Opera conductor here....the critical opera editions available for everything from Mozart to Wagner are amazing resources. It's important to see how the composer originally conceived articulations, dynamics, tempi, orchestration, even text changes. The Schott critical pv score of Rheingold even prints all of Wagner's comments to his assistants from the final dress over the exact measures he called them out. Frequently in opera we don't do what the composer had in the manuscript because the traditional changes wrought over time by conductors and singers in various size theaters are much better. But knowing the composers' original intent is a key into their style. Critical editions have a dark side, they can distract you from what is practical. For example, Verdi's original dynamic range was pppp to ffff. In a smaller Italian theater with good acoustics, you might hear the difference between pppp and ppp, but in a larger 3000-4000 house it's impractical. But knowing where he used the pppp is a clue into how he interpreted the drama in that moment. And while I appreciate the scholarship of Barenreiter, they've printed all of Mozart's Italian grammatical errata from his manuscript (Nozze di Figaro is particularly bad.) For my money, the excellent work done by Philip Gossett and his team in the critical editions of Rossini and Verdi is unparalleled. When you purchase the critical full score, you also receive a second book annotating every correction made or noted, measure by measure. In his Rossini editions are all of the variations, cadenzas, and ornaments Rossini wrote for various singers over time, which informs how you might want to do your own ornamentation in good period style.
@@fernandogentile23 Yes, sorry for the confusion. The advantage with most of the opera critical editions is that they use not only the autographs but any other first generation print they can find. Things like first handwritten or printed set of orch parts, piano vocals (especially of the premier cast members), libretti with inked in corrections and changes, etc. Frequently these artifacts hold handwritten corrections and comments by the performers passed down from the composer in rehearsal. A tremendous amount of scholarship and detective work goes into producing the critical edition pv, parts, and partitura, thus the value of the critical commentary book. In Italy, the composer usually had in his composition contract a requirement they be in the theater for the rehearsal period and the first 3 or so performances to monitor things. In Teatro San Carlo in Napoli, for example, they know exactly where the famous composers sat to keep an eye on things!
One critical thing the ‘do it yourself’ section of this video failed to mention: use a proof-reader, other than yourself if possible. The making of editions can work nicely as a team effort if you have two (or multiple) editors each prepared to proofread each other’s work.
Hah. I did ancient history at PhD level. We have the same thing with our source histories. All the editions of surviving manuscripts are compiled under expert attention and made into an annotated critical edition, often with a commentary. I was told I could write a commentary for my thesis (I did not).
PhD in editorial studies here. Thank you for this video. In reaction to 19th/20th-century performers’ editions, many musicians these days are taught to be suspicious of editors. It is wonderful of you to share a hint of what the process is like with your wide audience!
There is a dictionary of clerical abbreviations, published in Italy. Over 17000 of them. The most common are @ and & in modern usage, but the overstrike for -um in the 1400s, just before printing.
I remember when I first noticed those parallel 5th's in the many villanelle, napoletane and even canzonette. Once finding several strings of them in Marenzio (!) and Willaert, I knew something was at play. At the time, my professor just called them "abohrrations", but I knew better and quickly found out that that was simply part of the style, i.e. learned composers aping folk music of the time. Palestrina's canzonette though are immaculate, of course :-) Transcribing vocal and instrumental music from the late renaissance-early baroque into modern notation is indeed a wonderful way of learning more about the style, and such a rewarding, labor-intense passtime.
Excellent video! This is exactly the reason I started producing my own editions. My first scholarly edition was of Saint-Saens's 2nd cello concerto with the cello part made with modern clef conventions (not the grand staff SS used).
I absolutely loved this episode. I currently work as an amateur editor, with focus on German and French baroque, and this kind of resources help me a lot to getting better in my craft. And this work helped me too to make some discoveries in the area of Telemann vocal works, which I still have to report, but I don't know whom.
As a lover of both history and music, i find each episode fascinating. It helps me understand the evolution from when it was first written down and how at the time it affected music. Thank you!
Just discovered your channel and I absolutely love it! I needed this video so much for introducing students to the importance of scholar editions! Excellent content and very nicely edited!
Great episode! Thanks from an 'amateur' early music editor and on-line 'publisher'; great summary of why our work is useful and often needed. A small note, though: while transcribing I greatly prefer to keep the original clefs (and, if possible, note values) as this makes much easier to spot transcription errors or to locate a certain point (either in the source or in transcription). Only when the transcription is complete, I will update the clefs to the ones used today; and often I even publish a version with original clefs themselves; often times may just be 'antiquiarianism', but sometime, like in the case of the French flute clef, keeping (also) the old clefs may accommodate a more or less established performing practice. THANKS!
