On 29.05.2003 16:46 Uhr, Leon Story Jr USG wrote > I've often wondered why bowings that don't agree with the slurs aren't > regularly shown by dashed slur markings, and editorial ones by grey dashed > slur markings of the sort seen in some of the (remarkably easy to read) > Alfred piano editions. A notation distinguishing the two would be wonderful > (except of course where bowing and slur agree, whereupon the usual slur is > sufficient). Also, in the age of computer-printed rather than hand-engraved > scores, there seems no excuse for not using something like the Alfred scheme > grey rather than black markings) for editorial alterations. (I hope they > haven't patented it!!!!)
I haven't seen any Alfredo editions and cannot comment. However, it seems to me that this kind of thing would not be possible in Finale, would it? Whatever the case, in principle I agree with you, but do see the problem of such editions getting rather clattered. As an early music performer I always prefer clean scores without _any_ bowings, as these bowings are not usable 99% of the time. > Yes. I think the modern urtext editions, esp. Henle (I was playing > their M. piano quartets volume last night and noticed this), may be > taking an unfortunate course when they make all the staccato dots into > uniform wedges which don't add a thing to the readability but trick > the less historically-aware performer into thinking that they signify > accents. This is a tricky problem (I do know the Mozart piano quartets edition very well, having performed from it many times). Especially with Mozart autographs, as David pointed out, there isn't a clear distinction between dot and wedge. You get a lot of in between dots/wedges. It would be tedious to copy exactly what is in the autograph (would you go as far as to measure the length of the wedge, which in Mozart's case is more often a very short line?). Having seen many 18th century editions I think one can make the case that in the majority of cases there simply is no distinction between dot and wedge, most of the time the two are used pretty randomly. In my editions (which are for the most part for my own benefit) I try to be as exact as is realistic. I even keep dots and wedges if 1st and 2nd violin are in third runs and one has wedges and one has dots. But Henle's approach is more that of a performing edition (whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is another question) and I think their compromises are usually still pretty well thought about compared to others (think of the Brandenburg concertos in the old Bärenreiter edition, which actually says on the cover "Urtext der Neuen Bach Ausgabe" but which is so heavily marked they are completely useless to any serious Early Music performer - I used several bottles of Tip Ex on them, until I discovered that the old Peter's edition by Soldan(?) is by far superior). > > The nicest approach to the authenticity problem seems to me the > inclusion of a print of the composer's fair copy, if it exists. > (The IMC/Galamian ed. of the Bach violin sonatas and partitas comes > to mind as an excellent example.) I have this edition, amongst many others. The printed part of it is not exactly an Urtext edition, although it is better than some. The manuscript is the best bit of it (although Galamian's ideas for fingerings are often useful even for baroque violin). I always play from the manuscript itself (and in fact will play the d minor on the 13th June live in the Berlin radio, if anyone is interested...), which is so clearly readable there is no reason not to. Plus it is much easier to get Ciacona or the fugues on one big sheet to avoid page turns. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
