At 8:59 PM 05/30/03, David W. Fenton wrote:
>If you're interpreting anyone's contributions to the thread as
>suggesting that point of view, then I *do* think you're being
>oversensitive.
Yes, I suppose so. In retrospect, I think I overreacted.
>But don't underrate the important things to be lea
At 5:47 PM 05/31/03, Michael Edwards wrote:
> I suppose the way I put that did sound a bit patronizing. My
>apologies - I
>didn't mean to sound like that, and probably expressed my opinion too hastily.
> [...]
> My apologies if I have inadvertently put you down, Mark. It was
>completely
[Mark D. Lew:]
>At 7:12 AM 05/30/03, Michael Edwards wrote:
>
>> Given your situation, and that you explain in the score the changes
>>you've made, at least briefly, this is, I suppose acceptable. If I were doing
>>this, I would also put "edited by..." on the title page (perhaps you've done
>
On 30 May 2003 at 9:48, Mark D. Lew wrote:
> At 4:06 PM 05/29/03, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> [answering me]
>
> >> My main musical milieu is the community of opera singers. . . .
> >
> >OH, well, that explains a lot.
> >
> >*I* was talking about *musicians*. ;)
>
> LOL. If you think I'm going
On 30 May 2003 at 9:48, Mark D. Lew wrote:
> What ticks me off -- and perhaps I'm being oversensitive here -- is all
> this discussion about whether I ought to be allowed to defile the composers
> intentions in such a way. (As if the original edition is a true reflection
> of what the composer wan
At 4:06 PM 05/29/03, David W. Fenton wrote:
[answering me]
>> My main musical milieu is the community of opera singers. . . .
>
>OH, well, that explains a lot.
>
>*I* was talking about *musicians*. ;)
LOL. If you think I'm going to dispute the implication, you're wrong.
>Well, what's wrong wit
At 7:12 AM 05/30/03, Michael Edwards wrote:
> The difference here is that, at least for a living composer, you can
>go and
>ask him about any dubious points; but you can't do that with Gounod now. You
>*have* to make certain decisions without his help or agreement.
I only edit works in the p
When a curved line connects two identical notes, it's a tie. When
it connects two different notes, it's a slur. It always indicates
no new attack. So what's the problem?
It's a problem if it slurs an altered F# to an un-courtesyed F
natural over the barline, say in the key of C. I think I r
l the "louden lots" type
indications, but the parts have traditional Italian replacements, which is a
shame.
Ray Horton (checking out of this discussion).
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Finale" <[EMAIL PROTE
On 30 May 2003 at 2:12, Michael Edwards wrote:
[David W. Fenton:]
>On 29 May 2003 at 8:10, Michael Edwards wrote:
>
>> I guess the situation is a bit difficult for older music,
where notation
>>has changed sufficiently that older music might be difficult for
modern people
>>to read.
At 5:24 PM -0500 5/29/03, John Howell wrote:
Enjoying the back and forth on this thread immensely, but this
brought me up short:
>(The other problem here is our silly use of am identical or
nearly-identical curved line for both ties and slurs but it would take some
doing to change that.)
Huh? W
Enjoying the back and forth on this thread immensely, but this
brought me up short:
>(The other problem here is our silly use of am identical or
nearly-identical curved line for both ties and slurs but it would take some
doing to change that.)
Huh? When a curved line connects two identical note
[Mark D. Lew, about Gounod aria being edited, corrected, etc.:]
>Now suppose I notice some peculiar beam and stem directions, or a measure
>that doesn't add up, or a missing accidental that is obviously intended, or
>an inconsistency in note length for no apparent reason, or a missing tie
>that is
Michael Edwards:
I agree that one is getting into murky areas if one decides
editorially to
change Mozart's notation, and update it to modern conventions
generally; but, as
a composer, I would every time prefer the modern notation, which seems to
reflect more accurately what is intended to
On 29 May 2003 at 12:28, Mark D. Lew wrote:
> At 7:26 PM 05/28/03, David W. Fenton wrote:
[]
> >I think that ignores a very important consideration. Most old music
> >that is getting a modern edition made is never going to have another
> >edition. It's not like Bach, where there are dozens of ed
[James O'Briant:]
>>Or writing measures of 3/8, 3/8,
>>1/4 (to imply accents at the start of each measure) when a simple 4/4
>>measure with three accents would be far easier to read.
