> When making a scholarly edition, let's just include a facsimile of > each and every version, digitally. Total information; no paper > wasted. Isn't that the best way? What could be better? > Anything less is relegating the alternate versions to the scrap heap > of history. And in the transcription, it should be possible, clearly > and easily, with no reference to "algebra musik," to reconstruct > every note and mark of the original source.
Ah, but what of unsigned versions which are not identical The Bernard Hudson edition of the works of Hayne presents some 21 tunes, 14 of which are attributed to Hayne on stylistic grounds. The remaining tunes either use Haynes text or are perhaps falsely attributed by unscrupulous publishers; most of them are easily attributed to other composers by style (Two in 4vv that sit well on crumhorn may be Binchois). All of the tunes were 'copied' by contemporary and subsequent composers, some of them many many times. This was a high complement in that time, much as good jazz themes are used today, so were these themes. Each copy is an opportunity for us to see how polyphony was ornamented. All provide challenge in resolving musica ficta. I am minded of the editions of Ogni Sorte, not only are they presented in original notation and parts as well as score, but also the editions focus on specific themes, eg, De tous biens plains, all 28 known versions by all composers. (See _De tous Biens Plaine_, Cynthia J Cyrus, A-R Editions). > So here is the question, should we "correct" the works of Josquin? > Because some of those notes are longer in one part. Maybe add a rest > at the beginning? I would first look to printed editions such as Odhecaton and see how it was handled there; but recall that often an incipit maxima rest shows the mood and may be better considered part of the time signature. Further, never forget that printed editions relied heavily on the musical skills of the compositor(s); persons whose skill was challenged with every piece of backwards-facing type they placed in the rack. > And make the perfect urtext? Or should we go back > and say, hey, there are a lot of different versions of this piece, > and you, the unique player-composer can pick the one you like the > best, and, when making your personal intabulation, you get to add > some notes and graces of your own. The choice is ours nay, not choice, but duty, we are expected to show our own art in every performance. Analysis is helpful, and so the 'perfect' urtext is welcome, but it should not be the only inspiration for any performance. Consider the various versions of baroqued beatles tunes, the PDQ Bach madrigals (oy-vay!). -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
