1
General Discussion / Re: Seeking arranger for new musical
a) Beaming is wrong at a number of places (which is of course not ok, because it kills the visual representation of beats); one example is on p.1066, but there are at least 10 more. In arrangements of mine, I would, for a final run, remove all beams for all notes; and let NWC rebeam them (Alt-T-B). But this will produce un-nice beams at some places which would have to be modified manually each time one does that - which I mark with my EditMark.hmm objects so that I can find them later (one can also use a "remark" staff that is never printed, or things alike).
b) Also, stem orientation is sometimes inconsistent. That's much less of a problem than a), but if it happens inside a measure (which I saw), it also makes quick recognition of identical notes harder, especially with octaves (which I saw differently oriented at places) or chords.
c) In the very last piece, "Curtain Call", too much is wrong:
c1) There are no instruments;
c2) only the piano and whatever is above it (cimbalon?) are notated in the "key" of c flat, although all the e-flats are then all "naturalized".
c3) In the line above (vibraphone?), what is notated as a-sharp and g-sharp should be b-flat and a-flat. Similar problems are in the viola(?) and the second instrument from above.
c4) In the violin(?), in the 4th measure, the notated d-sharp should be an e-flat; likewise, in the clarinet(?) above, e-sharp should be f-flat.
c5) "poco a poco (tempo)" makes no sense. Is it "poco a poco accel."? and is the indicated tempo the start tempo? - "poco a poco accel. from (tempo)" would make more sense to me.
Although I have millions of things to do, it's itching me to give this a try. I'd like to have the NWC files for it, for running various tools (like my RangePitchMarker.hmm for range and note tests); or maybe some heuristics for enharmonics spelling checking (like c3) and c4) above).
d) You would have to create another few hundred pages of voices for this. Do you have a plan (organization and NWC-wise) for that?
I'll crazily think about it ...
H.M.