Lovely to see that most challenges for critical editions in music are similar to those in other fields (history, painting etc.). But somehow, the impact seems way more important in music. Lovely!
At 20:18, the second man to appear is Lee Van Cleef. His mother lived next door to us. I met him once, when I was five years old. He had his red roadster parked in our joint driveway and, in talking with my parents and me, was exceedingly polite. Mrs. Van Cleef I remember well, too, and she was always so kind to us. It is a good memory, but Early Music Sources is certainly a place where I least expected to see him.
Wow, Finale is still around?! It's the only software I ever learned to use at all but for some reason I thought it had disappeared into the mists of time. Curious as to why you don't like it, now! But that would be another video, wouldn't it - This is really interesting! I had the impression one MUST have a collection of letters after one's name, to be allowed to make such editions. Maybe I will go hunting around for some of my favorite motets and give this a try!
At 16:30 the way you played the piece sounds much more authentic the first time and I have heard some Bach interpretations with those 5ths before especially before modulating to other keys or using poly signatures.
This was super-interesting. I'm not a scholar of early music by any means, just an amateur musician who happens to like learning about music academically and all forms of orthography. If you ever decide to put together a musical notation version of Florian Coulmas' review of orthographies, I would sell a kidney to buy it.
I am so happy to have access to your work, as we all do through the RUclips platform. I am no longer active in early music, but still engaged with the timeless issues. Thank you!
I never thought about how much work goes into this, but now I have a new dream job- what fun it would be to do this for a living- like putting together puzzles. And such a unique aspect of historical research and reconstruction which requires very specific skills; namely in music comprehension and notation software.
Having worked on the Rossini edition with Philip Gossett, I can say that it is very interesting and fun! Sitting around a table with colleagues and arguing about an interpretation is fantastic. Unfortunately it doesn’t pay much. Most of our editors had full-time jobs at universities around the world, which supported their critical editions habit. We paid our editors less than $5,000 for work that might stretch over 10 years from start to finish. Some universities no longer see critical editions as worthy of scholarly pursuit and discourage people in the tenure track from using them as part of their tenure case! The editors do receive a portion of performance royalties in some countries, but not for US productions. Our editions might use up to 60 sources, including sketches, continuity drafts, orchestral and choral parts, the primo violino, letters, items from musical autograph albums, printed editions contemporary with the composer, artist memoirs, etc-all in addition to the Holy Grail if extant: the composer’s autograph. I forgot multiple libretto sources! A wealth of intriguing information for the history nerd to consume.
I can only agree with this. I love Baroque and play guitar, without having the ambition to play only that music. Some teachers advised me to read directly from the ancient lute publications, claiming that it is not difficult. It was a very frustrating and time consuming experience, especially if you want to do your homework thoroughly, time that I could have used to play. I rarely do this now. It's better to look for a decent transcription by a specialist.
Fascinating video. I've been using Finale since 1991. If I were just starting out today, I have no idea which notation software I would choose. Over the years, I have tried most of the other software packages available, but (because I am so familiar with Finale) I keep going back to what I know. Thanks so much for this episode.
One thing I always do is listen to the playback every time I enter a line of music. Follow along with the score and let your ears tell you if you made an entry mistake. When some, but not all, of the parts have been entered, listening can point out the places where your editor skills will be needed to resolve problems. Another technique I use is to enter the music using the same clef as the original and change it to the "modern" clef before printing. That can help with preventing entry errors because what you have on the screen will match what is on the original part. (I am talking about use of 5-line staffs.)
The "trick" is to remove the extra padding that Finale usually puts at the beginning and end of each measure so that the notes do not crowd too close to the bar line. If all you do is hide the barline, then you will see extra space in the score where those hidden barlines are, which definitely distracts from the "no barline" look. It's also difficult to deal with notes that "cross" the hidden barline. One solution is to add additional beats to the bar so it ends on a beat with no "ties", and to hide the time signature changes.
@@timothytikker1147 When I first started using Finale, 25+ years ago I tried, but it was tedious and I didn't like my results. I'm sure it is easier to do now. I tried using the Ossia measure procedure to add the measures. Look in the current manual for suggestions. You may also need an alternative music font that includes the historical clefs. I use one called Fughetta but there are others that are more recent
Fantastic video. I typeset a lot of 18th cebtury music for groups and baroque orchestras, in part because a lot isnt published, but also there is a lot of poor typeset editions on imslp by people who arent correctly reading the manuscripts (an example is misreading violin basetto markings as a bass part). Youve sumnarised all the key problems. I only make editions for specialist perforners, which nakes things easier. That means that where there are choices between sources, i can put both in and the perforners can choose what they prefer. But often im typesetting fron a single source, and thats usually ok for 18th century music. Parts are always preferred, but sometines we only have a composer aurograph score, which is least helpful because scores would have been "translated" into parts by copyists using whatever the local orchestra customs were. This neans different court orchestras would make slightly different sets if parts from the score. Anyway, i could probably do a whole video on this. Love the detail here and you cover all the things i go through myself, i do it so often that its second nature now. Its not difficult but you do have to know what youre doing. Oh...and i love Finale! I use that too.
