruments like we are used to nowadays. I imagine early 19th century players were much more used to play from hard to read parts.
- This means I generally work from either manuscript scans or early 19th century editions.
- I generally post a score (for study and for coaching) and the parts (for playing) together.
- I pay attention to the guidelines which is generally quite easy though time consuming.
- There is always a foreword in the score which explains what the source was, what shape it is in and what quality it has. The foreword also explains how corrections made during typesetting are marked (or not as the case may be) and generally a list of special cases (corrected pitches other than accidentals for example or rhythmic errors with several plausible corrections).
- Careful proofreading measure by measure and part by part.
- Finally I do everything I can to arrange for page turns. Unfortunately this is often hard to do to perfection: One has to choose between overcrowded pages and doable page turns in most music of the romantic period.

I believe that under these rules new typesets can be useful. Mine have generally between 50 and 200 downloads, so some people have at least taken a look . If anybody actually is playing the music I will never know of course.

In case some typesetters don't know this page yet: http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Typesetting_Guidelines

azumbrunn wrote:I plead guilty to uploading typeset parts [...]

I had a look at your edition of Onslow's Piano Trio Op.27. Why does each page have about a 100-kB size? Most retypeset score make about 15 kB/page. Do you print and scan the result at 600 dpi?

I noticed that too. And I tried to find out how to reduce file size--and for a while it worked (if you look at the Onslow violin sonatas you will find generally smaller files). Then I had to update my operating system and a new version of my typesetting software (musescore) came out (which has optically more pleasing results among other advantages) and I was back to megabyte size files (no matter if I export from Musescore or use the Apple trick of saving Pdf files off the "print" process; the size is identical which probably means Musescore is piggy backing on the Apple system. At this stage I gave up (I am not a techno person).

The reason I am telling this story: If you have any tips please let me know (I can't find any place I can change the "quality" of Pdf files exported from the print process). I'll take my files and reduce them and re-post them. It is amazing how many things one has a hard time to control on a computer.

Albrecht

BTW any criticism of my typesets is welcome. Especially if you find errors that spoil the music or make performance hard.

It'll help me avoid the same errors in the future. And if serious enough I'll correct the errors.

Well, this becomes a Scanning and PDF Creation Topic!

p.1 of the piano part, the "facsimile" of the cover is 2.4 MB. It could be grayscale and at a lower resolution. I don't know why p2 is also that big. Other pages are about 80 kB.

If your typesetting application has no built-in pdf converter read http://wima2.daimi.au.dk/mockup/scores/ ... HOWTO.html

We don't have a typesetting scores forum [yet]. I can send you remarks about notation if you're interested per PM.

Hurrah! I posted the question of file size on the forum of musescore.org. Turns out the problem occurs only with Mac OS, Windows and Linux do fine. They are aware of the problem and think they have a solution, but it won't be forthcoming soon.

In the mean time however a genius over at Musescore named Ron Cohen came up with a fairly simple solution which works very well. So for anybody who works with Musescore 2 (any of the sub-versions) on an Apple computer here is how to do it :

1. In Musescore Click Print from the file menu (or command P)
2. On the print window open the menu at the bottom left corner.
3. Pick "open Pdf in Preview"
4. Preview will open and the file will be displayed (i.e. the first page).
5. In Preview open the file menu and click "export Pdf"
6. Select file name and folder and save.

A cello part of 2.7 MB was shrunk to 154 kB (title page--very simple--and 12 pages of music) using this procedure and looks fine at 200% size, i.e. it will print perfectly well.

I am now able to shrink my files that are too large, but give me time; a four movement string quartet will take probably close to 2h of--rather boring--work (I have a source file for each movement for the score as well as for each part, 20 files in total. They need to be re-proofread to see if there are no problems caused by bugs or careless file handling, then each of them taken through the procedure, then the movements combined into single Pdf files, only then can they be uploaded).

P.S. Since we don't have a typesetting forum this one ought to be just fine for these things, no

Since the direction of this thread (discussion) is moving into a "Scanning and PDF creation" forum, it would be better suited in that forum now, I will move this to there...