User:Richard Pascoe

Welcome to the User page of Richard Pascoe.

25th May 2018:

The Pur ti miro score is hopefully finished.

In Bar 22 and Bar 37 the two upper voices of the continuo that are part of the Suspended dominant resolve to a keyboard unison. I did experiment with a correct unison but it actually disrupted the sight-reading flow. I understood it as the F sharp rising and the B descending to the A unison. I'm not an expert but Bar 22 and Bar 37 seem correct from the point of sight-reading flow and shouldn't cause any problems.

Well I thought it would be worth a try to create a readable score and I noted that the piece now consists of sixty-four bars. I don't know about anyone else but I rarely write a piece with an odd number total for the bars. I wonder if that double bar at the beginning was really the composer's intention. I split it into two bars of 3/1 time and we end up at sixty-four. Just an observation. Probably wrong. lol

Cheers for the help.

Richard

2nd June 2018:

It will not escape notice that the Pur ti miro score could take the key signature of G major. The Russian score gave no indication of key though other parts of the score have a key signature. I think for reading purposes the absence of the key signature poses no problems. If you look at Bar 15, Bars 23 and 24, Bar 39, and Bar 61 you can see clearly the F sharps and F naturals across the staves even if the cancellation is mid-bar and on a different stave (see B61). This may be a positive thing when reading the score.

Richard

11th August 2018:

I have just realised that the fingering I used for the Louis Straebbog piano studies was for string instruments. I am a guitarist. I now know that the convention for piano fingering is above the treble stave and below the bass stave with inner placement being used in certain circumstances. However the studies are easy to read on a widescreen computer monitor even with the fingering next to the notehead. So I see no problem with leaving these studies up for the moment since the error is one of formatting rather than erroneous information.

I will attempt to create the original formatting but I don't know if it will be worth replacing the two studies that are already up. They are beginners studies and after a few plays most people will have memorized the music and any other information conveyed by the score.

regards

Richard

2nd September 2018:

I have uploaded a new version of Carcassi Study No.3 Opus 60. The minim stems were one space short from their note heads for these bars:

2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21

Sorry about that but it took going to a high zoom to spot the error. Hopefully that is the score finished.

regards

Richard

3rd September 2018:

I checked Study 1 and 2 of the Carcassi files I have uploaded and there are 5 offset/stem errors in Study 1 and 2 offset/stem errors in Study 2. I will fix those scores before I start any further studies. These are formatting errors rather than wrong notation. I will also check or reset the beams to the default.

The scores just need these fixes applied. So it will not take long. Thanks for your patience.

regards

Richard

4th September 2018:

Study One is now corrected. Study Three and Study One are now standardized with regards to the double stemmed minims attached to a beam of crotchets.

Study Two needs to be standardized to One and Three.

There are twenty-five studies in total.

regards

Richard

5th September 2018:

Sorry but I didn't spot that the second beam of bar twenty one of Study One was wrong. I checked the original and I had got it wrong. The new file I have just uploaded file for Study One should be the last. I cannot see anymore errors. I started Study One on the 22nd of July but it took getting to Study Three to form an idea of how the whole volume should be formatted. Hopefully that is Study One and Three now finalised.

regards

Richard

7th September 2018:

I had a quick check of Study No.2 Opus 60 by Carcassi to make sure the beams were at their default positions and that there were no stem/note head offset issues. Everything seems in order. So I believe that Studies one, two and three are now final. If you find any errors feel free to leave a message on my Talk Page.

regards

Richard

13th September 2018:

To avoid confusion about what is marked in the original Study Three (Opus 60) by Carcassi. The marks I am referring to are the accent marks. They are obviously accent marks because you cannot have a diminuendo hairpin and a crescendo instruction in the same place. So take bar eleven where the two marks appear. What interpretation is there other than the top mark is an accent mark and not a hairpin.

regards

Richards

17th September 2018:

I finished Study Six by Louis Streabbog today but have yet to check it. Because I had standardised studies four, five and six it became necessary to return to the first three studies and apply the new staff spacing. I also caught a wrong fingering mistake in bar fifteen of Study One. I don't play keyboards and the print was feint in the original. However I do understand passing the thumb under and passing the third finger over the thumb. So I corrected the fingering. I will check the piano fingering more carefully in the future.

