On 15 Feb 2006 at 23:21, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

> On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
> >> Of course he can: I am working on a piece where the middle parts
> >> are
> >> > missing. They need to be recomposed. (Not by me though, but by
> >> > the editor).
> > 
> > Recomposed or reconstructed?
> 
> Well, in this case, what is the difference? Since it is not there,
> there isn't much you can reconstruct. All you can do is guess what it
> looked like and recompose it.

It depends entirely on how much you have to go on. If you're 
reconstructing 2 parts of a 4-part texture, it's probably 
recomposition (unless it's a strictly contrapuntal style where the 
possibilities are highly circumscribed and clearly implied by the 
remaining two voices).

If, on the other hand, you're supplying a viola part in a work with 
choral parts, basso continuo and two violin parts, then the 
reasonable possibilities for the viola are pretty narrow, and in that 
case, it would be reconstruction.

My viol consort spent some time recently playing a 4-part piece with 
a reconstructed top part, but it was imitative and in a strict style 
contrapuntally, so my guess is that the added top part was probably 
80% accurate or better (in terms of recreating what the original 
was). That would probably fall somewhere in between Sawkins's 
reconstructed viola part and the recomposed 2 parts of the 4-part 
piece.

It also depends on which parts are missing. Inner parts are going to 
be more limited in the possibilities than the outer parts. And it 
also depends on how much doubling there is and what's typical of the 
style of the period and of the particular composer.

I'm not at all discounting the possibility that an editor would 
contribute original material sufficient to reasonably assert co-
authorship. I'm only arguing that in the Sawkins case, it wasn't even 
close, and that the evidence presented to the judge made this pretty 
clear to anyone who understands the process.

It was obviously not clear to the judge, which is the criticism of 
the original decision that I've registered all along, that the final 
decision makes a hash of the editing process as practiced by 
musicologists, and as practiced in this case by Sawkins himself.

-- 
David W. Fenton                    http://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates       http://dfenton.com/DFA/

_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Reply via email to