On 10 May 2006 at 17:58, dc wrote: > Johannes Gebauer écrit: > >Perhaps I am now understanding correctly, you mean you want square > >brackets? The easiest way to do this is to use a font editor and > >either change the parenthesized ones into square-bracketed ones, or > >create extra symbols. That's what I did in my own music font (not > >available). Then just change the font mapping for the accidentals. > > The question is how do you get both in the same score, round brackets > for cautionary accidentals, and square brackets for editorial > accidentals.
Let me say it again: I think that's a mistake. It will look terrible and confusing and won't result in clarity of distinction between the two types of accidentals at all. I just spent some time browsing through some of the A-R Editions on my shelf, the only publisher I can identify who uses square brackets on inline accidentals. What I found was texts that indicate editorial intervention, but in a manner that I can't for the life of me divine what distinctions are being preserved (even after examining the critical notes). I looked at a couple of different users of round vs. square brackets, not just for accidentals. All the examples discussed below can be viewed here: http://www.dfenton.com/Editing/ The first example is from Carlo d'Ordenez's Opus 1 String Quartets (really good pieces that ought to be in the repertory of any string quartet that plays much 18th century music). It was published in 1980, so it probably doesn't represent A-R's current practices, nor represent the capabilities of modern computer engraving software. But what I see is a distinction between round and square brackets for slurs that I can't reconcile with any actual meaning, either in conveying the content of the original sources, or in providing information to allow performers to make useful choices. A perfect example is in the opening measures of the 2nd quartet. I can see no reason for distinguishing the violin II slur in m. 4 from that of m. 5. The notes give no clue about this. The second example is a vertical one, with round brackets in violin II and square brackets in the viola. The editorial notes are entirely silent on this editorial intervention. What information does this distinction convey? I can see none at all, even after reviewing the critical notes. At first I thought it might distinguish a reading from one of the sources that is not in all the sources from entirely editorial additions, but the notes don't make that clear at all, though it might be a way of interpreting the bracketed slur in the first line of the quartet (ex. 1), based on the notes, which say: Mm. 0-1, vln. II, note 1 of m. 0 tied to note 1 of m. 1, and notes 1 and 2 of m. 1 are not slurred in [sources] C, D', F and G. Mm. 2-3, vln. II, note 4 of m. 2 is tied to note 1 of m. 3 and notes 1 and 2 of m. 3 are not slurred in F. But that doesn't at all indicate that any of the sources bear the editorial slurs in mm. 2-3, let alone m. 4 (square bracket). For the second example, the notes are entirely silent in either case. I checked to see if there are parallel passages with commentary, and the passage is recapitulated later in the movement with different instrumentation, in the 2 violin parts, and there, the round/square bracket distinction is reversed. What does this mean? What useful information is conveyed? I only see vast confusion resulting from this, not any assistance to the performer in choosing whether or not to incorporate editorial suggestions into a performance. [let me stress that I'm not making these points to criticize A-R, since I depend on A-R for the scores of huge bodies of repertory that would otherwise be inaccessible to me. And at the very least, it's clear what's editorial, even if it's not clear what the distinction is between the two types of editorial indications] The next example is from Steffan's Piano Concerto in Bb, which to me is an example of the worst kind of overly fussy editorial indication. Modern notation software could make this kind of thing much more attractive, true, but I'm just not sure what's accomplished by putting such incredibly fussy indications of editorial additions into the performing text. Yes, of course, indicate what's been added in the notes, and where it doesn't sacrifice clarity, in the musical text. But here, I just can't see a point. In the example, there's no use of round brackets at all, just square, and I can't say that in my browsing I found any A-R editions that used both square and round brackets for editorial accidentals. In this case, the square bracket on the E natural in m. 35 is clearly an editorial courtesy accidental, not a suggestion for reconciling ambiguity. I distinguish the two here, because musical logic of verticality requres the E natural because of the corresponding note in the first violin. So that editorial addition is part of the "real" text of the work, and its absence in the original source is just elliptical -- it *should* have been there. I can't see that there is any real benefit there to the user of the score in having the bracket at all. It is not by any stretch of the imagination an optional accidental, so I think in an edition for other people to use, I'd just silently print the accidental (while noting its absence in the critical notes). I find the editorial style overall here to be so overly fussy in indicating editorial intervention that it makes the text almost unreadable. Now, in my own work I do exactly the same thing, since it helps me keep track of what I've added and what comes from the source directly. But if I were preparing an edition for publication, I'd take out many of those indications and relegate them to the critical notes, because I just don't believe maintaining that information in the musical text helps performer make any musically relevant decisions. The bracketed 3 natural mentioned above is not a choice for the performer -- it's a must, so I can't see that telling the performer that the editor added it for the performer's convenience is of any assistance whatsoever. I also note that at this time A-R used brackets for editorial slurs. I find this quite ugly, and much prefer either dashed slurs or a tick mark through the middle of the slur to indicate that it was an editorial addition (like the Bärenreiter does it, for instance). In the last two examples, I show that in a later edition (from 1989), A-R also used dashed slurs, as well as dashed ties (the first example shows a dashed tie, the second several dashed slurs). The reason I provide these examples is because they very clearly have tapered ends (though the clarity of that is not fully transmitted after my scanning of the pages, which has tended to fuzz things up a bit). While I don't dispute Johannes' point that many editions don't taper the dashed slurs/ties (Bärenreiter doesn't do it), it's also not the case that *no* publishers taper the slurs, as seen here in this A-R edition. Also, it shows that at least one publisher of critical editions uses not just dashed slurs but also dashed ties. I certainly wish Finale would provide dashed ties, as well, though I'm entirely agnostic on the issue of whether or not dashed ties/slurs should taper or not (I'd love the option, though). -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
