Treatment of cautionary accidentals in modern critical edition

[John Ruggero]

Regarding editorial clef changes: they can be done well and in tune with the composer's thinking, or badly and distort the musical picture.

Here is an example that I found in about a minute in Bach's Goldberg Variations. Fine composers try to place their clef changes in musically logical places, often at the beginning of a phrase or motive. In the present case, Bach avoided ledger lines and showed that the final five notes constitute a motive by placing the clef change where he did in the first edition:

Goldberg Var 1 1st ed..png (550.06 KiB) Viewed 4796 times

Despite the fact that no modernization was necessary, the editor of the NBA "silently" moved the bass clef over two notes, probably because it was easier to engrave:

Goldberg Var 1 NBA.png (51.9 KiB) Viewed 4796 times

The clef is now in the middle of the motive, which makes the correct interpretation more rather than less difficult for the performer.

[NeeraWM]

Yes, you're absolutely right - a spelling mistake on my part. They are also know as chiavette. It's a 16th/17th-century notation, in which clefs are used to display the notes at a higher pitch than usual. Counter-intuitively, this usually indicates downward transposition.

That's very much out of my area of expertise or knowledge and I have never heard of those "chiavette" (literally small keys, but with a pampering tone to it. Just "small" would be "chiavine"!). Anywhere I could learn more about them? Some suggested reading?

It's usual practice that any accidentals added should be marked as editorial. That's perhaps less important for a 19th-century work, however.

I'm trying to find a good balance. If I put too many brackets, performers will complain about clutter (I certainly would).
For now, I'm going through the score and parts again and putting comments over each accidental that is not to be found in the source.
Then I will decide what to do. This doesn't want to be an Urtext, also because there are two editions from 1855 & 1870, both riddled with inconsistencies, and there is no manuscript.

Would writing "Accidentals missing in the source and added by the editor" only in square brackets be a bad approach?
Should they be "ficta" as well? Quite hard to do in a piano part if it is a chord where one note is missing the sharp, for example.

[NeeraWM]

Despite the fact that no modernization was necessary, the editor of the NBA "silently" moved the bass clef over two notes, probably because it was easier to engrave:
The clef is now in the middle of the motive, which makes the correct interpretation more rather than less difficult for the performer.

The NBA choice was certainly easier to engrave, but also the note spacing in the source would not look good in modern printing.
There are so many things that look more expressive in handwriting but that would be unacceptable in modern engraving.
Honestly, had this been done in Dorico, achieving good spacing with the original clef change would have not been too hard, while it would have been a bloody mess with Sibelius.

[John Ruggero]

I agree that the engraving of this measure in the first edition is not attractive; but, in my opinion, Bach's meaning here must be upheld at all costs, particularly because the centered beam in the previous measure that shows the same phrasing is impossible to preserve. My version:

Goldberg Var 1.png (174.14 KiB) Viewed 4766 times

I think the following solutions to be found in Peters and Henle are also preferable to that of the BGA editor:

Goldberg Var 1 Peters.png (56.5 KiB) Viewed 4762 times

Goldberg Var 1 Henle.png (51 KiB) Viewed 4762 times

The Henle solution goes way back to the first part of the 19th century.

[benwiggy]

Anywhere I could learn more about them? Some suggested reading?

You'll find them mentioned in most discussions of Palestrina, Victoria; and particularly about the Magnificat and Lauda Jerusalem in the Monteverdi Vespers, where there are huge arguments about whether he was still bound by the traditional meaning, or whether he was breaking new ground.

[harpsi]

Would writing "Accidentals missing in the source and added by the editor" only in square brackets be a bad approach?
Should they be "ficta" as well? Quite hard to do in a piano part if it is a chord where one note is missing the sharp, for example.

If the accidental is obvious, I add it and mention it in the commentary.
If the accidental is not obvious (or ficta), i.e. could work with/without, I will make an informed choice and mention it in the commentary.

I might consider using brackets for a speculative ficta, but in the other cases, no.

Cautionaries I just let the program add uncommented, except in cases where it coincides with any of the cases above. And sometimes I add cautionaries that are in the source (but not added automatically by the program).

[Harpsichordmaker]

Regarding editorial clef changes: they can be done well and in tune with the composer's thinking, or badly and distort the musical picture.

Here is an example that I found in about a minute in Bach's Goldberg Variations. Fine composers try to place their clef changes in musically logical places, often at the beginning of a phrase or motive. In the present case, Bach avoided ledger lines and showed that the final five notes constitute a motive by placing the clef change where he did in the first edition:

Of course editorial clef changes can be done well or badly. However, I don't think Bach's case is a well chosen one. One thing is, I fail to see how those five notes are a motive. But much more important is we shouldn't read too much in the notation, beyond the things the notation can actually tell.
Fact is, the engraver of the Balthasar edition couldn't put that clef in any other place, as dictated by the notation style he was following. Consider the whole page from your example is taken from (the entire edition is on IMSLP for those who wants to check):
.

EdOrig(BWV_988)_Pagina_04.jpg (371.87 KiB) Viewed 4622 times

.
He doesn't allow any ledger lines between the two staves, safe for the central C. It's a notation very often used in the XVIII century (in fact, more often than not: Scarlatti's manuscripts for example only use that, and the Essercizi edition as well). Think of a single big staff with 11 lines: 5 upper and 5 lower, with the central line invisible and only used for the central C as a ledger line. If an additional ledger line between the two staves is needed, the engraver changes clef or goes on the upper/lower staff. So he had no choice but to put the clef change just there, without any additional meanings.

However I think this type of notation should be preserved in modern editions, provided there isn't too much space between the two staves. Indeed, if there is much more space than that of a single (invisible) line, reading becomes less fluent.
For Scarlatti, Fadini edition is the only one which preserves this way of notating, though sometimes the space between the staves is more than desirable.

[John Ruggero]

I should have said 4-note motive. It appears in various guises throughout the variation, note the second example below sets off the motive with a centered beam, which is again just adhering to the engraver's conventions (Bach's?, we don't have the manuscript.)

Goldberg Var 1.png (473.62 KiB) Viewed 4618 times

Goldberg Var 1.2.png (481.99 KiB) Viewed 4618 times

My point was that editorial clef changes are not just a slam-dunk and have to be considered very carefully. And also that by not adhering to the conventions of the time one can introduce problems for performers because the original notation fits the music so well.

So we are in agreement that the notation should be preserved in modern editions and for many reasons.