Thanks for your patience. I have never done this score preparation before so it is a learning curve.

regards

Richard

26th September 2018:

There was an error in the original print score of Study No.4 (Opus 60) by Carcassi. The fingering for bar fifteen should be so the first finger takes the notes on the high E string and the second finger the notes on the B string. The erroneous fingering was playable but not desirable. The Urtext edition has the correct fingering but I have found that also has errors. So in the Urtext edition at bar twenty-two of Study No.4 the fingering is wrong. I have replaced the file with the corrected version today. Hopefully the score is finished but I will keep checking all the earlier uploads so as not to be beguiled by the wish to have finished.

regards

Richard

9th October 2018:

I have corrected the rests in Study One Opus 60 by Carcassi. I have also used the default placement for the Composer, Title, Sub-Title and Tempo text. This is now the same as the Streabbog piano studies. I will do the rests and text for the other four Carcassi studies next. Study One probably has the worst errors since that was only the third score I had tried to typeset but I will thoroughly check the others. I believe that Study One is finished and correct but please feel free to check yourself.

regards

Richard

28th March 2019:

I have added the missing Adagio mark to bar forty-eight of the Pur ti miro score. I originally left it out because it was slowing down the playback in Sibelius. Looking at the download figures I thought I had better add the mark. Sorry about the delay. A Glazunov score of the Chopin Waltz No 2 Op 64 will be done sometime in the future. In the score up at IMSLP there are a few errors. The original score has the wrong clefs for the harp just for a few bars. That is it for now though if anyone wants a Sibelius compressed XML of Pur ti miro just message me and I will upload it. Thanks for your patience.

regards

Richard

2nd April 2019:

AVID SIBELIUS 2018 MXL FILE DOWNLOAD LINK:

Pur ti miro (Score) - Monteverdi

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ssW_QaXMhq5wSV7sGu7Yi_JIF4Aibxwr

Just in case anyone wants to extract parts here is the compressed mxl format from Sibelius.

regards

Richard

3rd April 2019:

AVID SIBELIUS 2018 PROJECT FILE DOWNLOAD LINK:

Pur ti miro (Score) - Monteverdi

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YiP4SFp9rx8xd1sz6L8IKnqabYl_UnGL

For Sibelius users.

regards

Richard

16th April 2019:

REMOVED POST. Study 11 Op 63 by Louis Gobbaerts is not correct. I think I know what the problem is. Sibelius is following the rule for beaming notes that start and end on the same pitch class. Might be something to do with beaming over rests. Probably take a day or two to figure out the way to enter the correct angles for the beams.

regards

Richard

17th April 2019:

Uploaded the new correct version of Study 11 Op 63 by Louis Gobbaerts. I also found the solution to the fingering alignment in the first two bars of Study 1. It is to do with vertical alignment. A fingering column for a left hand piano chord has to have equal vertical distance between each numeral in the column. I will correct Study 1 in the next few days.

regards

Richard

18th April 2019:

Uploaded the new score of Study 1 Op 63 by Louis Gobbaerts. I had a look at the other scores and the tempo text needs to be left aligned for Studies 2. 3, 4 and 6. The rest of the studies have the tempo text aligned left. I will recheck all the scores. I will put together a correct volume eventually. I think I am better at guitar scores because that is the instrument I play. It is good practice doing scores for other instruments because you learn more about typesetting. Imagine people used to do this without computers and by hand engraving plates.

regards

Richard

24th April 2019:

