On 11 Jan 2007 at 8:54, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > 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 only put in alternate bowings that derive from the source itself, such as when there are contradictory bowings for identical or comparable passages. > 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). That's the only case in which I'd add them, myself. > 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 never add anything not justified by the source. I assumed that was a given! > > 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 You mean that "your editions" are not for publication?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. No, of course my editions are not for publication -- they're for me to get the pieces performed with as little rehearsal as possible (in order to maximize the chances that they *will* be performed). However, I have set things up such that should publication be possible, I can easily create a "for publication" version that omits certain classes of my editorial additions. I was careful to enter things in a manner to make this possible (in the hope that they would get published). > > 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. What example are we talking about? Kim's? > 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. If you mean editorially invented out of whole cloth, that's one thing. If you mean editorially added for parallelism purposes (and justified by other passages in the original sources, or in contradictory sources), then I don't see why you'd reject them, since they arguably derive from the source/composer. -- 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
