On 10 May 2006 at 19:40, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 10.05.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > > > 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). > > Henle uses square brackets quite a lot. They look ok to me. Not sure > whether Bärenreiter avoids them alltogether, and I am not at home > right now, so can't check. Doesn't the NMA use square brackets?
I just browsed through vol. 17 (I can't go through all 22!), and didn't find a single editorial accidental. Of course, the NMA has a bad habit of indicating editorial additions by using smaller versions of the non-editorial markings (absurdly, in some editions, this includes staccatto dots!), so perhaps I missed them. The edition does use brackets around the kinds of items that get placed above the staff (like ornaments, editorial alternatives for appoggiatura rhythmic values, etc.). [] > Well, one Henle practice is to use () for items which > are different in the primary sources (they take one source [autograph] > as the non-bracketed text source, and another, perhaps equally > important source [first edition] and add anything that is additional > in round brackets). Anything in [] square brackets is completely > editorial and does not appear in any of the primary source. That might be what's going on in the Ordonez example, but the critical notes don't say so. > I agree that this can get out of hand, if the sources differ a lot and > a lot has to be added by the editor. But for occasional differences > and few editorial additions this can be an extremely efficient way to > show the source situation without having to send everyone to read > lengthy editorial commentaries. I really don't see the point in distinguishing the two from a performer's point of view, to be honest. > Personally in anything but ficta music I dislike editorial accidentals > above the note. In 18th century and later music there are no cases > where this ambiguity could be intentional, it's either an error or > not, composers did not leave this to the performer. . . . That's not what I meant. I simply meant that there are some cases where there is no unambiguously correct choice, and in those cases, I put the accidental above the note. > . . . So if I as the > editor see no ambiguity in what is meant I can add the accidental in > brackets, as long as it is clear that it wasn't in any of my sources. That's exactly what I'd do, though I'd only use round brackets for that, never square. I would only use the "ficta" approach when the context doesn't clearly make one or the other choice unambiguously correct. > Brackets are a very efficient way to do that. Smaller accidentals can > be ok, too, but are completely inappropriate for orchestral parts - > for readability reasons. . . . I don't think that's appropriate for any purpose at all. > . . . Since I like to be as systematic as possible > through every edition I make, I stick with brackets, both round and > square. Round for the first step of removal from the primary source, > square for the second step. I would never bother to make such a distinction in an edition intended for anyone other than myself. It's just not valuable information, seems to me, except for someone evaluating the critical edition, and in that case, the critical notes should suffice without having to clutter the musical text with fussy distinctions that are of virtually no use to anyone and badly interfere with legibility (in my opinion). -- 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