I have replaced Study Two and Three of Op 63 by Louis Gobbaerts. Study Two was just a tempo mark that needed placing left. However Study Three had fingering alignment problems. I have uploaded a new PDF of Study Three which has the 1 and 4 fingering for bar two and twenty in the correct position. However the fingering 1 and 2 for bar one/two and bar nineteen/twenty is a compromise. If I allowed the Sibelius default for numeral 1 then numeral 2 ended up in the last space of the treble stave. So I chose to allow the numeral 2 to be nearer to the default position and the offset to be on the 1. Basically having the 1 numeral in the default position (Sibelius attaches it to the note) and the 2 taking the offset meant that the 2 was nowhere near its note. I think after this volume of beginner's studies is finished I will probably stick with Guitar scores and Orchestral scores. To think I was going to try typesetting Nocturne No.2 Opus 9 by Chopin - it was that piece of music that switched me onto Classical music many decades ago - I had better leave that typesetting job to a pianist.

regards

Richard

8th June 2019:

Updated link to Sibelius project for the Pur ti miro score by Monteverdi (see 3rd April 2019 entry). I have replaced the tempo text with metronome marks in bars 48 and 62. The project will now play correctly when loaded into Avid Sibelius 2018. The problem was the tempo text seemed to be set to a crotchet and also the last four bars go from a 3/1 time signature to a 4/4 time signature. Note that the metronome mark in bar 48 is set to a minim count and the metronome mark in bar 62 is set to a crotchet count.

I am not too sure if I should update the PDF score. It would make it easier for someone working from the score to use the metronome marks rather than to remember that the word Adagio applies to the minim count and Lento applies to the crotchet count. I will have a think about it and decide in the next day or two. Opinions on the matter are welcome.

regards

Richard

2nd July 2019:

Uploaded replacement for Study Three Opus 60 by Carcassi. While doing studies Nine and Ten I worked out the default spacing for the fingering for thirds so I am going through the earlier studies and formatting the fingering to the correct spaces and making sure any fingering columns are aligned. Studies One and Two are fine but Study Three had one formatting problem which was the fingering for the A sharp of bar six needed to be moved right. It was in the end of the preceding bar due to the accidental. That has now been fixed. I have checked the other Carcassi studies and there are only two which need the fingering readjusted. I also will do the Fernando Study. I have nearly finished Study Ten Opus 60 by Carcassi but I am going to fix the existing issues in the earlier scores before uploading that. We are talking minor formatting and the scores are correct but since the aim is to complete all twenty-five studies it seems prudent to get the formatting right on the early studies first.

regards

Richard

3rd July 2019:

Uploaded replacement for Study Three Opus 60 by Carcassi. The previous formatting issue which needed to be fixed caused a formatting issue in the preceding bar which was not there originally. The position mark for bar five needed extending after the fix to bar six. This should be the final edit. I cannot see any other issues. Thanks for your patience.

regards

Richard

6th July 2019:

Uploaded replacement for Study Six (Opus 60) by Carcassi. I managed to format the fingering so that readability is improved. However for bar eleven and bar twenty-four it was not possible to arrange the fingering in columns without disassociation or without placing the fingerings to the right of their respective notes. All my Carcassi studies are with left alignment for the fingerings and bar eleven and twenty-four follow that format.

regards

Richard

9th July 2019:

The image below is of bars nine to twelve (one stave) from Study No.3 (Opus 31) by Sor. This is to explain why I have chosen not to center align the fingering for thirds.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wKvfIlTCHqDhJ1gOfCL0Q1s-j5Hrd_AW

As you can see the readability of the piece is made more difficult by the lack of separation between the fingerings. So I have offset the fingering by a quarter space for thirds on the basis that a half space is the Sibelius default magnetic layout separation value for fingering columns. It is rare in guitar music to see four fingerings given for a chord though it is common to see triads consisting of thirds with fingering. With a triad I can allow the middle note fingering to be centered and the outer fingerings can take the quarter space offset.

regards

Richard

15th July 2019:

Uploaded the new and final version of Study No.1 Opus 63 by Jean Louis Gobbaerts. The changes are so slight but I feel as though the score looks better. The alginment of the fingering was just one or two clicks. The dynamic marks are better with their new positions. Here are the changes:

fingering for bars one, two and seventeen aligned, dynamic marks repositioned for bars seven, nine and twenty-three

This is not to say that every fingering in bar one was aligned incorrectly but the ledger line of the first note in the treble stave had pushed the fingering away from its default position. So just small changes like that really.

regards

Richard

18th July 2019:

Just uploaded Study No.6 (Opus 63) by Gobbaerts. I mentioned in the post above that Study No.1 by Gobbaerts was the final version but I forgot to optimize the score. So I have optimized and Sibelius automatically widened the space between the braced staves. Also Study No.5 needs further correcting so the X axis of the fingering is standard. In my haste to ensure the Y axis was correct I have a few fingerings with a wrong X axis.

