On 10 Jan 2007 at 8:26, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > Looking at the passage completely out of context I also must admit > that as a performer I would very much prefer it if you didn't add the > editorial wedges at all. I would probably have to tip ex them to use > your edition. Editorial marks should, imo, never attempt an > interpretation.
I would have to look at the context of that. If it's the case that it's a thematic aspect of the piece (using the stroke as an accent), i.e., having the strokes + slurs in that figure, then I'd include it. But if this is a variant, where all other times the stroke is there and there's no slur, then I'd definitely *not* put it in. The only place where I provide contradictory editorial readings is for bowings (which Johannes probably wouldn't like, either). > Since I believe your potential customers are at least to some extend > period instrument performers, you might want to take my opinion into > account, as I am just that. I'm conflicted on this. When preparing my editions of my piano quartets/quintets I want to have the greatest chance of getting a good performance with minimal rehearsal, so I put in editorial markings to insure consistent results on first reading. Yes, that can lock the performers into one interpretation, but for my purposes, that's OK. For publication, I'd probably remove many of the editorial additions. This is the old "performer's edition vs. critical edition" argument. I don't mind editorial additions that are clearly marked, as long as they are not confusing. Whether or not Kim's present example would be confusing depends on how the figure is handled elsewhere (i.e., what the source of the editorial stroke is). -- 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