Even into the 18th century some J S Bach manuscripts have Soprano clefs rather than Treble clefs. And "keys" can be ambiguous as "concert pitch" were all over the place....even in the the same work. The keyboardist, musicians and the choir might be working from differing pitches and one or more spontaneously transposing to achieve unison.
I'd replace 5 with 7 lines any time, I've been struggling with these tiny added lines since childhood whenever there's more than, like, 3, it all gets blurry
love the video! I am struggling mostly with finale, when doing editions, since the program is pretty complicated. does somebody have a guide, how to enter ficta, incipits and also bass figures, so it looks good? I think it would make many peoples live much easier.
I enter ficta as an "articulation". Pick the sharp/flat/natural sign (or smaller version), configure it to always appear above the note, and select it to be centered horizontally. Also set a hotkey so you can quickly apply the expression without having to go through a dialog box. The other step is to use the Quick Entery mode to hide the "real" accidental on the note by selecting the note and pressing the asterisk key. The real accidental is only needed if you want it to playback, but I strongly recommend using it to verify your music entry skills. Once you have this expression configured the way you want, export it to a library so you can easily import it into your next peice. Even better, create a "template" document that has a few blank staffs, and your "normal" page layout, fonts, and expressions the way you want them. Open this file as a template every time you start a new piece so you don't have to remember all the customizations you normally make. That way you only have to worry about ones specific for this new piece, if needed.
I need to write this up. Finale 27 is your friend here because of the implementation of the SMuFL font set, which allows for early notation for things like incipits and even reasonable Gregorian chant (though Gregorio is still better for that). Figures are entered through Finale Numerics as "lyrics"; see the manual. They work pretty well once you get used to them. I prefer to enter ficta as regular notes and then use Special Tools to move them above the staff (and you can shrink them, though I don't). They play, and when you transpose a score, they transpose properly (rather than remaining sharps when you need a natural.). Also, if you're entering ligatures, enter then as harmony/chords, and then move the noteheads around. This ensures that the ligature remains a ligature when your spacing changes.
Slightly off topic, but the added original clefs/incipit in the beginning of the score reminded me of a weird thing I saw in the Urtext edition of Bach's St Matthew Passion (available on IMSLP): The original clef in the beginning of the basso continuo part included a different key signature (one flat instead of one sharp), and also a starting note that was a step lower (D instead of E). This seems to suggest that the basso continuo part was originally written a whole step lower than the other parts. Is there a reason why the basso continuo was written in a different key than the rest of the instruments? Or was it copied from some other source than the rest of the parts?
This is because of the difference between Chorton and Kammerton - church pitch and chamber pitch. Basically, pipe organs and church choirs in Bach’s era normally used a pitch standard which was roughly one whole tone higher than that used by other musicians (orchestras and the like). Thus, to play together, one of them needed to be transposed.
@@Ikkarson What makes it weird is that it's the continuo part - that's usually not a transposing instrument. But the "Chorton" vs "Kammerton" mentioned in the other comment makes sense.
16:34 shouldn't it be a B in the bass then? that doesn't sound wrong, even if it is technically a "wrong" diminished fifth. the B would be resolved in the Alto with the C#.
I had a question for you: why don't so many historically informed vocal performers use period accents when they sing in English? I've heard a good number of them just sing modern received pronunciation, as opposed to period English accents.
I think that those performers feel that period pronunciation tends to impede comprehension and distract from the message. I also think that "authenticity" is contextual. I direct a choir that sings for a Tridentine Mass. The official pronunciation in the US is Roman Latin. Yes, we could play with Germanic Latin or with period pronunciations, but it would be wrong for that context.
Someone needs to be paid for coaching the singers in period accents, and there needs to be rehearsal time devoted to this. It’s just too much to expect from most ensembles.
I'd love to see a competent material somewhere clarifying if this piece was written by Purcell, Croft, both... what's the evidence, what editions etc. etc. ruclips.net/video/eRqJzaYVfww/видео.html There's a lot of ambiguity and confusion on internet regarding this piece, and I don't know where to start (as a non-musician, but skilled researcher in social sciences anyway) in figuring it our for myself. Lack of a competent library on the topic in my city (Bucharest, Romania) doesn't help much, either...
