[Ray Horton:]
>Michael Edwards wrote:
>
>>(a) The use or non-use of naturals in key-signature changes should (in my
>>opinion) be determined by the composer (especially if he or she definitely
>>wants a particular method), and not overridden by the engraver or publisher.
>
>I have no problem seeing this as a publisher style, since it makes no
>difference to the performance.
Ray, would you then, in that case, eliminate the various mannerisms I
mentioned before that can be found in Ives, Debussy, Satie, Grainger, etc.? I
don't like the idea at all - even though those mannerisms are not ones I would
ever want to use myself.
It may seem like a small matter of musical grammar that doesn't affect the
meaning - a bit like the way more and more writers today seem to use run-on
sentences: two grammatically complete sentences joined by a comma, where a
stronger stop such as a semicolon or full-stop should be used. The meaning is
usually obvious and unchanged, but it is flawed grammar. If according to modern
standards of grammar it is now ruled to be correct, then I beg to differ, and
would not want editors changing anything I wrote like this, if I were having a
book published.
I tend to see the naturals in key-signature changes in a similar light. I
don't correct others who use the modern convention, unless they ask my opinion
or it comes up in general discussion - just I would consider it rude to
criticize someone for using run-on sentences, even though my opinion that it's
wrong is unchanged; and I don't want publishers imposing their house style on me
and insisting I do without the naturals.
>If we stuck to composer's ms variances on key sigs, we'd have to print J.S.
>Bach key sigs with flats or sharps on every possible octave as his ms's
>show on occasion.
I guess the situation is a bit difficult for older music, where notation
has changed sufficiently that older music might be difficult for modern people
to read. I suppose we have to accept standardizing there.
But surely such editions should labelled "edited by <so-and-so>", with
annotations about the changes that have been made. And, especially for
scholarly or purist use, you could have another edition that reproduces Bach's
notation exactly. And editions should be clearly marked as "updated according
to modern notational conventions" (or according to the editor's opinion about
what modern conventions are), or as giving the composer's version.
But where a composition is recent enough to be using essentially the same
conventions we understand today, mere differences of style should surely be
honoured, and a meaningless conformity to one style not imposed on everyone.
Regards,
Michael Edwards.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
