Johannes Gebauer wrote: JG> I haven't seen any Alfredo editions and cannot comment. However, it seems to JG> me that this kind of thing would not be possible in Finale, would it?
Hm...good question. I haven't tried to use dashed slurs in Finale, but if they're not there already, one could add a "smart shape", no? There's no problem with multiple levels of shapes on the same notes. But maybe you're thinking of some other glitch; I'll have to give it a try when I get home. JG> Whatever the case, in principle I agree with you, but do see the problem of JG> such editions getting rather clattered. As an early music performer I always JG> prefer clean scores without _any_ bowings, as these bowings are not usable JG> 99% of the time. If the composer has supplied slurs that are evidently bowings, or up/downbow marks, they probably help illuminate the music and I would include them (even when the resulting graphical presentation isn't to my taste!) But I too tend to select editions with very clean presentations. JG> Having seen many 18th century editions I think one can make the JG> case that in the majority of cases there simply is no JG> distinction between dot and wedge, most of the time the two are JG> used pretty randomly. Yes. The issue is whether to use the now-universal dot throughout, or to use the wedge throughout in a quest for some peculiar sort of authenticity. If there was clear historical evidence of a different musical meaning to the wedge, I'd follow the composer's markings. But using _all_ wedges doesn't make sense to me in a performing edition. (The Henle Mozart pno qts is very beautiful and excellent edition, by the way, despite this particular quibble.) >> The nicest approach to the authenticity problem seems to me the >> inclusion of a print of the composer's fair copy, if it exists. >> (The IMC/Galamian ed. of the Bach violin sonatas and partitas comes >> to mind as an excellent example.) JG> I have this edition, amongst many others. The printed part of it is not JG> exactly an Urtext edition, although it is better than some. The manuscript JG> is the best bit of it (although Galamian's ideas for fingerings are often JG> useful even for baroque violin). I always play from the manuscript itself JG> (and in fact will play the d minor on the 13th June live in the Berlin JG> radio, if anyone is interested...), which is so clearly readable there is no JG> reason not to. Plus it is much easier to get Ciacona or the fugues on one JG> big sheet to avoid page turns. Yes, I also like to play from the manuscript sometimes. Usually I look at the Galamian (and the Flesch, and...) for ideas. I don't *want* them to be "Urtext".) Then I use Szering's (sp?) to play from, mostly for its readability. Once you know a piece, and only need the written score for memory lapses, it's quite handy to have so much on one page...though also easy enough to make a reduced copy of your edition of choice! Another interesting thing about this manuscript is that Bach very selectively inserts additional flats or sharps on accidentals that are repeated within lengthy and complex measures. Every edition I'd seen has eliminated these, presumably on grounds of modern practice or house style. That seems to me an unwarranted change to the composer's text, since Bach apparently thought they were worth inserting. When sightreading, or playing relatively unfamiliar slow movements, I too think they're worthwhile. Is there an edition that simply reproduces that lovely manuscript in clear print, as closely as it can be deciphered, right down to omitting the last flat in minor key signatures? *That* would be an "Urtext"! (I suppose I could sit down to Finale and make my own, given a week or more of free time...) John Howell writes: JH> Any musical player who has learned to do it will recognize and JH> play phrasing without a roadmap. More capable players will JH> recognize it at several levels at once. That's called JH> musicianship, and it's something I try very hard to develop in my JH> students. This is sensible and interesting (and provocative), but seems a bit too rigid. I'd agree that "musicianship" is essentially a matter of being with being well-taught and well-practiced in a particular tradition. But phrasing is not only a matter of convention and tradition, but of the composer's intentions at a particular moment in a particular piece. To banish phrasing marks from written music would seem to banish the possibility that the composer wishes to specify an unconventional phrasing, and thus to assume that either the performer can simply do the usual thing, or that it doesn't matter what he does. I suppose one can interpret slurs as bowing marks in bowed-string music while retaining them as phrasing guidelines in--say--piano music, but that's only because bowings tend to imply phrasings. (I'm fairly certain that eliminating all slurs from a Brahms piano score would be unhelpful.) JH> Slurs are bowing instructions. Yes, in the sense that they tell one to take a new bowstroke here, or make a clear stop within the bowstroke. But the purpose of doing that is...: phrasing. The composer's slurs very rarely show every likely change of bow, 'hooking' of dotted rhythms, and such. They show enough of the bowing to act as a *guide* to the phrasing, and the performer (or orchestra concertmaster or section leader...) supplies the detailed bowing. In this way they're as approximate in much the same way as pedal markings in piano scores, although the latter are usually considered to be more in the nature of suggestions, and far from obligatory in most instances. (Perhaps more obligatory in modern scores, now that the sound of a Steinway model D has become the composer's likely aural image of a piano.) Anyway, it seems to me that phrasing and bowing end up being inextricably linked, and (perhaps with good reason) traditional notation doesn't try to separate them. So I'm reconsidering my idea of having a notation that will clearly say "this one is primarily a bowing indication (and probably an editor's)." Come to think of it, we already have such a notation: the up- and down-bow marks. Now to consider using those dots to indicate (something that sounds like) spiccato, and wedges for (something that sounds like) on-the-string staccato... I suppose the guessing-game of "what could he have meant here?" is part of the charm of our imprecise notations. Enjoy. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
