Re: GDP: Reorganisation of NR 2 - Final call for comments

[Trevor Daniels]

Karl Hammar wrote
> Trevor Daniels wrote
> > Karl Hammar wrote
> > > Till:
> > >> 8.5 Transcription of ancient music
> > >
> > > Why not call it "Editing" or "Making an edition", but transcription is
> > > also fine.
> >
> > I think we'll stick with "Transcription" - it seems closer to the action
> > being performed by those working with ancient music, who usually
> > want to preserve the original as faithfully as possible, rather than
> > editing it.
>
> Ohh, I might have misunderstood the word (transcription) but I thought
> it ment converting to modern notation.

Maybe "transliteration"  is closer to what I meant, although "transcription"
means changing the medium while preserving the content.  It was "editing"
I didn't like - which implies a change to the original content, rather than
its representation.

> Also a "critical edition" is to
> preserve the original (or rather the manuscripts, the sources, the
> original meaning the thing in the composers head) as faithfully as
> possible with comments about dubious places, differences between 
> manuscripts,
> etc (but usually still in modern notation) and transcription is not
> that strict.
>
> So, there is two differnt things here,
>
> 1, notation imitating historic sources visually in some way
>   (which also apply to the barock to the romantic period, e.g. the
>   1900th cent. 4th rest)
> 2, making it in modern notation
>
> In both cases you could want to add some notes or explanations, this
> note should be a fis even if it isn't in the source, ... -- editorial
> markings.

Ahh - right! - that's what you mean by editing.  (When I "edited" the
proceedings of a conference it consisted mainly of deleting half the
contents of the submitted papers to meet the strict length guidelines :)

> But ok, lets stick with transcription.

It's probably as good as anything.

> > >> 5.2 Incipits and Mensurstriche-layout
> > >
> > > Theese are different beasts, should they not be in seperate sections.
> The incipit is an pre part showing the clefs, mensuration signs, the
> first few notes etc. so we can get a fealing of the transcriptions
> source, but still read on in modern notation.
>
> Mensurstriche is a way to include (or a substitute for) "bar lines"
> for sources that didn't contain them, but without splitting the notes
> and/or rests that are "syncopated" over the bar lines the editor wants.

OK, thanks. I'll split that section into two

> > >> 5.4 Musica ficta
> > >> 5.4.1 Suggested accidentals (new) (2.8.4)
> >
> > This has already been changed to just
> >
> > 5.4 Musica ficta accidentals
> >       (containing just the current text from 2.8.4)
> >
> > > Instead of Musica ficta, which are notes not in the regular hexachords,
> > > I suggests a section for editorial markings. Which includes suggested
> > > accidentals, slurs, different rhythmic (like french barock)
> > > interpretation.
> >
> > Happy to add Editorial markings for ancient music as an additional
> > section, incorporating 5.4, if someone volunteers to send me suitable
> > text for it, but I can't write this stuff myself :(
>
> I would be happy to help, but I'm kind of busy. Please hand me
> something to work on in that case.

Thanks.  Might not be for a week or two, as all NR 2 will have to
be re-arranged first.

So in Draft 8 of NR 2 headings let's change to

  .5 Transcribing ancient music (new)
    .1 Ancient and modern from one source
       [Here among others the snippets about reducing note length]
    .2 Incipits (new)
       (clefs, mensuration signs etc from lsr and -user)
    .3 Mensurstriche-layout (new)
       (lsr and -user)
    .4 Transcribing Gregorian chant (new)
       (extract from 1.6.1.1)
  .6 Editorial markings
    .1 Suggested accidentals
       (2.8.4)
    .2 Suggested slurs (new)
       (new - KH?)
    .3 Suggested rhythmic interpretation (new)
       (new - KH)

How does this look?

> /Karl
Trevor D