On 10 May 2006 at 17:46, dc wrote: > David W. Fenton écrit: > >I've consistently just used parentheses, because in the repertory I'm > >working in, that is never used in the original sources. > > I was assuming Scot meant square brackets, as opposed to the round > ones.
I can't recall an edition with square brackets on accidentals that didn't look terrible (I'm thinking of a particular A-R Edition, in fact, one that is horridly engraved, in my opinion). > It's not because the source doesn't use parentheses that a modern > edition might not want both (cautionary) accidentals and [editorial] > accidentals. While I'm all for being as clear as possible about editorial intervention, I don't see that this is the way to go. It seems way too fussy to me, while using parens for all accidentals not found in the original (courtesy or editorial doesn't matter -- they are unambiguously implied in the original, so really, I see them all as courtesy accidentals) and accidentals above the note for editorial suggestions seems to me to maintain the same distinction you're trying to implement with round and square brackets. I can't recall very many editions that I've seen that use inline square brackets for editorial accidental suggestions, and I just think it's not going to be clear at all. I see no reason to go beyond the "ficta" practice for editorial suggestions for accidentals. One reason for that is that putting them inline basically makes them obligatory, while putting them above means they will likely be omitted until the performer has studied the score (and decided whether or not to incorporate the suggested accidental). -- 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