Ground in C minor, Z. D221 (William Croft, 1678-1727) is wrongly attributed to Henry Purcell, but they're different pieces. Croft based his ground on Purcell's (Z. T681) published as Éditions de Grounds (ca 1686). ruclips.net/video/ZwGLEv6-ppg/видео.html
Whenever I hear Parallel 5ths, I hear my favorite theory teacher who would put down his glasses on the piano, rub his face, and say, "You just don't DO that."
2:23 seems to create more problems in this example though as you completely changed the time from 4/2 to 4/4 which is wrong. It wouldn't be if you halved the note values first at least...
I'm always uncomfortable with how mensural signs are transcribed. Given that "C" meant "alla semibreve", wouldn't the closest modern equivalent be 2/2, not 4/4? But if you put "C" in your modern edition while retaining the note values, people would think it means 4/4. The meaning of "C" simply changed over time, and it's hard to know which meaning is intended when looking at a modern edition. The incipit will usually clear this up, but only if the performers take active notice of it. For this reason, my personal view is that modern editions should not use signs like C and cut-C, and should instead use numerical time signatures. In essence, it becomes the editor's job to interpret mensural signs for a modern audience.
Since there’s no going back to part books, I wish PostIt made a roll for blocking out the clutter. Verily, verily, there is only so much brain power once the choir director says Go.
It depends on what you want to do. Copies often had mistakes, but surely some bad musician played the music with the mistake in the past, so playing yourself the mistake is historical, and some people just want that. If you want to play what the composer intended, then you can correct the mistake, but trying to know the composers intention is speculative by nature while reading the facsimile isn't really speculative. Research in early music can often be speculative, and that's why everyone should be informed well and then form a justifiable opinion in some form, knowing thag their opinion is limited. As for modern editions, skilfull musicians should try not to rely on them in my opinion, but rather on the facsimile, because at least the facsimile is from the past and is historical, even if it was probably not used for performance, because the modern edition did not even exist in the past to be used as performance material. The modern edition can provide confort in reading, and a very similar version could have existed in the past, that's why the editions should be well documented, but if you feel you don't nedd the confort of modern editions then I believe you should go for the facsimile, you risk less inauthenticity, which is key at least in my eyes. This is my opinion, no need to take it as a truth but as a critical thought suggestion
incredible to hear that from you. yes there is right and wrong! editing the music into modern notation is like translating to another language - mother tongue or not, a great deal of the meaning gets lost and some things become totally incomprehensible. The creators of these editions just contribute to a mindless abuse of this music by those who did not care to take pains to learn the basic rules of foreign grammar. Like "reading" the text in the language you dont know written down phonetically with the letters of your mother tongue alphabet. its no surprise so many of the "early music "recordings dont make sense. THat not ot say that if you take time to learn the langualge, playing from an original score is so much more easy and intuitive (like in the case of a mensural canon you have in your video) regards
Opera conductor here....the critical opera editions available for everything from Mozart to Wagner are amazing resources. It's important to see how the composer originally conceived articulations, dynamics, tempi, orchestration, even text changes. The Schott critical pv score of Rheingold even prints all of Wagner's comments to his assistants from the final dress over the exact measures he called them out. Frequently in opera we don't do what the composer had in the manuscript because the traditional changes wrought over time by conductors and singers in various size theaters are much better. But knowing the composers' original intent is a key into their style. Critical editions have a dark side, they can distract you from what is practical. For example, Verdi's original dynamic range was pppp to ffff. In a smaller Italian theater with good acoustics, you might hear the difference between pppp and ppp, but in a larger 3000-4000 house it's impractical. But knowing where he used the pppp is a clue into how he interpreted the drama in that moment. And while I appreciate the scholarship of Barenreiter, they've printed all of Mozart's Italian grammatical errata from his manuscript (Nozze di Figaro is particularly bad.) For my money, the excellent work done by Philip Gossett and his team in the critical editions of Rossini and Verdi is unparalleled. When you purchase the critical full score, you also receive a second book annotating every correction made or noted, measure by measure. In his Rossini editions are all of the variations, cadenzas, and ornaments Rossini wrote for various singers over time, which informs how you might want to do your own ornamentation in good period style.
When you talk about the "manuscripts" of Mozart and Verdi, do you mean the autographs?
@@fernandogentile23 Yes, sorry for the confusion. The advantage with most of the opera critical editions is that they use not only the autographs but any other first generation print they can find. Things like first handwritten or printed set of orch parts, piano vocals (especially of the premier cast members), libretti with inked in corrections and changes, etc. Frequently these artifacts hold handwritten corrections and comments by the performers passed down from the composer in rehearsal. A tremendous amount of scholarship and detective work goes into producing the critical edition pv, parts, and partitura, thus the value of the critical commentary book. In Italy, the composer usually had in his composition contract a requirement they be in the theater for the rehearsal period and the first 3 or so performances to monitor things. In Teatro San Carlo in Napoli, for example, they know exactly where the famous composers sat to keep an eye on things!
