Can I say something too? I just joined this Finale mailing list and I'm reading the discussions with interest.
As now about the ß: For my work on music by Buxtehude I studied the old German handwriting, the Sütterlin Schrift. And in that writing I would definitely say that the ß is a contraction, a ligature of the s (the f-like character) and the z (normally going under the baseline, but now starting high up). Also I'm glad to hear that the general opinion is to keep the original spelling, as I incline to do so. But there are other things. As Buxtehude is even older, his spelling is also more antique (with words like "seyn"). That would make the edition somewhat archaic. And moreover, in those days people were not as consequent with spelling as we are today. You see "todt" and "tod" alongside of each other. Obviously spelling didn't really matter in those days. So I would say it is up to the editor to choose to use modern spelling (keeping the ß) and thereby losing the time flavor. Or he can stick to the original spelling. I think it is also a question of the purpose of the edition. > Mark D Lew wrote: > > > > > I do of course realize that, in spite of its name, the glyph is the > > equivalent of a double s, not an s and a z. > > > > mdl > > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