So at the moment I believe Study No.6 and Study No.3 from Opus 63 by Gobbaerts to be the final versions. So total so far - seven Carcassi studies finished and two Gobbaerts studies finished. One Carcassi study to be reviewed and ten Gobbaerts studies to be reviewed. When all are correct I will have a look at the Pur ti miro score. In all honesty it is not a commitment I envisaged taking years. Actually I predictied a year to finish the Carcassi studies.

regards

Richard

28th July 2019:

Just uploaded a new replecement score for Study No,2 Op.63 by Gobbaerts with just one change in bar twenty-one where the highest fingering was displaced. So I corrected the placement. However the score has not updated and the old pdf is still available. Once that has been replaced that will only leave Study No.4 and Study No.1 to finish. The reason I mentioned this is because the change is so small in Study No.2 that I am concerned that an administrator here may not see it or consider it important. It is important because the standards I set with these studies will be the ones I will use for other studies. So if any administrator reads this please update the score to the new pdf.

thanks

Richard

6th August 2019:

Thanks admin for updating Study No.2 Op.63 by Gobbaerts. Study 4 is finished and updated. Took a while to finish Op.63 but it was good typesetting practice. Here is an explanation of some formatting decisions:

Indented first bar - my view on this is why bother if the scores are individual PDF files. The indent is related to print material and the need to locate individual scores or sections in a volume. There is no point in binding all the Opus 63 scores into a single PDF because we are not dealing with printed material.

White space below the last stave - it is common practice in printed scores to ensure that there is no white space below the bottom of the last stave. So a two page piano study in a printed volume occupies all the space by widening the distance betweens systems. I cannot see any reason to follow that with a PDF that is more likely to be played off the computer screen.

These formatting decisons only apply to these short studies which are easy to read off a computer screen. For a PDF volume of studies the indent and white space might be the way to go. Just thought I would mention those two formatting changes for anyone who is interested.

regards

Richard

8th February 2020:

A note about Study 12 Opus 60 by Carcassi. I have moved the hairpins below the stave for three bars whereas in the Urtext and Boije they are above. The reason is because the notes are double-stemmed. A hairpin cannot be used in this study for just the Soprano voice because melody notes are double-stemmed to bass notes. If this was the intention of the composer or editor then they would have to somehow indicate which bass notes are not subject to the hairpin. If you look at the three bars in the Urtext and Boije where the hairpin is above the bar there has been no attempt to indicate that the hairpins only apply to the highest note and sometimes they start and end on a bass note.

I saw no reason to have the hairpins for those three bars above the stave. Take for example bar thirteen which has a hairpin for the first beat. The E and G of the first beat of bar thirteen are repeated in beat two which has no hairpin. So if the intention was to decrease the volume for just the single note in the Soprano - the D on the second semiquaver of the first beat - it would be pointless to draw a hairpin over all four semiquavers of beat one of bar thirteen. So the hairpin must apply to all the notes and therefore can go underneath.

Just wanted to explain this issue because I have changed the position of these hairpins and maybe someone will wonder why that decision was made.

regards

Richard

31st March 2020:

I was reading a forum conversation at Piano Street about the tempo markings given in modern editions of the sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti. One user said that editors who added tempo marks should give the reason or source for their decision. I realised that I added a metronome mark to my score of "Pur ti miro" by Monteverdi while the original score used the tempo word "andante". So for future reference my metronome mark was based on the Jaroussky and De Niese live performance video on the YouTube channel "Dynamic opera and classical music". I don't know if this information will prove useful but I thought I would add it so others can check the source for my metronome mark.

regards

Richard