I just read the whole reply, and I'm exhausted! Let me sum up, and then bow out of any further discussion. (I will read any replies, but bite my lip.)
Key sigs: If I were an editor, and Michael, or any composer made it clear to me that he really wants his new key sigs to go against the house style, I would say - "they don't make a bit of difference, but OK". (Unless I missed something earlier in the discussion - I still haven't the slightest idea how they can affect performance). Notice that I never argued for any of the three styles mentioned - performers see all three and read all three successfully. They don't matter, except for those concerned with consistency. If Presser brings out a composition of mine, I would not care a twit about which style they used. Here I am ONLY talking about key signature changes, nothing else. Cautionary accidentals: if I, as an editor, I would be very glad that composer Michael carefully placed cautionary accidentals. If I, as editor, found one that Michael had missed, or suggested that one he had included was unnecessary, I would hope Michael and I could discuss it reasonably. I would go along with his wishes unless I felt it caused the publishing house's output to look less than professional or made successful performance less likely. If what the composer wanted really looked, in my, the editor's, opinion, substandard, and did not help the communication of the music, at some point I would have to decide if that composer's music was worth a possible damage to my publishing house's reputation. Difference between slurs and ties is good, but I would never assume a slight difference in slurs and ties would be easily noted by a performer, and would certainly use cautionary accidentals to make the difference between slurs and ties clear, if needed. I have no problem with Grainger's use of "slow off." I just mentioned it in connection with possible pitfalls in the use of such non-standard indications. The copy I played from in the example I gave was hand copied poorly, and made the "ff" of "off:" look almost like a separate indication. (I am an excellent sight-reader. I made the mistake at the rehearsal, made a mental note of it, and then started to make the same mistake at the performance with somewhat strange results. I should have scratched it totally out at the rehearsal, as it was too oddly copied to fix.) The answer in this case was - copy clearly, or stick with "rit." It's been years since I've looked at it, but I seem to recall that Grainger's "Linconshire Posy" score has all the "louden lots" type indications, but the parts have traditional Italian replacements, which is a shame. Ray Horton (checking out of this discussion). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Finale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Do house styles override what composer wrote? > [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. > > > >>>Ray Horton wrote: > >>> > >>>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. > > > >Not at all. I was speaking specifically of key sig changes. > > Okay; I probably wrongly generalized your remarks there a bit too much, and > applied them to other things you didn't mean them to apply to, as the discussion > itself broadened. Sorry for that. > > > >I have seen > >them handled different ways in different publications, but none of the > >different ways in which they were handled makes any possible difference to > >the performance except to prevent a note-reading error, so I would, in > >general, leave it to the house style. > > I still can't agree, and feel that, in this issue, the composer should be > allowed to choose, if he or she has a clear preference. > > > >I would not assume that different > >styles of key sig changes would be mandated by the composer, anyway. > > If you were dealing with my music, your assumption would be wrong. > Knowing that, would you still say to me, "You must accept our house style, > or we won't publish the music"? > Whether I would acquiesce, I don't know; it would depend on a variety of > factors. But I feel you would not be justified in imposing this on me. > > > >They simply don't matter. > > If they don't matter, why take the trouble to impose a house style? > I take pride in doing my scores well, and have certain ways of doing them, > and the older style of key-signature changes is one of my ways. > I'm sure I can't be the only person to whom scores have an aesthetic > element, and where certain inoffensive things are done for this reason. To me, > the naturals in key-signature changes are a part of this feeling of what looks > right. > > > >Any other mannerisims, such as unusual beaming (or Grainger's "louden lots" > >in place of a crescendo), that could more effectively communicate the > >composers intent to the performer, would be, in general, left in. But I see > >no way in which the inclusion of naturals, or not, in a key sig change, or > >the placement of the naturals before or after the new key sig, would affect > >the performance of music beyond avoiding a sight-reading mistake. > > You are making judgements there about what another composer thinks matters > or not: "louden lots" matters enough to be left alone, but naturals in > key-signature changes don't, and should therefore be removed if house style > requires it. > But I think, for instance, you could make out a case that Grainger's > "louden lots" means exactly the same as "molto crescendo", and you could then > justify changing it accordingly. But I would not do so for another composer. > (If there is to be a subtle difference in meaning here, it would be entirely > subjective, depending on the way you interpret words.) > The inclusion or exclusion of the naturals changes the musical meaning no > more and no less than the use of "louden lots" or "molto crescendo". But at > least some composers care about the look of their manuscripts, too, and this > should be respected at least as long as the clarity is not compromised. > I