On 11.05.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
But perhaps my feelings on this are colored by the fact that I do the majority of my editing of single-source works (i.e., there's only one surviving text to edit, or one surviving lineage of sources, each based on the other, instead of bearing independent readings). If I were editing material with multiple independent sources, I might see much more value in presenting the distinction in the edition itself.
Just one example, where I think Henle's approach is actually very appropriate: Haydn, string quartets op. 64. Here we have an autograph and a first edition which was at least authorized if not error checked and corrected by the composer. Henle gives the text of the autograph, but does include readings of the first edition, and that does make a lot of sense. To distinguish editorial additions, which are occasionally necessary where both primary sources do leave out the occasional accidental, with some ambiguity to what is really meant, they put those in square brackets. This makes very clear reading for the informed performer of what is and what isn't original, yet the uninformed performer can go along and just play what is on the page, ignoring the brackets.
Accidentals are perhaps not the best example, but occasionally a trill is left out in parallel passages, or notes do not have the staccatos. Henle will give some suggestions as to what they think is the intention, and usually they are on the right track. Yet, I as the informed performer will have the opportunity to think about such details myself.
This is certainly particularly interesting with Haydn, who often (intentionally, imo, contrary to some other composers like Schubert) changes little details in the recapitulation.
Naturally such detail in an edition is only worth the effort if the text really does provide it. I would not even attempt to do something like this in an edition where either the sources are extremely diverse, or where one source can be identified as the closest to the composers intentions.
However, I am currently presented with precisely the same problem, in some music I am editing (and which I cannot name, yet), where the source situation is such that I have an early edition, and a manuscript copy, and both are clearly copied from the same "Ur-" source (it is not possible that one was copied from the other). Both are full of errors, and both interpret details differently, probably because the original manuscript (autograph) was not in a particularly clear writing. It is impossible to give one of the sources more weight than the other, as in one place the print might give a much more logical text, while in another the manuscript makes more sense. The edition will also need some editorial additions. I haven't really come to a final conclusion as to how exactly I am going to deal with this, but one valid solution is to take one as the unbracketed text source, while the other will be in round brackets where appropriate, with anything editorial in square brackets.
This kind of source situation seems unusual, but in real life I have been presented with similar situations in at least three cases.
Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