WE'VE GOT A NEW ONE FOLKS!
One critical thing the ‘do it yourself’ section of this video failed to mention: use a proof-reader, other than yourself if possible. The making of editions can work nicely as a team effort if you have two (or multiple) editors each prepared to proofread each other’s work.
Hah. I did ancient history at PhD level. We have the same thing with our source histories. All the editions of surviving manuscripts are compiled under expert attention and made into an annotated critical edition, often with a commentary. I was told I could write a commentary for my thesis (I did not).
PhD in editorial studies here. Thank you for this video. In reaction to 19th/20th-century performers’ editions, many musicians these days are taught to be suspicious of editors. It is wonderful of you to share a hint of what the process is like with your wide audience!
I'm absolutely flattered, the Verdelot score at 5:49 is my edition available on CPDL made of a contemporary set of partbooks. 😊
💜💜💜
I'm your fan Elam!!!
me too!🙋♂
There is a dictionary of clerical abbreviations, published in Italy. Over 17000 of them. The most common are @ and & in modern usage, but the overstrike for -um in the 1400s, just before printing.
I remember when I first noticed those parallel 5th's in the many villanelle, napoletane and even canzonette. Once finding several strings of them in Marenzio (!) and Willaert, I knew something was at play. At the time, my professor just called them "abohrrations", but I knew better and quickly found out that that was simply part of the style, i.e. learned composers aping folk music of the time. Palestrina's canzonette though are immaculate, of course :-) Transcribing vocal and instrumental music from the late renaissance-early baroque into modern notation is indeed a wonderful way of learning more about the style, and such a rewarding, labor-intense passtime.
I enjoy your videos very much. Thanks for this. I appreciate the scholarly urtext editions in my piano studies.
Thank you! As good as every episode is, I feel that EMS is still getting better with each new one. It's always a great joy!
Excellent video! This is exactly the reason I started producing my own editions. My first scholarly edition was of Saint-Saens's 2nd cello concerto with the cello part made with modern clef conventions (not the grand staff SS used).
I absolutely loved this episode. I currently work as an amateur editor, with focus on German and French baroque, and this kind of resources help me a lot to getting better in my craft.
And this work helped me too to make some discoveries in the area of Telemann vocal works, which I still have to report, but I don't know whom.
As a lover of early music, but with zero training or academic knowledge, I find your videos fascinating; Thank you.
I know, I already commented this, but your videos are always delight me and I got a lot of answers.
As a lover of both history and music, i find each episode fascinating. It helps me understand the evolution from when it was first written down and how at the time it affected music. Thank you!
Just discovered your channel and I absolutely love it! I needed this video so much for introducing students to the importance of scholar editions! Excellent content and very nicely edited!
Que genio Elam!
#NotaDelTraductor
It's always a pleasure learn with your videos
Great episode! Thanks from an 'amateur' early music editor and on-line 'publisher'; great summary of why our work is useful and often needed.
A small note, though: while transcribing I greatly prefer to keep the original clefs (and, if possible, note values) as this makes much easier to spot transcription errors or to locate a certain point (either in the source or in transcription). Only when the transcription is complete, I will update the clefs to the ones used today; and often I even publish a version with original clefs themselves; often times may just be 'antiquiarianism', but sometime, like in the case of the French flute clef, keeping (also) the old clefs may accommodate a more or less established performing practice.
THANKS!
Lovely to see that most challenges for critical editions in music are similar to those in other fields (history, painting etc.). But somehow, the impact seems way more important in music. Lovely!
At 20:18, the second man to appear is Lee Van Cleef. His mother lived next door to us. I met him once, when I was five years old. He had his red roadster parked in our joint driveway and, in talking with my parents and me, was exceedingly polite. Mrs. Van Cleef I remember well, too, and she was always so kind to us. It is a good memory, but Early Music Sources is certainly a place where I least expected to see him.
Thank you for such an excellent explanation!
Thank you for sharing you process.
Wow, Finale is still around?! It's the only software I ever learned to use at all but for some reason I thought it had disappeared into the mists of time.
Curious as to why you don't like it, now! But that would be another video, wouldn't it -
This is really interesting! I had the impression one MUST have a collection of letters after one's name, to be allowed to make such editions. Maybe I will go hunting around for some of my favorite motets and give this a try!
this is excellent. thankyou. Having used Finale since pre-windows/dos era, I agree with your description.
