Transposing /concert pitch, Sounds wrong to me.. and drives me mad Options

[Splog]

With modern publishing techniques there is really no excuse to carry on doing this. Surely it's an offence under the Trade Descriptions act? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

To answer that seriously, I don't think so. The correct solo part is included, and the approach of scoring the original instrument in the accompaniment has precedents going back at least as far as the first editions of these pieces. In the case of a scholarly urtext edition, having the original to cross-reference with the commentary can be essential.

Only semi-serious question, and maybe I'm just being thick, but what's wrong with saying "originally written for clarinet in C" plus any other information which may be of use, on the back of the sheet music.

In answer to HanonMum's original question, yes this would irritate me.... Especially if it's an exam piece.

[owainsutton]

To answer that seriously, I don't think so. The correct solo part is included, and the approach of scoring the original instrument in the accompaniment has precedents going back at least as far as the first editions of these pieces. In the case of a scholarly urtext edition, having the original to cross-reference with the commentary can be essential.

Only semi-serious question, and maybe I'm just being thick, but what's wrong with saying "originally written for clarinet in C" plus any other information which may be of use, on the back of the sheet music.

One example of how this may be a problem: when considering how to realise ornaments, for example, being able to see the original context can be important.

[sbhoa]

With modern publishing techniques there is really no excuse to carry on doing this. Surely it's an offence under the Trade Descriptions act? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

To answer that seriously, I don't think so. The correct solo part is included, and the approach of scoring the original instrument in the accompaniment has precedents going back at least as far as the first editions of these pieces. In the case of a scholarly urtext edition, having the original to cross-reference with the commentary can be essential.

Only semi-serious question, and maybe I'm just being thick, but what's wrong with saying "originally written for clarinet in C" plus any other information which may be of use, on the back of the sheet music.

In answer to HanonMum's original question, yes this would irritate me.... Especially if it's an exam piece.

Or Clarinet in A....... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/clarinet.gif)

[HanonMum]

Just re-read all of this. You have bought a piece of music which claims to be for violin and piano, yet the piano part does not have the violin melody above the piano part. It has the same melody in another key for a different instrument? That sounds like a fairly major publishing error to me. No wonder you are getting annoyed with it. I would complain to the publishers.

Exactement! (as Poirot would say) That was my initial reaction when I discovered the different keys in the piano part. I felt I was cheated! I did contact the publisher, who was very quick at replying to me. The latest was that it was suggested I should return the music to the retailer, who will then contact the publisher to sort it out. The retailer replied to me quickly, checked all the stock, and confirmed to me " that's the way it is, stick to transposing" The publisher and the retailer were both helpful in a way, responding to me very very quickly,but the conclusion I have drawn is - I have to stick to transposing, and learn not to get annoyed while I accompany my violin daughter.

I see valid comments here that value of having "original" part to see ornament realisation, etc.

My original question, though - why I find disconcerting may be, indeed to do with my limited "pitch-training" with piano, and only used to treble and bass cleff, and I am set in my thinking. I'm glad to know that I am not the only one with this problem though!