[Mark D. Lew:]
>Better yet, convey this with the beaming, either in 4/4 or 8/8.
I wasn't quite sure I under
Mark D. Lew:
At 7:26 PM 05/28/03, David W. Fenton wrote:
Clefs have always been considered as having no musical meaning.
And I think that's definitely the case after about 1700 or so.
When I mentioned C clefs for alto and tenor in a choral passage, the
real-life example I had in mind was a piano
At 7:26 PM 05/28/03, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Clefs have always been considered as having no musical meaning.
>
>And I think that's definitely the case after about 1700 or so.
When I mentioned C clefs for alto and tenor in a choral passage, the
real-life example I had in mind was a piano-vocal sco
At 2:12 AM 05/30/03, Michael Edwards wrote:
> I hope my arguments have not been taken as stronger or more general than I
>intended them to be. Careful notation is, to me, so much a part of the total
>compositional process (although not necessarily a very early part of it) that I
>just took it
On 30 May 2003 at 2:12, Michael Edwards wrote:
> [David W. Fenton:]
>
> >On 29 May 2003 at 8:10, Michael Edwards wrote:
> >
> >> I guess the situation is a bit difficult for older music, where notation
> >>has changed sufficiently that older music might be difficult for modern people
> >>to r
At 3:50 PM 05/28/03, James O'Briant wrote:
> Or
>writing a piece in 24/4 time when six measures of 4/4 would do just as
>well and be easier for the performer. Or writing measures of 3/8, 3/8,
>1/4 (to imply accents at the start of each measure) when a simple 4/4
>measure with three accents would
[Ray Horton:]
>>>Michael Edwards wrote:
>>>
(a) The use or non-use of naturals in key-signature changes should (in my
opinion) be determined by the composer (especially if he or she definitely
wants a particular method), and not overridden by the engraver or publisher.
>
>>>Ray Horton
Goodness me, this thread is becoming very interesting, intricate, and
diverse. I have a few more responses.
[James O'Briant:]
>... writing tonal music with no key signature and with a lot of accidentals,
>when using a key signature would make it far easier for the performer.
I would g
[Mark D. Lew:]
>I think there is a gray area between
>typographic and notational issues where the distinction cannot clearly be
>made. For example, suppose a manuscript for an SATB chorale puts the tenor
>and alto in C clefs. Is it an editorial decision to change the clefs? Of
>course it is, but g
[David W. Fenton:]
>On 29 May 2003 at 8:10, Michael Edwards wrote:
>
>> I guess the situation is a bit difficult for older music, where notation
>>has changed sufficiently that older music might be difficult for modern people
>>to read. I suppose we have to accept standardizing there.
>
>Actu
Me:
As with that copyright case which was discussed on this list a week
or so ago, the key question is (or should be) whether the work(s) in
question show distinctive stylistic touches not to be found in other
works by the composer-of-record, and it seems to me that the answer
>here is most emph
> >Michael Edwards wrote:
> >
> >>(a) The use or non-use of naturals in key-signature changes should (in
my
> >>opinion) be determined by the composer (especially if he or she
definitely
> >>wants a particular method), and not overridden by the engraver or
publisher.
>>Ray Horton wrote:
>>
> >I h
- Original Message -
From: "gRegoRy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Do you still publish Netty Simons? Now there was a woman who enters into
> the unconventional !!!
Good point, she often was totally graphical and sometimes in color.