would take a bit of convincing that the inclusion of the naturals > detracts from readability: no-one ever complains about this in Beethoven, > Chopin, Rachmaninov, Debussy (in his slightly different way), and almost any > other composer before the 20th century, and many well into the 20th century > also. > > > >For example, cautionary accidentals is a similar, but not identical, matter. > >I haven't spent a lot of time looking at great composer's mss, but I would > >imagine that, in general, cautionary accidentals don't show up a lot in > >those mss. It would be the editor's responsibility to place them where > >needed. > > Once again, I give careful thought to this, and do my own cautionaries. I > would consider constructive suggestions, but would not react favourably to > compulsory overriding of my own method. > > > >If the publisher has a "house style" in this case [cautionary accidentals] I > >suppose it would come into play, but common sense would be the better rule > >here. > > Whose common sense? > I still say: impose the house rules only if the manuscript clearly shows > that the composer hasn't paid a lot of attention to such matters. Mark Lew has > already told us (to my surprise) that there are composers like this. But please > do not override a composer's carefully-thought-out system just because it > doesn't agree with the house rule. > > > >(The other problem here is our silly use of am identical or > >nearly-identical curved line for both ties and slurs but it would take some > >doing to change that.) > > Here is another mannerism I have which no doubt violates lots of house > rules: I always make ties touch the noteheads affected (or very nearly touch > them, in difficult situations like chords with lots of seconds in them, or > accidentals getting in the way); and I always allow a perceptible space between > the end of a slur or phrase line and the noteheads affected. > There are relevant examples of tie/slur confusion in Beethoven piano > sonatas - I grew up on these, which perhaps explains why I often use them as > examples to illustrate a point. Quite often, especially in cadences, there is a > chord resolving into another chord, and some of the notes are common to both, > and are tied. Also some notes change, and their noteheads are also connected by > curved lines, but acting as slurs instead of ties. It takes a few moments of > scrutiny to work out what's going on. (Of course, you get to know the passage, > and then it's no real bother.) > In cases like this, I always separate out the notes into two voices, with > stems pointing up and down: one voice contains all the tied notes, and the other > the non-tied notes. I use the ties in the normal way; and I add the slur to the > ends of the note-stems opposite to the noteheads, rather than to the noteheads. > (In general, I always try whenever possible to avoid combining tied and struck > notes on a single note-stem. They are logically separate voices, different > rhythmically, so I think this is appropriate.) > This probably also violates some house rules; but it makes the music much > easier to read. If I am ever lucky enough to get published, I hope some editor > is not going to obliterate all my carefully-worked-out methods such as thi s of > improving clarity. There are many other devices I use to aid clarity, some > mildly idiosyncratic like this; this is just one example. > > > >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. > > ... except for those things where you've already said house style should > prevail. > You seem to be giving contrary arguments to some extent. But surely you > must either respect the composer's notation, or impose a house style. I don't > see how you can have it both ways, unles you arbitrarily decide to respect some > things and not others, based solely on your opinion about what really matters > and what doesn't. > > > >A wise editor will discuss these with the composer befroe changing anything. > > Well, I guess that is of some comfort. Perhaps I'm attributing to you a > harder-line attitude than you really have. If so, my apologies. > > > >There can be pitfalls to individuality in notation. Once, I was playing a > >lyrical euphonium solo in a hand-copied Grainger piece that had his > >indication of "slow off". As the phrase should have been tapering down, I > >misread the hand-copied two fs in "slow off" as a fortissimo - and made > >started to make a rather un-musical crescendo before I realized my mistake. > > I don't think the apologists for respecting composers' notation are > intending it to apply to a clear slip of the pen - if that is what it was, in > the sense of the "o" in "off" not being visible enough. Of course the word > "off" in this case should be indicated in a way that doesn't look like "ff" for > "fortissimo". > If the word "off" *was* clear enough, and you just misread it - well, > humans do make mistakes. But it seems an over-reaction to me to abolish the > word "off" in scores because, one in a thousand times, someone might mistake it > for "ff". > I've occasionally, in a less-than-clear score, or reading in less than > adequate light, mistaken a "p" (for "soft") for a minim. I'm not going to try > to eliminate the letter "p" from scores, though. > > > >(Shouldn't that have been above the staff? But what if the composer wanted > >it below... never mind.) > > I never said there weren't grey areas; I'm talking about a basic approach > you take to respecing the composer's carefully-worked-out notation. > > Perhaps we've got a bit bogged down in particular examples here, some of > which I admit are grey. But I think my basic view on respecting what a composer > has written is quite clear, even if you can find exceptions to it - especially > when it's obvioius that the composer has carefully thought it out, and not just > carelessly written whatever seems to come to mind for the situation. > > Regards, > Michael Edwards. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
