>(The other problem here is our silly use of am identical ornearly-identical curved line for both ties and slurs but it would take some doing to change that.)
Huh? When a curved line connects two identical notes, it's a tie. When it connects two different notes, it's a slur. It always indicates no new attack. So what's the problem?
>Anyway, back to the subject, I agree that composer's idiosyncracies should,in general, be left in, especially if they help the performer in interpretation.
Certainly. But if idiosyncracies leave the performer confused, they clearly have to be explained, just as many baroque keyboard composers included tables of what THEIR use of ornamental signs meant.
>A wise editor will discuss these with the composer befroe changing anything.
Which is exactly what an apparently wise editor already explained to us.
If I might suggest a rather naive answer to the question posed in the subject line, the composer provides content, on which his or her reputation is based; the publisher provides format, on which its reputation is based. What the individual composer considers to be content should certainly be a matter of negotiation for both a wise editor and a wise composer.
John
-- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
