On 10.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
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).
No, and certainly I wouldn't want editorial bowings by a non-violinist.
In at least 90% of all cases they are nothing but an obstruction when
reading from the part.
I am not following your arguement for the strokes. There is no reason
why one could automatically assume that they are meant to be there
(unless of course the exact same passage occurs at another place with
the strokes present, in which case there is some reason to add them as
editorial markings, although even then I can't see in what way this
would actually help any performer). I also can't see why these strokes
would make a sightread performance any better. I agree that with some
sources it is desirable to add editorial markings to help a sight-read
or under-rehearsed performance. But in this particular case I cannot see
the reasons for it. Again, this is partly because I don't know the rest
of the piece.
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.
You mean that "your editions" are not for publication? So what is your
arguement? Kim is doing this for publication, not for a particular
performer.
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).
Confusing is one thing, cluttering another. I find the strokes in
brackets extremely cluttering, and I don't see any real justification
for adding them, at least not from the minimal context we were given.
The problem with such editorial markings is that most performers read
them anyway, whether they are in brackets or not. I do, too, or at least
they influence my playing. That's why I frequently tipp-ex anything
editorial out.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
