My personal preference is to see the edition in the same form as the original manuscript, staff notation for staff notation, numerical tab for numerical, 'upside up' for upside up, etc (with the understanding that other than direction, I'm not inferring that numeric should or must be one or the other), french for french, etc. If a facsimile of the entire original is not provided, an Urtext modern-er notation is desirable. I'm also a radical on another aspect: if you're going to make the edition into tab with a good tab program like Fronimo (as opposed to a bad one like Sibelius or Finale), do it in the notation you are most comfortable with. Then, make copies and switch the notation type, checking scrupulously to ensure nothing has been damaged in the change. That way, you have them on hand to produce if someone requests a different tab style. There isn't that much extra work involved, the 'fresh' passes in each new notation style is a better proof-reading trick than just going from the end backwards, and with modern print to order web-oriented printers, quite feasible. And, if you own your own large-format, double-sided printer, still no big problem. I'm interested to know whom you are considering as a printer/publisher. I think there have been discussions about preferred bindings. Spiral is ok, if the book is to exist on its own and never chance being crushed in a stack of hard-bound (or even soft-bound) books or carried about a lot. Once the spiral binding, plastic or wire, is crushed, the binding becomes an enemy. There are other aspects of spiral and GBC binding which are horrid, IMHO, but I'll leave it at that. It is hard to beat the kind of binding used now in the industry for most music, which usually just means fold-and-staple-the-crease. Good covers are a must. I like Christopher Wilke's idea of keeping the staff and tab notation in separate books, too. I hadn't thought of that (being mostly focused on trying to get people to go to the original notation or at least well-edited original notation), but it makes sense: page-for-page match up between the books isn't as important as placing page turns logically. Another thought here: Perhaps it would be worth considering an electronic version suitable for use on iPads or Android tablets (the software-of-choice for me on android has been MobileSheets) with bluetooth page-turner pedals. The keyboard players at Amherst Early Music's Workshops have been going more and more that way. How you'd go about protecting your IP and ensuring that you aren't pirated out-of-business, I don't know. I'm sure there is something in the minds of the makers of such software. (I've been ignoring that aspect because I mostly work with public-domain to public-domain things. While I respect and honor people who can do music for a living, I'm just not terribly interested in locking my own work up so much it can't be useful. I have no objection to others who do, we all must eat. So please don't take that as criticism of anyone else: it's just the excuse for why I don't know any more about it.) William (Ray) Brohinsky
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Anthony Hart <[1][email protected]> wrote: I found a thread to this effect dating back to 2008 and was wondering if there has been any significant up dates to the opinions. I am planning to publish some 18th century lute sonatas which are in staff notation I intend to publish a study edition which is OK, I am using Finale. I also wish to publish a performance edition which will be in tablature. Finale has can achieve this (I am using the latest version 2014). But I am not sure what would be most widely accepted style. I have some published works from the 80's and, frankly I am not impressed with any of them. There has been several publish since those days which I have not seen. Does anyone have an option as to the most appropriate style, any examples of current works. I know that each player has his/her own style which suits them but I am trying to find a consensus of opinion ( You can please some people some of the time but it is impossible to please all the people all of the time!!)I used to copy out all the tablature by hand and became used to playing from them - but this just my way. I would be grateful for your options. Those who have published what was the reason for your choice. Another question: I propose a study edition which will consist of the score on staff notation and then publish as a performance edition, probably in parts (there are 24 sonatas and I was thinking of publishing in, say, four volumes of six in a spiral bound form for easy handling - any comments on this welcome. Should I publish as Tablature only (there will be the complete study edition should anyone be interested) or tablature plus staff in one volume? If the latter, the tablature complete followed by staff complete (or vice versa)or staff then tablature following each other (definitely not together on one page!. Still pondering which, I want the publication to be professional but also able to be playable from the publication. -- Anthony Hart MSc, LLCM, ALCM. Musicologist and Independent Researcher Highrise Court 'B', Apt 2, Tigne' Street, Sliema, SLM3174, MALTA Tel: [2]+356 27014791; Mob: [3]+356 9944 9552. -- To get on or off this list see list information at [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:[email protected] 2. tel:%2B356%2027014791 3. tel:%2B356%209944%209552 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