___
Finale mailin
On 28 May 2003 at 16:00, Mark D. Lew wrote:
> Michael Edwards wrote, in various posts:
> > I guess the situation is a bit difficult for older music, where notation
> >has changed sufficiently that older music might be difficult for modern people
> >to read. I suppose we have to accept standar
On 29 May 2003 at 8:13, Michael Edwards wrote:
> I understand Beethoven sometimes titled movements "Menuetto", where this is
> incorrect Italian, and it should be "Minuetto" (or perhaps it's the other way
> around - I don't speak or read Italian, apart from common musical terms). As
> far as
On 29 May 2003 at 8:10, Michael Edwards wrote:
> [Ray Horton:]
> I guess the situation is a bit difficult for older music, where notation
> has changed sufficiently that older music might be difficult for modern people
> to read. I suppose we have to accept standardizing there.
Actually, I
At 5:57 PM 05/28/03, David W. Fenton wrote:
>If I were editing a present-day composer, I'd include every
>idiosyncrasy of the original manuscript that I could, as long as it
>did not compromise readability.
Well, that brings up the question of what one means by "editing". Two of
the composers I
Michael Edwards wrote, in various posts:
> Oh - do they? I pay a lot of attention to those things, myself.
Yes, and you're the sort of composer who is interested in getting to know
Finale better, instead of paying someone else to do all your engraving for
you.
> In spite of what I said
I wrote:
> > And I guess that that's the whole point of this discussion -- where
> > does deviation from traditional standards begin to detract from ease
> > of reading, when does it become downright misleading, and when is it
> > just plain incorrect?
David Fenton replied:
> What bothers me
(Note for anyone reading messages by thread: I'm amalgamating replies to two
posts on similar topics that seem to run together, and with different subject
headings, and putting them both under the heading that fits the topic best.)
[Mark D. Lew:]
>I think we all agree that the publisher should fo
[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:]
>>Cathy
>>Berberian was credited with very little at the level of authorship -- only
>>as performer, and never as co-composer, which she must have been in such
>>works as "Visage." History, I think, will correct that.
[Andrew Stiller:]
>I doubt it. Not unless history is a
[Ray Horton:]
>Michael Edwards wrote:
>
>>(a) The use or non-use of naturals in key-signature changes should (in my
>>opinion) be determined by the composer (especially if he or she definitely
>>wants a particular method), and not overridden by the engraver or publisher.
>
>I have no problem seein
[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:]
>>Yes, there's an purpose for publishers, and that's copy editing -- which is
>>really what we're talking about.
[Mark D. Lew:]
> I assumed that's what we were talking about all along.
What is copy editing? Is it the kind of notational changes we've been
talking ab
Dennis, I'm new around this list and not familiar with your work, so
forgive
me for wondering if I've innocently stepped into an argument in progress?
The proportion of composers whose music is not accepted by us is very
highly
proportionally male composers too; you might also notice that we
pu
On 28 May 2003 at 13:52, James O'Briant wrote:
> And I guess that that's the whole point of this discussion -- where does
> deviation from traditional standards begin to detract from ease of
> reading, when does it become downright misleading, and when is it just
> plain incorrect?
What bothers m
On 28 May 2003 at 16:24, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> At 01:02 PM 5/28/03 -0800, Mark D. Lew wrote:
> >It was only with your post that this turned into a debate about publishers
> >trying to suppress non-standard notation, which as far as I can tell nobody
> >is defending. I wonder if this whole
At 04:19 PM 5/28/03 -0400, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>I doubt it. Not unless history is also prepared to grant co-composer
>credit to an awful lot of violinists for an awful lot of violin
>concertos.
I don't think it's analogous. Berberian was responsible for creating
(originating) a considerable am
I wrote, in part:
> > He wanted the music itself printed on two facing pages,
> > so there would be no page turns, even though this meant more than a
> > dozen staves per page -- far too dense for easy readability.
Michael Edwards replied, in part:
> It could be a problem, though, requiring th
Mark D. Lew wrote, in part:
> [This has become] ... a debate about
> publishers trying to suppress non-standard
> notation, which as far as I can tell nobody
> is defending.