At 16:30 the way you played the piece sounds much more authentic the first time and I have heard some Bach interpretations with those 5ths before especially before modulating to other keys or using poly signatures.
This was super-interesting. I'm not a scholar of early music by any means, just an amateur musician who happens to like learning about music academically and all forms of orthography. If you ever decide to put together a musical notation version of Florian Coulmas' review of orthographies, I would sell a kidney to buy it.
I am so happy to have access to your work, as we all do through the RUclips platform. I am no longer active in early music, but still engaged with the timeless issues. Thank you!
Great, thanks :) Very interesting.
I never thought about how much work goes into this, but now I have a new dream job- what fun it would be to do this for a living- like putting together puzzles. And such a unique aspect of historical research and reconstruction which requires very specific skills; namely in music comprehension and notation software.
Having worked on the Rossini edition with Philip Gossett, I can say that it is very interesting and fun! Sitting around a table with colleagues and arguing about an interpretation is fantastic. Unfortunately it doesn’t pay much. Most of our editors had full-time jobs at universities around the world, which supported their critical editions habit. We paid our editors less than $5,000 for work that might stretch over 10 years from start to finish. Some universities no longer see critical editions as worthy of scholarly pursuit and discourage people in the tenure track from using them as part of their tenure case! The editors do receive a portion of performance royalties in some countries, but not for US productions. Our editions might use up to
60 sources, including sketches, continuity drafts, orchestral and choral parts, the primo violino, letters, items from musical autograph albums, printed editions contemporary with the composer, artist memoirs, etc-all in addition to the Holy Grail if extant: the composer’s autograph. I forgot multiple libretto sources! A wealth of intriguing information for the history nerd to consume.
Marvellous work!
As a childhood friend of mine would say: "Fascinating!" Thank you very much for your work, Elam, your videos are a true pleasure to watch.
This is amazing - thank you for these fantastic videos!
Thank you for yet another fine video. Especially liked the part about the parallell fifths 🙂
This is why notation instruction is so important.
I can only agree with this. I love Baroque and play guitar, without having the ambition to play only that music. Some teachers advised me to read directly from the ancient lute publications, claiming that it is not difficult. It was a very frustrating and time consuming experience, especially if you want to do your homework thoroughly, time that I could have used to play. I rarely do this now. It's better to look for a decent transcription by a specialist.
Fascinating video. I've been using Finale since 1991. If I were just starting out today, I have no idea which notation software I would choose. Over the years, I have tried most of the other software packages available, but (because I am so familiar with Finale) I keep going back to what I know. Thanks so much for this episode.
Your videos never fail to amaze me, great content as always! Best early music content in the internet hands down
Fascinating and very clearly explained. Thank you!
Beautiful work! What a great explanation - can’t wait to share this with class!
Thank you for another inspiring episode!
One thing I always do is listen to the playback every time I enter a line of music. Follow along with the score and let your ears tell you if you made an entry mistake. When some, but not all, of the parts have been entered, listening can point out the places where your editor skills will be needed to resolve problems.
Another technique I use is to enter the music using the same clef as the original and change it to the "modern" clef before printing. That can help with preventing entry errors because what you have on the screen will match what is on the original part. (I am talking about use of 5-line staffs.)
Beautiful video, as always! Thank you!
Very informative! Thanks for sharing, keep up the great work! Cheers.
Brilliant episode, cheers!
What a lovely and helpful episode Elam!
Monteverdis Augenbrauen waren in dieser Episode der 😁🤭🤣. . . . Moment für mich. Very enjoyable show!! *thx*
Great work! Thanks!
I WAS JUST TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS TO MY CHURCH CHIOR DIRECTOR.
As a long-time user of CPDL, I have seen The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. And the Unproofread.
As someone with a superficial ability to "listen-read", I'm grateful most of the errors are beyond me.
Molto interessante! Grazie, Elam.
Oops, wish I'd had those sources in footnote 4 before my dissertation. Definitely observed different printings in my work.
Yes, please.
Awesome content! Thanks for inspiring us!
This is basically the hobby I fell into during lockdown. I recognize some of those manuscripts
N. B.: in Finale, it is possible to make the barlines invisible, or dotted so it's clear that they're editorial.
The "trick" is to remove the extra padding that Finale usually puts at the beginning and end of each measure so that the notes do not crowd too close to the bar line. If all you do is hide the barline, then you will see extra space in the score where those hidden barlines are, which definitely distracts from the "no barline" look. It's also difficult to deal with notes that "cross" the hidden barline. One solution is to add additional beats to the bar so it ends on a beat with no "ties", and to hide the time signature changes.
