> >Michael Edwards wrote: > > > >>(a) The use or non-use of naturals in key-signature changes should (in my > >>opinion) be determined by the composer (especially if he or she definitely > >>wants a particular method), and not overridden by the engraver or publisher.
>>Ray Horton wrote: >> > >I have no problem seeing this as a publisher style, since it makes no > >difference to the performance. > > Ray, would you then, in that case, eliminate the various mannerisms I > mentioned before that can be found in Ives, Debussy, Satie, Grainger, etc.? I > don't like the idea at all - even though those mannerisms are not ones I would > ever want to use myself. Not at all. I was speaking specifically of key sig changes. I have seen them handled different ways in different publications, but none of the different ways in which they were handled makes any possible difference to the performance except to prevent a note-reading error, so I would, in general, leave it to the house style. I would not assume that different styles of key sig changes would be mandated by the composer, anyway. They simply don't matter. Any other mannerisims, such as unusual beaming (or Grainger's "louden lots" in place of a crescendo), that could more effectively communicate the composers intent to the performer, would be, in general, left in. But I see no way in which the inclusion of naturals, or not, in a key sig change, or the placement of the naturals before or after the new key sig, would affect the performance of music beyond avoiding a sight-reading mistake. For example, cautionary accidentals is a similar, but not identical, matter. I haven't spent a lot of time looking at great composer's mss, but I would imagine that, in general, cautionary accidentals don't show up a lot in those mss. It would be the editor's responsibility to place them where needed. And again, they would not affect what the the audience hears a bit unless errors were being made because of their misuse or lack of use. If the publisher has a "house style" in this case I suppose it would come into play, but common sense would be the better rule here. I mention cautionary accidentals because the lack of them, when needed, is a pet peave of mine - they are falling out of use as computer engraving becomes the norm. In two areas of quickly-produced music that I see a lot of, namely cheap pop charts for orchestra and church anthems, I have seen multiple examples in the last few years of a failure to cancel an accidental over a barline (Example: F Eb | E , with no natural on the E after the barline). One of the worst I've seen - on a pop arrangement piece a pro orchestra will read one time AT MOST in rehearsal: E F# | F with a tie (or slur) over the barline. Any idiot knows that the tie over the barline makes the note after the barline F#, but in this case F natural was intended and the curvy line was supposed to be a slur. This is, of course, an error, partly allowed by a software that will playback the last note "correctly" every time, but the human element should fill in here until the software gets smarter. (The other problem here is our silly use of am identical or nearly-identical curved line for both ties and slurs but it would take some doing to change that.) Anyway, back to the subject, I agree that composer's idiosyncracies should, in general, be left in, especially if they help the performer in interpretation. A wise editor will discuss these with the composer befroe changing anything. There can be pitfalls to individuality in notation. Once, I was playing a lyrical euphonium solo in a hand-copied Grainger piece that had his indication of "slow off". As the phrase should have been tapering down, I misread the hand-copied two fs in "slow off" as a fortissimo - and made started to make a rather un-musical crescendo before I realized my mistake. (Shouldn't that have been above the staff? But what if the composer wanted it below... never mind.) Ray Horton Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra > It may seem like a small matter of musical grammar that doesn't affect the > meaning - a bit like the way more and more writers today seem to use run-on > sentences: two grammatically complete sentences joined by a comma, where a > stronger stop such as a semicolon or full-stop should be used. The meaning is > usually obvious and unchanged, but it is flawed grammar. If according to modern > standards of grammar it is now ruled to be correct, then I beg to differ, and > would not want editors changing anything I wrote like this, if I were having a > book published. > I tend to see the naturals in key-signature changes in a similar light. I > don't correct others who use the modern convention, unless they ask my opinion > or it comes up in general discussion - just I would consider it rude to > criticize someone for using run-on sentences, even though my opinion that it's > wrong is unchanged; and I don't want publishers imposing their house style on me > and insisting I do without the naturals. > > >If we stuck to composer's ms variances on key sigs, we'd have to print J.S. > >Bach key sigs with flats or sharps on every possible octave as his ms's > >show on occasion. > > I guess the situation is a bit difficult for older music, where notation > has changed sufficiently that older music might be difficult for modern people > to read. I suppose we have to accept standardizing there. > But surely such editions should labelled "edited by <so-and-so>", with > annotations about the changes that have been made. And, especially for > scholarly or purist use, you could have another edition that reproduces Bach's > notation exactly. And editions should be clearly marked as "updated according > to modern notational conventions" (or according to the editor's opinion about > what modern conventions are), or as giving the composer's version. > But where a composition is recent enough to be using essentially the same > conventions we understand today, mere differences of style should surely be > honoured, and a meaningless conformity to one style not imposed on everyone. > > Regards, > Michael Edwards. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
