On 10.05.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
I can't recall an edition with square brackets on accidentals that
didn't look terrible (I'm thinking of a particular A-R Edition, in
fact, one that is horridly engraved, in my opinion).
Henle uses square brackets quite a lot. They look ok to me. Not sure
whether Bärenreiter avoids them alltogether, and I am not at home right
now, so can't check. Doesn't the NMA use square brackets?
> It's not because the source doesn't use parentheses that a modern
> edition might not want both (cautionary) accidentals and [editorial]
> accidentals.
While I'm all for being as clear as possible about editorial
intervention, I don't see that this is the way to go. It seems way
too fussy to me, while using parens for all accidentals not found in
the original (courtesy or editorial doesn't matter -- they are
unambiguously implied in the original, so really, I see them all as
courtesy accidentals) and accidentals above the note for editorial
suggestions seems to me to maintain the same distinction you're
trying to implement with round and square brackets.
I can't recall very many editions that I've seen that use inline
square brackets for editorial accidental suggestions, and I just
think it's not going to be clear at all. I see no reason to go beyond
the "ficta" practice for editorial suggestions for accidentals. One
reason for that is that putting them inline basically makes them
obligatory, while putting them above means they will likely be
omitted until the performer has studied the score (and decided
whether or not to incorporate the suggested accidental).
Well, one Henle practice is to use () for items which are different in
the primary sources (they take one source [autograph] as the
non-bracketed text source, and another, perhaps equally important source
[first edition] and add anything that is additional in round brackets).
Anything in [] square brackets is completely editorial and does not
appear in any of the primary source.
I agree that this can get out of hand, if the sources differ a lot and a
lot has to be added by the editor. But for occasional differences and
few editorial additions this can be an extremely efficient way to show
the source situation without having to send everyone to read lengthy
editorial commentaries.
Personally in anything but ficta music I dislike editorial accidentals
above the note. In 18th century and later music there are no cases where
this ambiguity could be intentional, it's either an error or not,
composers did not leave this to the performer. So if I as the editor see
no ambiguity in what is meant I can add the accidental in brackets, as
long as it is clear that it wasn't in any of my sources. Brackets are a
very efficient way to do that. Smaller accidentals can be ok, too, but
are completely inappropriate for orchestral parts - for readability
reasons. Since I like to be as systematic as possible through every
edition I make, I stick with brackets, both round and square. Round for
the first step of removal from the primary source, square for the second
step.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