@@edwardblair4096 BTW, do you know how to add incipits with original clefs in Finale, as done in this video?
@@timothytikker1147 When I first started using Finale, 25+ years ago I tried, but it was tedious and I didn't like my results. I'm sure it is easier to do now. I tried using the Ossia measure procedure to add the measures. Look in the current manual for suggestions. You may also need an alternative music font that includes the historical clefs. I use one called Fughetta but there are others that are more recent
Congratulations on the video!
Woul you min explaining why aren't you too fond of the Finale software?
Thanks for the attention.
Fantastic video. I typeset a lot of 18th cebtury music for groups and baroque orchestras, in part because a lot isnt published, but also there is a lot of poor typeset editions on imslp by people who arent correctly reading the manuscripts (an example is misreading violin basetto markings as a bass part). Youve sumnarised all the key problems. I only make editions for specialist perforners, which nakes things easier. That means that where there are choices between sources, i can put both in and the perforners can choose what they prefer. But often im typesetting fron a single source, and thats usually ok for 18th century music. Parts are always preferred, but sometines we only have a composer aurograph score, which is least helpful because scores would have been "translated" into parts by copyists using whatever the local orchestra customs were. This neans different court orchestras would make slightly different sets if parts from the score. Anyway, i could probably do a whole video on this. Love the detail here and you cover all the things i go through myself, i do it so often that its second nature now. Its not difficult but you do have to know what youre doing. Oh...and i love Finale! I use that too.
16:11 A note remains # until marked as natural, likewise b.
Even into the 18th century some J S Bach manuscripts have Soprano clefs rather than Treble clefs. And "keys" can be ambiguous as "concert pitch" were all over the place....even in the the same work. The keyboardist, musicians and the choir might be working from differing pitches and one or more spontaneously transposing to achieve unison.
I'd replace 5 with 7 lines any time, I've been struggling with these tiny added lines since childhood whenever there's more than, like, 3, it all gets blurry
love the video!
I am struggling mostly with finale, when doing editions, since the program is pretty complicated.
does somebody have a guide, how to enter ficta, incipits and also bass figures, so it looks good? I think it would make many peoples live much easier.
I enter ficta as an "articulation". Pick the sharp/flat/natural sign (or smaller version), configure it to always appear above the note, and select it to be centered horizontally. Also set a hotkey so you can quickly apply the expression without having to go through a dialog box.
The other step is to use the Quick Entery mode to hide the "real" accidental on the note by selecting the note and pressing the asterisk key. The real accidental is only needed if you want it to playback, but I strongly recommend using it to verify your music entry skills.
Once you have this expression configured the way you want, export it to a library so you can easily import it into your next peice.
Even better, create a "template" document that has a few blank staffs, and your "normal" page layout, fonts, and expressions the way you want them. Open this file as a template every time you start a new piece so you don't have to remember all the customizations you normally make. That way you only have to worry about ones specific for this new piece, if needed.
I need to write this up.
Finale 27 is your friend here because of the implementation of the SMuFL font set, which allows for early notation for things like incipits and even reasonable Gregorian chant (though Gregorio is still better for that). Figures are entered through Finale Numerics as "lyrics"; see the manual. They work pretty well once you get used to them. I prefer to enter ficta as regular notes and then use Special Tools to move them above the staff (and you can shrink them, though I don't). They play, and when you transpose a score, they transpose properly (rather than remaining sharps when you need a natural.). Also, if you're entering ligatures, enter then as harmony/chords, and then move the noteheads around. This ensures that the ligature remains a ligature when your spacing changes.
Only who works with early music editions understand "how deep is your love"
Are you available to teach the contrapuntal aspect of music online ?
Slightly off topic, but the added original clefs/incipit in the beginning of the score reminded me of a weird thing I saw in the Urtext edition of Bach's St Matthew Passion (available on IMSLP): The original clef in the beginning of the basso continuo part included a different key signature (one flat instead of one sharp), and also a starting note that was a step lower (D instead of E). This seems to suggest that the basso continuo part was originally written a whole step lower than the other parts. Is there a reason why the basso continuo was written in a different key than the rest of the instruments? Or was it copied from some other source than the rest of the parts?
Could it be some transposing instrument shenanigan?
This is because of the difference between Chorton and Kammerton - church pitch and chamber pitch. Basically, pipe organs and church choirs in Bach’s era normally used a pitch standard which was roughly one whole tone higher than that used by other musicians (orchestras and the like). Thus, to play together, one of them needed to be transposed.
@@Ikkarson What makes it weird is that it's the continuo part - that's usually not a transposing instrument. But the "Chorton" vs "Kammerton" mentioned in the other comment makes sense.
