Hi Paul (et al.), >> I was definitely thinking about this possibility before my last post, and I >> came to the same conclusion: the staff should be what the singers actually >> sing, and the annotation should be the original (in square brackets, IMHO). > > If there are to be alternatives to what the composer wrote, I would expect > them to be above the staff. It is commonplace, for instance, in choral music > to suggest an alternative rhythm (e.g. double-dotting) by putting headless > notes (just stems and dots) above the written notation.
In a score meant for more luxurious study or analysis, I agree with you 100% In a score meant for quick sight-reading and performance, it is critical that the in-staff notation shows the performance notation, regardless of whether it’s the original or the modified version. There simply isn’t time in rehearsal to waste with people looking above the staff every few measures to see what they’re supposed to be singing; the original version, as an editorial annotation above the staff, is there “for the interested reader”. Cheers, Kieren. __________________________________________________ My work day may look different than your work day. Please do not feel obligated to read or respond to this email outside of your normal working hours.