What I've written in that discussion may come across that way. And in
traditional music -- that is, traditional in th
At 5:08 AM +1000 5/29/03, Michael Edwards wrote:
[James O'Briant:]
(c) [quoting from Daniel Dorff from here onwards:]
Richard Wernick likes indicating a 5-beat note by putting a rhythmic dot
*before and after* a whole note, and so on for smaller values,
I would definitely think this should b
At 01:02 PM 5/28/03 -0800, Mark D. Lew wrote:
>It was only with your post that this turned into a debate about publishers
>trying to suppress non-standard notation, which as far as I can tell nobody
>is defending. I wonder if this whole discussion is a non-debate based on a
>semantic misunderstand
Dennis:
Cathy
Berberian was credited with very little at the level of authorship -- only
as performer, and never as co-composer, which she must have been in such
works as "Visage." History, I think, will correct that.
I doubt it. Not unless history is also prepared to grant co-composer
credit to
Richard Wernick likes indicating a 5-beat note by putting a rhythmic dot
*before and after* a whole note, and so on for smaller values, and that's
fine as a personal kind of exception and an example of the kind of elements
that some composers do differently on purpose.
Not personal. He got it from
Daniel Dorff wrote:
>Richard Wernick likes indicating a 5-beat note by putting a rhythmic dot
>*before and after* a whole note, and so on for smaller values,
Crumb has used this, also. I remember seeing, in 5/8 time, a dot before
and after a half note. The first dot is supposed to subtract hal
At 1:02 PM 05/28/03, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
>Yes, there's an purpose for publishers, and that's copy editing -- which is
>really what we're talking about.
I assumed that's what we were talking about all along. The original poster
asked about the decision of whether to include naturals cancel
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>...But as long as a
> notational element is clearly deliberate and consistent, and according to
the
> composer's wishes, I am at least wary of having it compulsorily
overridden.
I totally agree, even if it might not seem lik
[James O'Briant:]
>He wanted the music itself printed on two facing pages,
>so there would be no page turns, even though this meant more than a
>dozen staves per page -- far too dense for easy readability.
It could be a problem, though, requiring the player to turn the page in the
middle of
> My own opinion is that composers and arrangers (of which I am one)
> should leave the engraving and printing details to the publisher, unless
> there are specific details which will directly impact the performance of
> the music. If the composer or arranger wants it differently, then
> he/she sh
At 11:58 AM 5/28/03 -0400, Daniel Dorff wrote:
>Dennis, I'm new around this list and not familiar with your work, so forgive
>me for wondering if I've innocently stepped into an argument in progress?
No, I don't think so. Though the discussion of notational practice with new
nonpop comes up quite
Michael Edwards wrote, in part:
> This leads me to wonder whether a publisher
> would impose their method in this (whether
> the old or new one) on any music they
> published, overriding what the composer
> wrote.
>
> Perhaps some composers don't care a lot, as
> long as the result is clear,
Dennis, I'm new around this list and not familiar with your work, so forgive
me for wondering if I've innocently stepped into an argument in progress?
The proportion of composers whose music is not accepted by us is very highly
proportionally male composers too; you might also notice that we publi
At 08:51 AM 5/28/03 -0400, Daniel Dorff wrote:
>And the most important rule-of-thumb (that our composers all love) is to
>standardize notation except when there's a good reason not to; the good
>reason can be the composer's strong feelings about a notational element, or
>a gesture that's best expre
I can answer on behalf of Presser, including Elkan-Vogel, Merion, and
affiliates Coronet Press and Tritone-Tenuto.
Our house philosophy is to follow evolved standards which seem to be most
transparent and automatic for performing musicians to play from; ironically
for engravers, the best notation
[Mark D. Lew:]
>There are certainly publishers still using the "old" style today. Oxford,
>for example.
Publishers? - not composers? This leads me to wonder whether a publisher
would impose their method in this (whether the old or new one) on any music they
published, overriding what the co
59 matches
Mail list logo