@@agogobell28exactly this
16:34 shouldn't it be a B in the bass then? that doesn't sound wrong, even if it is technically a "wrong" diminished fifth. the B would be resolved in the Alto with the C#.
I had a question for you: why don't so many historically informed vocal performers use period accents when they sing in English? I've heard a good number of them just sing modern received pronunciation, as opposed to period English accents.
I think that those performers feel that period pronunciation tends to impede comprehension and distract from the message.
I also think that "authenticity" is contextual. I direct a choir that sings for a Tridentine Mass. The official pronunciation in the US is Roman Latin. Yes, we could play with Germanic Latin or with period pronunciations, but it would be wrong for that context.
Someone needs to be paid for coaching the singers in period accents, and there needs to be rehearsal time devoted to this. It’s just too much to expect from most ensembles.
Why on earth are you using a G clef for the bass??
I'd love to see a competent material somewhere clarifying if this piece was written by Purcell, Croft, both... what's the evidence, what editions etc. etc.
ruclips.net/video/eRqJzaYVfww/видео.html
There's a lot of ambiguity and confusion on internet regarding this piece, and I don't know where to start (as a non-musician, but skilled researcher in social sciences anyway) in figuring it our for myself. Lack of a competent library on the topic in my city (Bucharest, Romania) doesn't help much, either...
Ground in C minor, Z. D221 (William Croft, 1678-1727) is wrongly attributed to Henry Purcell, but they're different pieces. Croft based his ground on Purcell's (Z. T681) published as Éditions de Grounds (ca 1686).
ruclips.net/video/ZwGLEv6-ppg/видео.html
@@TonyBittner1 now it makes sense. Thanks a lot for clarifying this.
I've found the original Purcell here: ruclips.net/video/PC-n-gVojXE/видео.html
Whenever I hear Parallel 5ths, I hear my favorite theory teacher who would put down his glasses on the piano, rub his face, and say, "You just don't DO that."
Brahms made a collection of parallel fifths he ran across!
2:23 seems to create more problems in this example though as you completely changed the time from 4/2 to 4/4 which is wrong. It wouldn't be if you halved the note values first at least...
I'm always uncomfortable with how mensural signs are transcribed. Given that "C" meant "alla semibreve", wouldn't the closest modern equivalent be 2/2, not 4/4? But if you put "C" in your modern edition while retaining the note values, people would think it means 4/4. The meaning of "C" simply changed over time, and it's hard to know which meaning is intended when looking at a modern edition. The incipit will usually clear this up, but only if the performers take active notice of it. For this reason, my personal view is that modern editions should not use signs like C and cut-C, and should instead use numerical time signatures. In essence, it becomes the editor's job to interpret mensural signs for a modern audience.
Since there’s no going back to part books, I wish PostIt made a roll for blocking out the clutter. Verily, verily, there is only so much brain power once the choir director says Go.
Why are the comments turned off in your video "The Castrati: A dark corner in music history"? care to explain?
Alternatively titled, “Why you need nerds in your life”
yey i'm early
Mr Bruckner saved HAAS and NOWAK lives isn't it? Without him they would have died of starvation or boredom
It depends on what you want to do. Copies often had mistakes, but surely some bad musician played the music with the mistake in the past, so playing yourself the mistake is historical, and some people just want that. If you want to play what the composer intended, then you can correct the mistake, but trying to know the composers intention is speculative by nature while reading the facsimile isn't really speculative. Research in early music can often be speculative, and that's why everyone should be informed well and then form a justifiable opinion in some form, knowing thag their opinion is limited. As for modern editions, skilfull musicians should try not to rely on them in my opinion, but rather on the facsimile, because at least the facsimile is from the past and is historical, even if it was probably not used for performance, because the modern edition did not even exist in the past to be used as performance material. The modern edition can provide confort in reading, and a very similar version could have existed in the past, that's why the editions should be well documented, but if you feel you don't nedd the confort of modern editions then I believe you should go for the facsimile, you risk less inauthenticity, which is key at least in my eyes. This is my opinion, no need to take it as a truth but as a critical thought suggestion
It's called Historically Informed Performance.
P R O M O S M 💃
incredible to hear that from you. yes there is right and wrong! editing the music into modern notation is like translating to another language - mother tongue or not, a great deal of the meaning gets lost and some things become totally incomprehensible. The creators of these editions just contribute to a mindless abuse of this music by those who did not care to take pains to learn the basic rules of foreign grammar. Like "reading" the text in the language you dont know written down phonetically with the letters of your mother tongue alphabet. its no surprise so many of the "early music "recordings dont make sense. THat not ot say that if you take time to learn the langualge, playing from an original score is so much more easy and intuitive (like in the case of a mensural canon you have in your video)
regards