On 10 May 2006 at 11:21, Scot Hanna-Weir wrote: > On 5/10/06 11:08 AM, "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On 10 May 2006 at 17:46, dc wrote: > > > >> David W. Fenton écrit: > >>> I've consistently just used parentheses, because in the repertory > >>> I'm working in, that is never used in the original sources. > >> > >> I was assuming Scot meant square brackets, as opposed to the round > >> ones. > > > > 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). > > I'm curious which edition in particular you were thinking of. I'd like > to go take a look at it.
Well, to be fair, it's quite an old edition, the Steffan Bb Concerto, published in 1980. I provided an example from it in my other long post on the subject of editorial brackets that I just sent to the list. > >> 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). > > While I might agree completely with you on the usage of this kind of > editorial indication, as a music engraver alone, I don't have the > power to change our editorial method. So, unless I am suddenly the > managing editor of recent researches, I doubt I'm going to be able to > do anything but set square-bracketed accidentals where they tell me > to. Well, I'm not necessarily opposed to square brackets for accidentals as opposed to round brackets. What I oppose is using both for some kind of distinction between the type of editorial intervention. I discussed the use of both round and square brackets for slurs in my post mentioned above, referring to A- R's edition of Ordonez's Op. 1 String Quartets. And I'm not beating up on A-R here -- they provide a good example because they've been producing excellent critical editions for decades, and I happen to have lots of them on my shelf. I'm certainly very grateful for the fact that A-R exists and puts out such interesting music in what are mostly quite reliable editions. -- 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
