Honda Needs a Tune-Up (2008)

The author of this article transcribed the initial part of the melody incorrectly in the graphic.

The initial rhythms of the melody shown in the graphic are short long long. But the rhythm at the beginning of that melody should be short short long. It's an orchestra playing the literal rhythm of a horse galloping. Even Honda got that part right!

It looks like the author tried to paper over the error by writing the word "schematic" in parentheses in the graphic title. That's not a musical term-- closest would probably be "reduction" or "simplified". But unless transcribing for an instrument that cannot perform fast repeated notes, there's no good reason to change those rhythms. Alternatively, one could take out the consecutive repeated notes (and barlines) if the point is to just show the basic profile of the melody (in which case the discrepancy between the original version and Honda version would be clearer).

I'm being nitpicky, sure. But let's review:

1. the music was incorrectly transcribed

2. engineering jargon was used to explain away the incorrect music

3. we frown on transcription errors because they can quickly (and permanently) propagate further down in a project

Wait, am I talking about about Honda, or the author here?

"I got news for you, you can both do better! Yuck yuck yuck." --some relevant Catskills comedian from a bygone era

Edit: clarification, also I am available for hire for corporate musical fiasco PR